1.11 Patch - BVR Improvments

[504 Wolverine]

why are you in the 120's NEZ anyway? ;)

 

This. :D

 

 

Sorry couldn't resist. :p

[GGTharos]

Nice shot ;) VapoR told me about it ;)

 

I asked ED to adjust the accuracy of the V against crossing targets though, it's -way- too capable.

[Trident]

AFAIK even Ukraine doesn't use it since they cannot justify the cost for themselves.

 

AFAIK the reason is that the active radar seeker is of Russian origin (Belorussian? I've never quite figured out where Agat belongs), and those same Russians could think better than to support a competitor for their own R-77 :)

[SVK_Fox]

Something else :) R-73 kill HAWK :)

[GGTharos]

Your image isn't working.

[SVK_Fox]

Another interesting things :)

NEW AMRAAM with extra range :)

AND RING in lockon :) ???

[Olgerd]

Okay, just because the AIM-120 has planar fins doesn't mean it's "hard to turn." That notion is ridiculous - all A/A missiles except the R-77 uses planar fins. Current missiles like the AIM-120 or even the AIM-7 Sparrow are more than agile enough to intercept the most nimble of planes, provided that they are launched in proper firing conditions.

 

As for the AIM-120 vs. R-77 debate, it basically boils down to this - I will only state the obvious. The R-77 is more advanced aerodynamically, being of more modern design - even the higher drag created by its grid fins are largely negated by its bigger rocket motor in comparison to other contemporary active radar missiles of its class. The AIM-120, however, obviously has the benefit of funding and continual software development, and it's airframe is more than sufficient in hunting down the current and next generation of fighters. So in terms of computers and overall "smarts," I'd give the edge to the AIM-120.

 

But since I don't work for Vympel or Raytheon, I view my above statement as simply an opinion. So lower the spears ;)

 

IMO, a more pressing issue in LOMAC is the overmodelling of AIM-7 and R-27 missiles in LOMAC. They seem to possess just as much "smarts" as the AIM-120 and the R-77, even though the later missiles benefits A LOT from computational advances during their conception. IMO, the 120/77 missiles should be much, much more resilient to chaff, evasion and jamming than their SARH counterparts.

 

Really nice to read your debates. Can I throw something a bit 'flammable' to your 'conversation'? ;)

I heard some opinitions from dedicated guys (engineers) and I concluded for myself that AIM-120 has two major technology advantadges over R-77: very good control system mechanics (actuators) and excellent radar head.

R-77 at other side has very powerfull engine.

Another one. There is not now R-77 model. Only limited capability RVV-AE is produced for export purposes. Russian AF never seen R-77.

 

That's all. Enjoy.

[GGTharos]

But Olgerd! You forgot to bring the matches!

 

Okay, I will start the fire ;D

 

*lights fire*

[Olgerd]

I am sorry. Just edited the message to add 'something' interesting too... ;)

[Olgerd]

But Olgerd! You forgot to bring the matches!

 

Okay, I will start the fire ;D

 

*lights fire*

 

Matches? The fire (or flame :icon_roll ) is present here always I think. :D

[britgliderpilot]

Matches? The fire (or flame :icon_roll ) is present here always I think. :D

 

 

 

. . . . . I need to work out what the code is for the sunglasses smiley :p

 

 

And I think most people would agree on the seeker head and funding problems . . . . . shrug.

It's a shame Russia can't afford the systems the companies are developing, really.

[Kula66]

and that it's heavier doesn't really matter (actually the US WANTED a lighter missile) ...

 

Surely the weight matters ... doesn't it factor into things large ability to turn? G generated in a turn? Isn't this one of the reasons why the US went for a light missile. It probably also reduces the stress/load on the carrying a/c during turns ...

 

Also the 120 is a very slick design ... small frontal area, small fins etc ... low drag ... therefore more energy during the end game for the same range.

[Pilotasso]

weight matters but its only one variable of the question. I have seen many people get erroneously obcessed by the weight for manueverabulity evaluation wich is a mistake.

Weight can be offset easely by aerodynamic forces. A mach 4 missile doesnt need wings but to manuever.

