For the last few years, the R-24 has suffered from major issues. The missile tended to reach almost hypersonic speed, just to drastically slow down the moment its rocket motor depleted. A wise friend of mine described it perfectly: “the one that dies once the motor runs out like a damn badminton ball”.
Fast-forward a few years. The recent video I made about SARH missiles, often simply called “FOX-1”, seemed to have helped the cause of this neglected missile. Let’s see how it performs, shall we?
Characteristic
Let’s start by checking the missile speed curve in Mach in a head-on shot at 35,000 ft. Acceleration of the first couple of seconds is not linear, but becomes steeper until the rocket motor is depleted after circa 7 seconds. The maximum reached is close to M3.3. The speed is then sustained for less than a second. Then, the drag starts chipping away the missile’s speed. The characteristic shows the lack of a dual-thrust rocket motor, something that characterises the AIM-7 Sparrows from the F onward.
Old vs New
The displayed charts compare speed and separation versus time for the old R-24R and the new one. Numbers are collected at 35,000 ft, and the missile is launched at M1. The “badminton” effect is clearly visible in the old R-24’s behaviour. The overhauled missile is much closer to what we may expect from a DCS missile.
R-24 vs AIM-7E/F
According to some sources, the R-24 was considered much better than the AIM-7E Sparrow. Built upon the R-23, the R-24 should settle somewhere between the AIM-7E and the 7F. Let’s see what they look like.
The difference between the AIM-7F and R-24R is minimal. The first part of the envelope shows how the AIM-7F’s dual-thrust rocket motor propels the missile gradually rather than in a single, bigger push. The AIM-7E behaves like the R-24, but it does not reach the same speed.
R-24 vs Later variants
Since the R-24 was in service well into the ‘90s and, in some cases, it is still used, it is worth checking how it fares against likely contemporaries. In particular, AIM-7M and 7P, R-27 and AIM-120B.
The AMRAAM’s kinematics are better than those of the other missiles. The AIM-120 is also the newest of the batch, entering service in 1994, almost 15 years after the R-24.
Besides the active radar-homing missile, the difference between the two Russo-Soviet missiles and the Sparrows is marginal. The main difference is, once again, the typology of rocket motor thrust.
Impact Speed vs Range
A different type of chart now. This is the Old versus New R-24 plotted as impact speed versus range. The “badminton” R-24 shows again its weird characteristic, as if it had a parachute opened as the rocket motor died.
Onward to more interesting data, this is the R-24 versus the AIM-7M and the AIM-7P. I do not have data for the AIM-7F, but the Foxtrot is very similar to the Mike kinematics-wise. The main difference is the Monopulse radar of the 7M. Compared to the Sparrows, the R-24 seems to lose a bit more energy over time, something that the previous charts have shown as well. The AIM-7s build up their speed slowly, but they maintain energy for a slightly longer period. Another interesting observation concerns the altitude: the R-24 seems to perform better at higher altitudes.
Conclusions
To wrap up this quick view of the new missile, it is surprising to see how close it is to the later R-27 kinematics-wise. The latter should have marked advantages in contested scenarios, but I wonder whether the differences are replicated in DCS besides countermeasures rejection.
Another point worth mentioning is the difference between the R-24 and the AIM-7. From the F forward, the Sparrow family features a dual-thrust rocket motor. Nevertheless, the curves appear quite similar. The difference increases instead at lower altitudes, where the bigger and heavier R-24 seems to struggle more despite its greater initial explosivity.
Lastly, it is good to see Eagle Dynamics solving issues and improving the game. Thanks, devs!
You must be logged in to post a comment.