Original sentence: AMRAAM supporters would however point to the usual US lead in Electronics.Critics claim these were used in lieu of regular fins due to the fact the Russians could not produce hydraulic actuators small enough and reliable enough to maneuver the missile using traditional control surfaces.DATA CONCERNING RUSSIAN AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES.It is comparable (and claimed to in some aspects) to the United States AIM-120 AMRAAM system (In fact, the two systems are so similar that the R-77 is at times referred to as the AMRAAMski).Like most AAM weapons, the claimed range is for a non-maneuvering target, at a high altitude, and probably on a head on aspect with a respectable closing rate.Low altitudes, rear aspect, or maneuvering will all reduce this rate.Proponents claim the R-77's configuration provides superior maneuverability than the conventional deltas used on for example the AIM-120.The missile when compared to the AIM-120C series is considered superior in range and maneuverability by many experts in the field, generally in range and maneuverability.The weapon is purported to be able to handle a target maneuvering at up to 12Gs, a substanially higher rate than most fighters
Edited sentence: Against more agile aircraft, the R-77's range is greatly reduced.But more importantly in terms of electronics.However, this published range is only effective for large non-maneuvering targets.If critics are right primarily due to the range and maneuverability issues.It is comparable (and inferior to in some aspects) to the United States AIM-120 AMRAAM system (In fact, the two systems are so similar that the R-77 is at times referred to as the AMRAAMski).Some claim these were used in lieu of regular fins due to the fact the Russians could not produce hydraulic actuators small enough and reliable enough to maneuver the missile using traditional control surfaces.The missile when compared to the AIM-120C series is considered superior by many experts in the field