R-27ET right after R-27ER

Recently I have seen a new weapon announcement that show how defeat the R-27 incoming missile with an active new generation method, such I don’t like point here to not Off-Topic.

 

There you can see how important is in the mind of engineers the real threat of R-27 family missiles. It is very well know the huge upgrade capabilities of such modular design and of course every change is obviously military secret. Taking that on mind, it is not reasonable implement improvements we don’t have idea about. NOW... if the manufacturer feel confident enough to put on sale certain developments like passive new homing head R-27P and share some information about some guided methods. Then is very deep the not inclusion and implementation of this confirmed developments. It is even more deep how many users spend time in behave with opposition against such improvements. Or people have nothing important to do, or they are child’s shitting all around. That disappoint a lot... but that have to do a lot about the soul of everyone.

Pepin, the big initial turn in DUE to PN. PN CAUSES it. Nobody claims the ET has zero PN.

 

One of the claims is that T missile autopilot has zero communications from the FCS than just "Look X, Y coordinates and find there a heat source and tell when do you see it?".

 

Meanwhile the T seeker is completely dumb at the launch than just "I am looking X,Y coordinates and I will maintain that lock, but I do not track nor receive any information about the target movements or range to it".

 

So when you launch the missile, it is completely required to alone find out all that info about the target vector, and it can't find any means the target range so it could anticipate better its own maneuvers, so it starts to maneuver way too much at longer ranges and keep constant turning as it would be designed as pure lag pursuit missile.

If I have zero idea and you confirm exactly that R-27T have PN such it is what I am telling too. Then How many ideas you have? You just confirmed the same I told.

 

For crying out loud Pepin - the R-27T seeker has always used PN. What I was contesting is the significance of the term "updated PN" on the manufacturer's website....understand now? :)

 

I am not claiming nothing.

 

Yes you are - you were claiming that PN isn't implemented for the R-27T in the sim, although Chizh said some pages back that it is.

 

I just telling look my post 32 track 1 you will see the missile leave the rail on pursuit and that’s wrong and is a waste of energy and speed.

 

At the moment I am not able to test it myself or even view your track, so I am not in any position to contest your findings. But if you are right, then it must necessarily be down to a bug and not absense of PN, since the developers say that it is implemented.

It's probably the built-in safety maneuver. The missile will fly straight for x seconds before maneuvering, to avoid hitting the launching aircraft. The IRL conditions and specifics of how this operates are likely a little more complex.

It will depend on the launcher (and maybe distance to target, as the missile gets an additional command if the target is very close).

 

~1.5s for catapult launcher, ~0.4s for rail launcher.

 

But in DCS right now it somehow depends on the rocket motor type.

 

~1.5s for E-missiles, ~0.4s for non-E-missiles

 

If it was properly implemented R-27T and R-27ET should always have the shorter safety maneuver, as they will only be launched from the rail.

Edited August 15, 2020 by BlackPixxel

In DCS this value is attached to the missile, not to anything else, and it's a single value ... there's no 'this if you're that and that if you're elsewhere'.

But, ED can easily fix this for the T/ET since they're coming off the rail launchers and set both to 0.4.

Ok continuing with the lethal combination of R-27ER and R-27ET. See track below. I have other track for you guys. In this track I want to point out the importance to keep pushing in a battlefield line. Notice that in this case I launch a lot of missiles just to show you which one hit first. Also keep attention in all my evading maneuvers because they are key to evade and keep pushing while they runaway the majority of times abandoning Air space for us to take it.

