R-27T

Actually that entire video shows very abnormal behavior, including the target aircraft effectively being replaced by a parachute suddenly. Can't judge anything at all by it regarding the missiles.

Try in SP and see how the missile behaves there.

r-27t in headon engagement vs cool target, no cm (mig-15)

10km - radar acquire

7.5km - seeker acquire, launch, unlock target

5km - target begins maneuvering

works as advertised

That makes sense and I stand corrected :)

It makes zero sense at all.

The R-27T was designed to take advantage of optimal seeker acquisition range in tail-on engagements, while it has similar range limitations as the R-73 in head-on engagements due to the IR seeker.

The R-27R was designed to provide optimal range in head-on engagements by combining SARH with INS+radio correction(i.e. launch range not limited to SARH seeker range), while it has pretty abysmal performance in tail-on.

In a head-on engagement as described by the OP, you would have negated all advantages of the -R if you close into a range where you could realistically employ the -T first.

what justification do you have to expect that one of the earliest r-27 versions would have irccm on par with an aim-9m?

Both are "newer" than that of the 9M. The T/ET uses a different and possibly more advanced seeker than the R73 IIRC. That is different to the "newest" seeker offered by the Ukrainians for the ET.

and you would be wrong

ir missile was shot first because the risk of the seeker getting distracted by a preceding missile's motor was very real.

No. You are wrong. This is an old fallacy that needs to die. For a head to head engagement you launch the missile designed to have the longest range first then launch the F&F missile with the shorter range after.

Edit: to the OP - ED stated the CCM value for the IR missiles some time ago. They were the same for the 9M/73/Magic/T IIRC. Whether the missile goes for flares is a function of the IR signature of the target, whether its in gate/buster or idle and speed/proximity to the ground.

Edit2: Guarantee is null and void in MP. Anything can happen. Netcode results in odd things.

Both are "newer" than that of the 9M. The T/ET uses a different and possibly more advanced seeker than the R73 IIRC. That is different to the "newest" seeker offered by the Ukrainians for the ET.

 

 

 

No. You are wrong. This is an old fallacy that needs to die. For a head to head engagement you launch the missile designed to have the longest range first then launch the F&F missile with the shorter range after.

 

Edit: to the OP - ED stated the CCM value for the IR missiles some time ago. They were the same for the 9M/73/Magic/T IIRC. Whether the missile goes for flares is a function of the IR signature of the target, whether its in gate/buster or idle and speed/proximity to the ground.

 

Edit2: Guarantee is null and void in MP. Anything can happen. Netcode results in odd things.

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I'll keep this in mind from now on. SP it's too boring for me, because of the current state of AI, so I rather get frustrated by the netcode than the AI :)

Thanks again! S!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=8rHTlruHnSA

Buster time for R-27T is 9s! At high altitude it have more...

Valid data for the R-27R /T :D

It does look like a T. Does anyone have reliable pictures of a T and ET side by side so we can compare?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=8rHTlruHnSA

 

Buster time for R-27T is 9s! At high altitude it have more...

 

Valid data for the R-27R /T :D

11s :music_whistling:

9 is correct. ;)

#ValidDataForTheR-27R/T

It does look like a T. Does anyone have reliable pictures of a T and ET side by side so we can compare?

Houthi rebels do not have ET. The Yemeni army has just T. This is it missile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=8rHTlruHnSA

 

Buster time for R-27T is 9s! At high altitude it have more...

It's 6s. 10s is for an E rocket motor.

It's 6s. 10s is for an E rocket motor.

Its quite obvious from that video the burn time is >6 seconds. Closer to 10 infact. So either the 6s burn time is incorrect for the T or the missile in that video is an ET, which seems very unlikely.

Is your target maneuvering or releasing flares? If so they loose lock because of that and not because you broke the lock. Especially head on is not the best aspect for an IR seeker. I last fired in 1.58 and the 27T does like to go after flares. If you want to test it in 2.5 just fly behind a non maneuvering nor flaring target, shoot and then drop the lock (EO/Radar).

Flares are NOT some magical things like they are in DCS. In DCS they are a multiplier that is checked every second by a missile that does missile start tracking them or not.

In reality IR seekers and IR flares does a lot of different things. Positioning of the flare dispenser is important. So is that the flare heat (IR signature) is exactly correct and matches with the engine signature.

