R-77 question

Hi Guys,

 

 

I want to ask if somebody know, is the R-77 working as intended? Or is it accurate? Because my finding is that R-27 is much better missile despite is like 20 years older...

 

 

So, is it like a bug? Or it is really what it is and how it supposed to work... Thank you.

Most of the missiles are being updated. AIM-120, SD-10 first etc.

 

The R-77 is quite bad / limited, from what I see online.

 

Very short range at the moment. Don't think it's very correct, not researched tho.

Most of the missiles are being updated. AIM-120, SD-10 first etc.

 

The R-77 is quite bad / limited, from what I see online.

 

Very short range at the moment. Don't think it's very correct, not researched tho.

 

 

Yap, exactly, this is why I'm asking... Becuase the missile have like 40-50% of range what it should have based on my research... So watned to be sure if it is my expectations or smething is really wrong...

Yap, exactly, this is why I'm asking... Becuase the missile have like 40-50% of range what it should have based on my research... So watned to be sure if it is my expectations or smething is really wrong...

 

Not our version which is the Original Prototype version essentially. The later versions were vastly improved but we wont get any of them.

 

I do wonder how the new API will be, if it will retain more energy and be more manoeuvrable with the grid fins though.

Treat the 77 like a radar guided R-73. It can pull some good off bore and is very deady within the NEZ. Not a BVR missile however.

As DarksydeRob said we have the earliest R-77, and its range IRL is not very impressive. For comparison, heres a DLZ of the RL R-77 we have:

 

What would change the most with updates is that it shouldnt bleed so much speed in turns (tho with grid fins its always gonna bleed more than say an AMRAAM or AA-10)

The version we have in the game is the RVV AE, from the mid 1990s though essentially unchanged from the original late 1980s design

 

 

 

 

 

This version has a relatively small/low powered motor limiting it though with the new Aerodynamic rework you'll find it might be much better in regards to agility as it has a critical AOA of around 50 compared to 30 on most traditional missiles if I'm not mistaken and less drag when it coast above transonic speeds

Its time they introduce a newer version. Too many things has happened to DCS in the latest years (New modules, new weapons some of them really modern...). I think there is enough PUBLIC INFORMATION around as to make a good representation of a newer R77 (which still will be worse than the aim120 C we have, but at least more threatening a fun to fight against).

Gotta love Russians testing missiles at 20km and Mach 2

Its time they introduce a newer version. Too many things has happened to DCS in the latest years (New modules, new weapons some of them really modern...). I think there is enough PUBLIC INFORMATION around as to make a good representation of a newer R77 (which still will be worse than the aim120 C we have, but at least more threatening a fun to fight against).

Happen to have a source with R-77-1 motor data?

Happen to have a source with R-77-1 motor data?

Happen to have a source with motor data for the sd10? Yet we have whats called an approximate representation of the weapon... That is my point.

 

This game is about realism, but sometimes i get the impression we require a 300 page test data documentation and the weapon engineer testimony to accept something while in other case a weapon manufacturer brochure is enough...

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I would like to point out, cause maybe i've given a wrong impression, i'm not advocating about making up weapons features, performance and ranges if we have no clue about it, my point is that, if we have precise enough public information then it could be added into the game.

 

And this is the tricky part, what is precise enough public information, wikipedia?, well no... or not alone... I would rather suggest a bunch a different sources including the weapon manufacturer that converges is some parameters oe values so that they are believable.

 

I would love to see a common ground of standards of what is realistic and what is not, but i see that we are getting different weapons like the SD10, the future IRIS-T or who knows if a PL12 in the future, and i'm quite certain DCS would love to see an R77-1 or even if its just roughly comparable in performance to the current Aim 120B which i guess would be quite believable. Right now the R77 is really a short range missile with little tactical advantage.