 

So I gonna take this track to demonstrate this proportional navigation doesn't exist in DCS. So below the first picture show the very first moment first R-27ET leave the rail toward nobody know. Please see the fine red line pointing to a specific position (it is my aircraft heading at this moment as well)

 

 

So after about 5sec (see clock on the pictures) the R-27ET start a Proportional Navigation method by DCS only... amazingly this Air-Air missile started to look for interception on the last position the bandit was at the moment of the launch. So basically for the developers in DCS the proportional navigation for R-27ET was engineering made against something on static on the air. (please see the red fine line pointing to the blue trajectory made by F fighter instead of a updated proportional navigation method with target lock-on with aircraft sensors as manufacturer claimed in this missile features. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

 

 

 

Please see track. You will see I launched an R-27ER (the missile actually impacted on this picture below) about 15 seconds after my first R-27ET was launched... I mean we are talking 15sec and look picture for the huge differences in distance from the target and speed at the impact moment. While the R-27ER with 15sec delayed already impact on the target. after this 15sec the R-27ER overpassed the poor R-27ET that suffer a devastated waste of energy with that PN DCS simulated for it.

 

This simulation has an huge impact against Russian fighters because brake the most important factor in the use of different multiple homing head in R-27 family in DCS. So the simulation in DCS for R-27ET is based in two worthless huge trajectories curves, to start a self Proportional navigation method from the moment the heat IR head seeker catch the IR signal (but at this moment this missiles lost huge energy ready for the trash by DCS)

 

 

R-27ET on the face-5.trk

Edited August 15, 2020 by pepin1234

Yes Pepin, that’s real honest to goodness proportional navigation. It knows nothing about trajectory, only cares about LOS rate and heading, that is exactly what PN is.

 

Will it always work as well the simple collision course of the R-27R? No, buts an IR seeker, what are you, the soviets, the Russians, or ED could possibly do about it? Without range or In this case trajectory, you are always limited to the flight path you see, how aggressive might be debated but there’s no way to make the PN “better” to follow a lead collision course

Not exactly.

 

There is a difference when you are selling weapons so you get funding for n+1 projects to make a new weapons to be sold, and to make weapons that you use for defense purposes.

 

The question was how much significance you can place on a single word in a sales brochure - i.e. what it actually means. You guys jump to the conclusion that their use of the term "updated PN" signifies a new or upgraded seekerhead.

 

Irrelevant. The question of this all was that ED has not heard/read any updates to be made to R-27.

Its not irrelevant - for a start ED doesn't implement weapons that aren't in service anywhere and secondly, in order to implement something you need to have information about it - e.g. we know that a new version of the R-77 has entered service with the VVS, but if there isn't sufficient information available on it, then how can you implement it with any degree of realism?.

 

This is not about "Please give us X and Y features....".

Ok fair enough - it just sounded like that.

 

And if a new updates version is for offer to be sold, it is not a evidence that it is not operational or not in service.

Eh no - but the point is that it isn't evidence that it is operational or in service.

 

Just like in any business, if you offer something to be sold, then you are ready to sell it when a customer asks for it.

Not exactly - it could take a long time before it actually becomes operational. There is a long list of stuff that Russian manufacturers have advertised long before it was ready in the hope that an export order would help fund final development, testing and certification.

 

When you say "R-27EP is available" then you sell it when customer comes in and says "We would like to buy 20 units of R-27EP".

See above - I am not saying that this is the case with the R-27P/EP, but there are lots of examples, where products haven't been ready to be taken off the shelve and shipped as soon as a customer showed an interest.

 

The typical weapons sales are done that you first list the public data. Then you get contacts and when business is further and you have concluded trust, you provide accurate specifications as answers for the questions. Then buyer gets change to buy some units or you show them the performance and give the data so they can compare your provided specifications to the hard data, and now comes the customer decision to validate the reason to purchase or not.

(There are cases of political pressure and purchases, where weapons has been bought just with simple meeting, never even seeing what is to be received/delivered. And it can be cultural thing as well.)

What I am telling you is that, in many cases, Russian arms exports have not been "typical" by your above description, but rather long term contracts and often involving some form of joint venture developments with the customer in order to get final development, testing and production funded.

 

BUT for the game we are talking about it is irrelevant that is something in service or not. We are not here to simulate the history, we are not even simulating the reality (this moment). We are talking about a game that is based to _some_ real things, but with lots of educates guesses and probabilities.