You as well need to pop the flares in correct angle so the flare will not accelerate or decelerate too quickly or too fast from the original target.

Firing 2-4 flares or just one flare can as well be rejected by IR seeker if target has two engines or one engine.

Different generation IR seekers performs different checks and calculations.

But in DCS we have these stupid things that IR missile can catch a flare from 300m rear even when it is not anymore looking at that direction what so ever.

Our seekers doesn't reject flares because they are too hot compared to original heat source or they emit wrong IR signature (difference as well between soviet and western flares) or their trajectory and speed was wrong.

More modern ones are even more nasty as they will literally look at the turbine blades shape and motion and every flare lacks that, so they reject every single flare there is and there is nothing you can do to avoid that than block the turbine blades but then you can't hide your fuselage shape and its thermal signature. So the next thing is just to burn the seeker sensor so it is blinded.

It's 6s. 10s is for an E rocket motor.

End of story as always.:doh:

My source from Yemen said that they use IASGATG`s Missile modification.

The other way around I would say. Keep the target busy evading the R while his RWR is beeping, and send a T right behind as a killer missile :)

It is IR first and then radar guided.

This is for few reasons.

1) You get sneak launch with T even for long ranges as their RWR doesn't warn anything.

2) You get R version out later when you are closer and you can turn and burn while your wingman takes the missile guidance by command before end-game and guides it in from further distance and then later you both start shooting missiles from longer distance while target is in full defensive.

We don't have those real features in DCS. Our simulation lacks them, and partially as we have Su-27S instead SM so we can't even guide two R missiles to two targets.

Already the older soviet IR missiles and aircrafts had datalinks to guide them for BVR shots so you got both out and target didn't know as radar was locked few seconds before estimated range until RWR started to yell about lock but then target had two missiles, IR and SARH just seconds away.

It is IR first and then radar guided.

This is so wrong for DCS at least!

This is for few reasons.

1) You get sneak launch with T even for long ranges as their RWR doesn't warn anything.

This is true only if the opponent you are flying against is stupid enough to fly straight to you! Against a pilot who knows how to fight, you can forget about this tactic!

EDIT: Also, why waste your "killer" missile as a first shot when you have the longer range ERs (whose tracking is garbage) when you are expecting the bandit to evade the first T missile? I really don't understand.

2) You get R version out later when you are closer and you can turn and burn while your wingman takes the missile guidance by command before end-game and guides it in from further distance and then later you both start shooting missiles from longer distance while target is in full defensive. We don't have those real features in DCS. Our simulation lacks them, and partially as we have Su-27S instead SM so we can't even guide two R missiles to two targets.

I really doubt that the real Su-27S has this capability you describe. It just sounds so out of whack. Certain things like terminal SARH guidance requires faster updates and stronger signals and it can't be achieved via command guidance I believe

Flares are NOT some magical things like they are in DCS. In DCS they are a multiplier that is checked every second by a missile that does missile start tracking them or not.

 

In reality IR seekers and IR flares does a lot of different things. Positioning of the flare dispenser is important. So is that the flare heat (IR signature) is exactly correct and matches with the engine signature.

You as well need to pop the flares in correct angle so the flare will not accelerate or decelerate too quickly or too fast from the original target.

Firing 2-4 flares or just one flare can as well be rejected by IR seeker if target has two engines or one engine.

 

Different generation IR seekers performs different checks and calculations.

But in DCS we have these stupid things that IR missile can catch a flare from 300m rear even when it is not anymore looking at that direction what so ever.

 

Our seekers doesn't reject flares because they are too hot compared to original heat source or they emit wrong IR signature (difference as well between soviet and western flares) or their trajectory and speed was wrong.

 

More modern ones are even more nasty as they will literally look at the turbine blades shape and motion and every flare lacks that, so they reject every single flare there is and there is nothing you can do to avoid that than block the turbine blades but then you can't hide your fuselage shape and its thermal signature. So the next thing is just to burn the seeker sensor so it is blinded.

But you brought up the second post of this thread and the discussion went off topic at this point. My post was only about DCS and the question of OP wether the T is fire and forget or not.

Again, I don't feel like spending the time digging up the source, but you can find it in the Russian forums. Those numbers come from official publications regarding those rocket motors. That source could be wrong of course, but that's a little less likely than people making assumptions from video.