[Kula66]

Agreed its only one variable ... but in aerodynamic vehicle design its critical ... look at the number of designs that run into trouble through weight gain! Look at the great light weight a/c designs ... F-16/Mig-21/etc ... Weight can be offset, but at great cost that tend to spiral out of control!

[Pilotasso]

Changing a missile design is easier and faster than a fighter. If your missile grows in weight and if more aerodynamic is required to fullfill the requirements all they need to do is to increase the wing foil area. You wont have to engineer anything else that that unlike fighters wich have mecanisms inside the wings.

 

The AMRAAM had infact seen its wings reduced in area, mainly for comonality whith the F-22 internal bay constraints, if there was a future issue with weight they would at least leave the wings alone for external pylon aircraft.

[Kula66]

I'm no missile designer, but everything has a trade off ... increase wing area probably means more drag, more powerful actuators, which take up more volume in the missile, therefore less propellant, etc etc ... everything has +'s and -'s

[tflash]

weight matters but its only one variable of the question. I have seen many people get erroneously obcessed by the weight for manueverabulity evaluation wich is a mistake.

Weight can be offset easely by aerodynamic forces. A mach 4 missile doesnt need wings but to manuever.

 

The only way to "offset weight easily by aerodynamic forces" is by losing energy. Whether it be kinetic energy or potential, by losing height.

 

So you must compensate the lost energy. this can by:

 

- burning fuel: which is tricky, since more fuel means more weight means ...

- trading in speed

 

I guess a good long-range missile would have a long booster phase, burning a big load of fuel to accelerate to very high speed. This speed can then be traded in for manoevrability in the end-game. It is evident this missile would be less effective at medium to short range.

 

Given the ROE and combat experience, the Amraam missile wanted to have optimal performance in the shorter medium range, from a couple of miles to 15 or so I guess. In a good deal of that range the Sparrow is clearly less manoevrable, and I suppose the R-27ER shouldn't be that better also: it just is to heavy.

 

Consider also the fact that an F-15 loaded with Amraam instead of Sparrow is 300 kgs lighter!

[GGTharos]

Weight gives you more inertia - this means it's harder to accelerate, but then the R-77 has a very powerful rocket engine.

It's harder to turn (turning is in a ay a form of acceleration) but then the R-77 has some advanced aerodynamics just for that reason.

And, more inertia also means it's harder to slow down.

Unfortunately it also seems that the 77 is fairly draggy, so it probably performs better at high altitudes rather than low and medium altitudes.

[Prophet_169th]

Acceleration works both ways.

 

Ideally, you would think it should burn most of its fuel early. Gain speed, loses weight. With retractable grid fins. Low drag when accelerating, extend fins on final phase to increase drag to turn.

[Prophet_169th]

It would also probably be best if the missle could jettison part of itself.

 

The area that holds the fuel, is just added weight in end phase.

[Pilotasso]

Prophet_169th said:

It would also probably be best if the missle could jettison part of itself.

 

The area that holds the fuel, is just added weight in end phase.

 

No its not, much the opposite. the more mass the more it will glide, ever heard of inertia? The less mass the faster drag slows it down.

 

Kula66 said:

I'm no missile designer, but everything has a trade off ... increase wing area probably means more drag, more powerful actuators, which take up more volume in the missile, therefore less propellant, etc etc ... everything has +'s and -'s

 

Its not that linear. The AMRAAM had its wings clipped but its range didnt change in a meaningfull measurable way. Maybe if you replaced the triangular fins by full delta wings like a maverick it would rag more and reduce its range but its not like doubling wing area is cutting the range in half. On the other hand if your missile wings are too small the missile will fall short sooner in the end game as well.

 

And dont bring the R-77 to this argument because the issue of the Potato masher controll surfaces is more an issue of boubadary layer divergent grouth rate than anything else, you cannot equate area into drag directly.

[GGTharos]

Erm ... drag IS a function of the area ... it isn't a linear function, but area directly affects it ;)

[Pilotasso]

What I meant about the potato masher is that interfrence from the several blades is not exactly the same as using its total area seperatly. ;)

[GGTharos]

Ah, okay then :D

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

but its not like doubling wing area is cunting the range in half.

 

i often do that as well on a saturday night, i r go out C*****G :D :icon_wink