Thats your impression/preference.....not sure ED agrees with that.

 

The game is about sandbox.

Yes unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that there are no boundries in regards to lack of realism.

 

It is about simulating things that doesn't really happen. It can be a F/A-18C Lot 20 vs MiG-19P, a scenario that would never happen in 2020 over a Persian Gulf. It can be a L-39AZ vs F-16C Blk 50 over a skies of France.... Again likely something that would never happen. It is about F-15C in a 1991 firing AIM-120C-5 against a F/A-18C over small piece of land near Chinese border...

 

All fantasies, all illusions and all nothing more than far far from the reality, history and facts.

 

Well for a start you should be careful about claiming what could and couldn't happen ;) - e.g. I distinctly remember ED removing the Crimea map in favour of Georgia because it seemed completely unrealistic that a conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea could ever happen....

 

Anyway, there is a difference between whatever scenario "end-users" can come up with in their sandbox and what equipment ED spends ressources in implementing for it.

 

 

This game is not about a X-wing in the hangar bay of Area 51, this game is not about a laser cannons bolted to F-5E wings. Or not about similar things.

Aren't you contradicting youself now? - you just said that its a sandbox, "all fantasies and illusions" and therefore anything that the user can think of goes?

 

Weapons are not part of the aircraft.

Yes they are - to claim that weapons aren't part of a combat aircraft is a ridiculous statement.

 

It is illogical to demand 100% accurate simulation, as there is no such thing ever. You need the real thing to do that, and it is not anymore simulation. Some people just need to understand the realities, what is that this is a game and it has entertainment purposes and value as much as training value.

While I agree that 100% accuracy is an illusion, its nevertheless illogical to talk about a "sim" if it doesn't strive to be as accurate as possible.

 

People here are arguing about bits in AIM-120 or R-27 performance, yet no one cares at all about the ground units...

...not to mention sea units, but...

 

It would help a lot if ED would just simply start implementing lots of all kind things, improve things and let the players decide how to fly a custom missions, and allow mission/campaign designers to easily design missions based their scenarios and sell those campaigns for those who accept it.

How the hell would that help?! - IMHO what you are suggeting(according to the sandbox philosophy) is part of the problem - pouring all the worlds military aircraft/weaponry of all times into the sim just makes it less and less likely that any of it will recieve the attention required for proper implementation....least of all ground and sea units.

 

Edit: Example this whole thread point. Why not launch a R-27ET after R-27ER? It should be possible.

Of course its possible - in most cases thats the order in which they are employed(since the radar guided variant has much better head-on launch range). The only restriction is if fired in quick succession, you need to insert a 2-3 second delay to avoid the IR seeker being affected by the missile plume of the previously launched missile....that would obviously also be the case if this was another IR missile.

 

One should be able to lock the missile easily (In the Su-27 the IRST will spot the missiles that were fired) and even launch a IR missile after the radar missile and get the changes that the IR seeker would go after that rocket motor.

What?

 

The real Su-27SK manual states that R-27T shouldn't be launched inside 8 seconds after a R missile, because the seeker will capture the R missile heat.

IIRC its less than 8 seconds(the short burn R-27 doesn't even have 8 seconds of burn time).

 

There is as well 6 second limit, but I don't now recall what for that was, but it was similar thing. So you are limited to launch missiles for front hemisphere in given time periods. So not allowed to launch a two R-27T to same target without that 8 second pause. But in the game it shouldn't be a hard coded that in 8 seconds it would lock on and after that not, instead it should be understood that why and how does the seeker lock on the missile front of it and use that modeling in all scenarios. So you build the logic, and use that logic everywhere if that thing would happen.

We need to have in simulation lots of downsides, restrictions etc and not by hard coded "Sorry, I am not going to allow you to launch a second missile inside 8 seconds after previous one" but really allow the player do the stupid and wrong things, and explain them then why what they did was stupid and wrong. Part of the simulation is always the downsides as well, not just the nice things.