The thing is that we already have some reasonable benchmarks for the SD-10 motor, as in the Sparrow/AMRAAM. Also, fwiw, deka could actually have sources that give a rough idea for the SD-10 motor specs. The point is that, afaik, ED had stated that they do not have enough data to model an R-77-1, so im not expecting one, as much as I may want one. As for a common standard, yes I totally agree, but they need to be decently high standards

I would love to see a common ground of standards of what is realistic and what is not, but i see that we are getting different weapons like the SD10, the future IRIS-T or who knows if a PL12 in the future, and i'm quite certain DCS would love to see an R77-1 or even if its just roughly comparable in performance to the current Aim 120B which i guess would be quite believable. Right now the R77 is really a short range missile with little tactical advantage.

You are underestimating Adder. AA-12A (Or R-77, the variant that we have in game) should be comparable with A/B AMRAAM. It have stated max. range about 80-100 km, while B AMRAAM have 50-70km. AA-12B(Or R-77-1) is new variant that came into service in 2011. It have stated max. range about 110km, so its more comparable to C-5 AMRAAM with range 105 km. Problem is that only fighters that are supposedly capable to carry this missile are Su-27SM3, Su-35S, MiG-31BM, Su-34, Su-30SM and Su-57. Sadly none of those are in game (except for Su-34, which is AI only).

Russian's own estimates put the AIM-120A range at over 110km ... you're comparing apples to oranges, ie. max ranges with different shot paramters.

Russian's own estimates put the AIM-120A range at over 110km

... no

Funny, you say no, I have the doc that says yes. It's available somewhere here on the forum as well, I'm sure.

Funny, you say no, I have the doc that says yes. It's available somewhere here on the forum as well, I'm sure.

 

As far as i know that was a really old document, and you said it, it is an estimation they made, based on what they had at the moment. Can't see the point of it nowadays that we have more data, other than you tend to overestimate your enemy just in case... (e.g. MIG25 vs F15)

Russian's own estimates put the AIM-120A range at over 110km ... you're comparing apples to oranges, ie. max ranges with different shot paramters.

 

At 15000 m and at mach 2?

20 000

This game is about realism, but sometimes i get the impression we require a 300 page test data documentation and the weapon engineer testimony to accept something while in other case a weapon manufacturer brochure is enough...

 

Exactly.

 

There are too many hard core minded people with ultimatum requirement, believing that DCS World is some kind über simulator with NASA level accuracy and mathematics....

 

Yet, it is based to fairly simple LUA scripts next to very few well done flight modeling simulation.

 

Like, if someone would give a missile real flight performance data, it can be used to make a simple missile code that will follow it, fairly easily (compared what people think). So you don't need wind tunnel data, no need for all exact engineering documents etc. You need just what is the end result.

 

In other words, to build a black box, you don't need what is inside a black box. If you know that blue balls turns yellow when they travel through it, and green turn red, and red turns blue and yellow turns green, then you do not need any kind information that what happens inside the black box, you know that when X color ball goes in, it comes out as Y color.

 

Blue = Yellow

Green = Red

Red = Blue

Yellow = Green

 

So you can very accurately simulate "a black box" without ever knowing what engineering and physics there is happening inside. That is called "Simulation". If we would have "Emulation", then we would need to have accurate information about the hardware that happens inside, so we could run logic by itself without fixed rules of input to output but dynamically model the whole process, like if a violet ball goes in (red + blue) that what would the machine do...

 

But we are only simulating things. So we need to know "Missile can reach X range at Y altitude at speed of Z, drag value x,Y..." and so on. We do not need to know anything about engine design or amount of fuel etc if we know "Booster phase is 3.1 seconds" etc.

 

And one of the main problems with these people is that they demand perfection from the start.

Like we couldn't get something in the simulation, and then start to tweak it...

 

That is called Open Beta by the way... You can present something, borken, half-way, and then work it. Tweak it, change it, modify it etc as long until it gets to be something that works like the public information and educated guesses allows. And then you put it to the Stable.