Its quite obvious from that video the burn time is >6 seconds. Closer to 10 infact. So either the 6s burn time is incorrect for the T or the missile in that video is an ET, which seems very unlikely.

Already the older soviet IR missiles and aircrafts had datalinks to guide them for BVR shots

No they didn't. This is the explicit reason why those IR missile datalinks were removed from the game, because they don't exist IRL.

so you got both out and target didn't know as radar was locked few seconds before estimated range until RWR started to yell about lock but then target had two missiles, IR and SARH just seconds away.

Just stop already. Your dreamed-up shoot-SARH-inTWS mode is a complete fabrication, it never existed. The WCS won't generate datalink or even a missile launch command unless the system is already in STT when you pull the trigger.

It's kind of hard to judge by that video. But it looks like over 6sec burn time. Hard to judge, is it possible to leave a smoketrail for a couple of seconds after the motor has bured out? Or is there different versions of the rocketmotor? Maybe not good QA that leads to deviations from 6-10sec?

Anyhow, quite impressive to see such acceleration. R-27T is a heavy missile and now launched at zero speed straight up from ground. Looks way faster than any of my launches at mach 1.5 in DCS :p It would be very interesting to know at what range and altitude that aircraft was hit.

I don't now if it is correct, but I find the range between R-73 and R-27T in the same ballpark in DCS. R-73 seems to be the more reliable one in most situations.... and R-27ET is a different animal...

This is so wrong for DCS at least![\quote]

 

So many things in DCS is wrong.... But limitations because features and as we have Su-27S that didn't get all planned features.

 

 

This is true only if the opponent you are flying against is stupid enough to fly straight to you! Against a pilot who knows how to fight, you can forget about this tactic! [\quote]

 

If pilot does maneuvers, then basically every BVR shot is wasted regardless the missile. Only good change is to shoot in STT and try to improve chances that way feeding constant update to missile, why a buddy behind in safe giving full guidance is big benefit.

 

[\quote] EDIT: Also, why waste your "killer" missile as a first shot when you have the longer range ERs (whose tracking is garbage) when you are expecting the bandit to evade the first T missile? I really don't understand.[\quote]

 

When target is unaware of you, it is not wasted. The T has about same range as R and ET has as ER, but different seeker head causes difference to range.

 

You can shoot both silently but T you don't need to maintain in terminal phase like with R.

 

 

I really doubt that the real Su-27S has this capability you describe. It just sounds so out of whack. Certain things like terminal SARH guidance requires faster updates and stronger signals and it can't be achieved via command guidance I believe

 

Not Su-27S have all the features that SM upgrades has.

 

The terminal phase is when you need to make a lock and keep locked.

The same is with TWS but only opposite, until missile doesn't anymore follow data link, and with TWS you are updating guidance only few times so you are going to miss a maneuvering target unless in STT.

 

If we would have some other than Su-27S we would have different capabilities.

 

We don't even have all that Mig-23 was capable, less that Su-27 or Mig-29. But at least we get F/A-18 now...

 

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Thank you for the explanation of how you think they work in reality.

But you brought up the second post of this thread and the discussion went off topic at this point. My post was only about DCS and the question of OP wether the T is fire and forget or not.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Straight up DCS question (regardless how it's done IRL)

Is it possible to launch R27R / ER with launch override and lock bandit after missile is on it's way?

Would be an interesting tactic to try.

Have bandit on Radar and locked.

Drop lock -> Fire Missile

Re-aquire lock after the motor burns out.

Profit when the bandit is calmly looking for a missile trail he think is launched

much further away.

KABOOM :music_whistling:

Again, I don't feel like spending the time digging up the source, but you can find it in the Russian forums. Those numbers come from official publications regarding those rocket motors. That source could be wrong of course, but that's a little less likely than people making assumptions from video.

Its not an assumption. You can directly see its about 9 or 10 seconds burn and thats its almost certainly a T because of the shape of it and the fact the yemenis never had ETs.

Well if it is true. Like the video shows... If it would be adjusted in DCS...

That would pretty much mean that the range of the R27T should be more like current R-27ET (in sim) and the R-27ET / ER in sim would get a burn time of 14 sec....

Mother of... that would make the Flanker a bit more competitive against the mighty Eagle :D

On the other hand the standard R27R is said to have short legs IRL, so It might be correct as is?

This is the first time I see soviet AA missile launched from the ground.

What do we need Strela for :D