Does the game impose a delay between launches as it is now?

 

So in this case the original poster should have been able launch the R, and then the T and have the T follow the R, with all the troubles and problems, as well even possibilities, as it can't be so that the T will lock permanent to missile plume (or flare) and ignore aircraft, but will not do the same to aircraft (and ignore missiles or flares).

 

Those logics doesn't seem to be in the game, and it needs improvements.

LOL.
Edited August 15, 2020 by Seaeagle

It will depend on the launcher (and maybe distance to target, as the missile gets an additional command if the target is very close).

 

~1.5s for catapult launcher, ~0.4s for rail launcher.

 

But in DCS right now it somehow depends on the rocket motor type.

 

~1.5s for E-missiles, ~0.4s for non-E-missiles

 

If it was properly implemented R-27T and R-27ET should always have the shorter safety maneuver, as they will only be launched from the rail.

 

Yes but leave the problem with the R/ER since these can use both types of launcher :)

This 5 sec straight flight without missile reaction are really questionable. 5sec straight for after that look for a static position, something stand on the air.

 

The question was how much significance you can place on a single word in a sales brochure - i.e. what it actually means. You guys jump to the conclusion that their use of the term "updated PN" signifies a new or upgraded seekerhead.

 

No, we do not claim such things (at least I don't). Only that there is a updated PN.

 

Its not irrelevant - for a start ED doesn't implement weapons that aren't in service anywhere

 

It is irrelevant because they are making a "sandbox" simulator, where the players are provided tools to create missions they want. The weapons IMHO are separate products of the aircraft module, where the weapons should be part of the DCS core simulation and inventory, where then the aircraft simply either accepts them or don't accept them to be used.

The game should be without politics or without standing orders of the current state of the politics. Meaning we should not be limited to political opinions of the reality.

 

and secondly, in order to implement something you need to have information about it - e.g. we know that a new version of the R-77 has entered service with the VVS, but if there isn't sufficient information available on it, then how can you implement it with any degree of realism?.

 

We are not demanding or asking a specific changes to be done or implemented, just that the ED will keep an eye for the possibilities that something in PN has been updated as manufacturer states. We very well expect that if ED would contact manufacturer, they would get "this is a military secret" kind reply if reply at all. So they can't do anything else than simply open their mind for possibility that there is something updated there, regardless they can or can not do anything about it.

 

Ok fair enough - it just sounded like that.

 

So can we all agree that it is possible that there is updates done to the PN logic in the newer R-27 productions? Just a possibility, instead straight out saying "There is no such thing!"?

 

Eh no - but the point is that it isn't evidence that it is operational or in service.

 

It is not evidence that it isn't either. It is a evidence that such update is told by the manufacturer to exist, and you can only assume that if someone has purchased new batch of missiles since the update has been done (unknown when, unknown by how etc) that it is in there as otherwise we should only assume that no one ever receives newer versions but only the old ones (and no manufacturer is implementing updates that they say there is).

 

It is irrelevant is something in service or not, real world politics shouldn't be in the ruling factor for something. And someone defining what is the current weapon load outs somewhere is about politics. It should be about technical limitations if something is not possible or is possible. More there is unknown elements, then those are not automatically reasons to reject something but be more about possibilities for educated guesses per case "Is there possibility?".

 

Because we know that AIM-120C-5/7 is in service, it doesn't require that we know everything about that missile. Otherwise we couldn't have it in the game at all. So we need to accept that we do not need to know much at all to have some weapons in game. And that should be accepted for every single weapon there is that we give a benefit of doubt for the ED to implement weapons with best of their educated guesses where needed so they can offer more non-political elements to game. If someone has not seen something somewhere, it doesn't mean that it is not possible. It requires more information to make the guesswork that could it be possible. Like if you know for a fact that a new weapon requires a digital connection and communication between FCS and weapon, then you can make educated guess that it will not be working with just electronic FCS without digital interface at all. But there can be cases like comparing a R-73 and R-60 in Su-25T, where you might be able make an educated guess about backward compatibility for usable missile as they have physically proper contacts and carriage, but you just likely do not receive the newer advanced features with the old aircraft (HMS etc).