 

I wrote this method about implementing the APKWS II and Ugroza that are laser guided rockets for standard rocket pods, backward compatible for every system that can launch FFAR or S-5/S-8/S-13 rockets. No modifications to aircrafts, pods or any software changes.

 

Those weapons are designed, presented and said to be available. Nothing should stop ED from implementing them to the game, slap a date of year when available and let mission designer to decide what year their mission is and is those weapons available from inventory.

 

But regardless that there are accurate measurements, photos, videos, animations, weights, the technical properties for things like FOV, range, CEP, Speed etc etc. All the information that a 3D modeler, texture artist and programmer needs to get them implemented.

 

And where does it fall? Some hard core ultimatums "It was not there when this module was modeled"... Regardless that it is completely weapon upgrade afterwards and has nothing to do with the aircraft that is modeled for given year.

 

ED could make "Russian Weapons Pack 2020" that costs like 4,99 and it could include all kind new upgraded weapons etc available for DCS World. Would it be "Pay to Win"? Well... Every module is "Pay to Win" in that mind, if someone doesn't own F/A-18C and they face it in multiplayer and die to it, it is exactly that someone purchased F/A-18C to win.

 

There are so many weapons we could already include, couple R-77 variants, few new R-27 variants, new R-73's, new kind rockets, new bombs etc.

 

All kind things that would be limited at some given point, but available for at least AI or if "no-modifications-needed" then for others existing modules too.

We could include even a S-400 system to game, there is enough data for 3D modeling and texture artist know how to make it look good. But we do not need to know ANYTHING about its radars, IFF, guidance etc as DCS World SAM systems are so laughably simplified anyways that it is basically S-200 but with extended range, more agility and speed and so on. It is really simple changing "If ¤=200; then ¤=400".

 

We could already had a IFF systems working for a decade, because everyone knows exactly what is the input and output of the "black box". We do not need to know what happens inside the black box, as we know the system works that it reports back a given value for target.

Throw there some randomness based range, weather, altitude, system malfunctions and requirement for pilot to enter correct code, and you get situation as realistic where the IFF simply returns "no-reply" or "wrong code" and you get "Not-Friend" situation. So just like in real IFF system, it doesn't identify Foes, it only tells is someone Friend or Not when successful. It can be friend with unsuccessful query. So again you are there with visual ID requirement or get an authorization from higher to open fire.

In multiplayer it would lead that players are blowing up their team members because they think "No Friend = Hostile" or get surprised when they believe that it must have been a friend but it was enemy.

No need for algorithms, codes, functions or anything. Simple Wikipedia page is enough to know how black box gives results.

 

The problem is with those hard core fans, demanding ultimatums but can not bend at all for simple logical and completely acceptable new results with educated guesses etc. And they like to talk about fantasies and other major unrealistic demands or expectations when they can't agree to have something because they don't know how real engineers and physicist has done something in reality.

 

"Any kid can throw a ball, some might master throwing the ball better than anyone else, but no one of them is required to know laws of physics to do so..."

Russian's own estimates put the AIM-120A range at over 110km ... you're comparing apples to oranges, ie. max ranges with different shot paramters.

 

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

 

Based to CFD's, the AIM-120-5 has max effective range only 90 km.

 

If laying those findings as ballistic/flight trajectories on that R-77 image, we get this:

 

 

And with lofting you lose a lot for a maneuvering target (IIRC the stationary target moment was that missile is Mach 0.9, after about half-way of the peak of lofting curve), like at low altitude the lofting is unsuitable as missile has no means to intercept target but requires direct firing.

Unfortunately, the simulator does not implement many types of missiles that are in service with the Russian Air Force: R-27P/EP, R-77P, R-77-1, Kh-29TD...

Happen to have a source with R-77-1 motor data?

 

You can estimate it based on the published missile weight.

At 15000 m and at mach 2?

 

Yes, those kinds of extreme numbers. People like to take internet values without understanding where they come from.