 

In a war time lots of political rules are thrown away and things gets more serious with flexible adaptations because no one wants to be losing because someone says far away "No, you can't do that!". There are rules in war, as well there can be rules for political reasoning but many does political suicide if they would command own troops to die because stupid reasons. It would be a Vietnam again. It is similar thing in many cases that the grass level work is not allowed to happen because someone wants a feather to their hat from higher successful bust.

 

Not exactly - it could take a long time before it actually becomes operational. There is a long list of stuff that Russian manufacturers have advertised long before it was ready in the hope that an export order would help fund final development, testing and certification.

 

But you still need to provide what you are selling. It doesn't mean that you need to deliver it in that day, it can be 3 years from no. Like your country is running a next generation fighter program where you need to buy everything from the scratch for next 30-50 years, and it is not a small task if it is in billions. It can take years even after signing the agreement.

 

But we are not limited for that. We are only having a game where things are simulated by multiple factors easier compared what the reality is. If someone wants to design and implement a new IR missile to this game, they completely don't need to know at all that amount that real engineers needs to know. Programmers are completely free to ignore lots of real world limitations and just simulate them with random number generators. Like we do not need a real contrast lock systems as we can just use a simple "Is the proper object ID inside a this box?" and off you go with a "proper simulation" even when it is extremely simple by software code.

 

See above - I am not saying that this is the case with the R-27P/EP, but there are lots of examples, where products haven't been ready to be taken off the shelve and shipped as soon as a customer showed an interest.

 

Sure, but since when did the R-27P come as optional in reality? Do we need to have a such political situation in the game? How about adding it to game, giving it a year value for the editor limiter for mission year if mission designer wants to limit it by date, and then work around the real world politics? We can't start to assume all kind hypothetical scenarios from real world like one squadron doesn't receive the weapon because they have fallen from favorite position, or that weapons are purchased with exchange of other services and products than money etc.

 

What I am telling you is that, in many cases, Russian arms exports have not been "typical" by your above description, but rather long term contracts and often involving some form of joint venture developments with the customer in order to get final development, testing and production funded.

 

Yes, as I said that there are cases of such..." Like in early 2000 or so there was big storm in the western politics about large weapon manufacturer business dealings where it was leaked out that how the prices and costs were artificially increased by the manufacturer for the states, as idea was that when you bought a weapon A, you same time without knowing it paid for research and development of the A + 7-10 other projects. And then when some of those projects became "nice ideas", they were offered to be sold, possibly funding again next few projects forward. It was combined with the bribery and all kind corruption. "Business as usual" one would say.

But why do we need to even touch that kind politics in this game? Just forget it, come around all that and just focus to the actual content regardless politics and such history!

 

Thats your impression/preference.....not sure ED agrees with that.

 

Are you ready to remove the AIM-120 from the game because lack of information of its seeker functions and capabilities and true performance? Yes, ED can have it in their military contract business if they get hands on the real data and all protections never use it for anything else. But for the entertainment purposes to be removed?

 

If we take away the political reasons, it as well includes that someone somewhere being the last chain to finally approve or deny something for operational use.

 

Like we do know how a IFF systems work by their principles. We have zero requirements to know what is exactly going on in the system. There is no requirements to disallow a proper IFF system in the game when no secrets is used to make it work. Leave the politics out, and you get things done.

 

Yes unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that there are no boundries in regards to lack of realism.

 

Realism and "simulation" doesn't go hand to hand. You can take real things and simulate them, it is up to you how you want to simulate them, and that is question about your information about it. Like we do not have anywhere near realistic optical targeting system in KA-50. What should we do? Remove it, keep it as is for some reason, or fix it?

It comes a lot to educated guesses, be it a R-27T seeker head or about anything else like counter measurements etc. Physics are fairly easy to simulate based realism when they are simple, like take a object with X values and simulate its behavior with realistic gravity, and you get fairly acceptable outputs from it if it is well done. Take a helicopter rotor blade and try to simulate that in use and it becomes extremely challenging. As you know, there is big difference to simulate something flying in the aircraft engineer workstation with connection to super computers, compared to that same aircraft flight dynamics simulated in the consumer grade PC.... You need to do compromises, a lot of them. And you are going to do lots of educated guesses to get things simplified for an acceptable level as the real thing.

 

Well for a start you should be careful about claiming what could and couldn't happen ;) - e.g. I distinctly remember ED removing the Crimea map in favour of Georgia because it seemed completely unrealistic that a conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea could ever happen....

 

I don't discuss about such political themes, sorry for that.

But again a point, if you go too close to nerves of the real thing, you can get under spotlight you do not want to be. This is the same thing as with the IFF systems. Keep it dead simple based only to something that example wikipedia informs and some fully public information. So simple that it is "A sends IFF call X, it is expected to be Y and there is four functions that can happen for it". Make it as simple as a original pong game "when the ball hits that blank at this angle, go there". People who want ultimate realism would scream to death, but it doesn't matter because everyone would get a expected IFF system, without ever emulating the real thing. Even invent a own fantasy things for it like 4-number pin code that each flight should input etc to be recognized as a friend before they take-off.

 

Anyway, there is a difference between whatever scenario "end-users" can come up with in their sandbox and what equipment ED spends ressources in implementing for it.

 

It is ED's product, so they eventually do what ever they want with it (again under the laws and all) but they still listen customers and make their own business plans based to that.

 

Aren't you contradicting youself now? - you just said that its a sandbox, "all fantasies and illusions" and therefore anything that the user can think of goes?

 

How so? I didn't say that this game should not be about 100% unrealistic things, as it is already fantasy scenarios even by those who so swear in name of the 100% pure realism.

We have no information about how AIM-120 or R-27 really works or behaves, so for the argument with "100% realism or not!" opinion is moot. We need to accept educated guesses, we need to accept that it is a sandbox where the end-user is allowed to use the game resources to make their wanted scenarios.

 

Meaning we could very well have a R-27P in the game with educated guesses with the information there is that how it would work. Leave it out to mission designer to decide is it there or not.

On the moment someone makes a non-historical event in this game, at any level, they are making fantasies. Like fly through a three countries borders without any flight plan or communications, never being intercepted and all.... fantasy.

Yesterday there was no F/A-18C shooting down a C-130 that was hijacked and tried to escape from UK to France, pure fantasy.... Yet that mission existed in the game.

Realistic? No.... Fantasy.

 

A sandbox, with full of educated guesses and fantasy elements and scenarios and all. And why they should be limited to history?

It doesn't mean that we should go total bonkers and have a X-wings flying around (

) but stay inside the intentions of the simulation possibilities for most realism parts.

Like we know that there has been work done to have a BVR missile with dual-seeker, combination of the ARH/SARH and IR. Not working as known, so no go. We know that R-27P is offered for sales, it is shown and presented, carried and all at expos, it is a go regardless it has not been seen in service.

We know that AGM-65D exist, but we as well know that SU-27S exist but it can't carry it. So no go there to combine those two, regardless that both are in the game.

In 2025 there might come a new weapon available that is backward compatible with a all modules that DCS has. Should it be added in the game with a year stamp "2025" so it is automatically limited to missions made for 2025 and requiring to override it to have it in missions in 2005? I say yes.... As we can as well make a own scenario where F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornet is flying in year 2030 even if in reality in year 2030 we would know that there is no nation that has that hornet in service (who knows!) so why not let us use that same logic around other things based realism?

 

I believe you get the drift...

 

Yes they are - to claim that weapons aren't part of a combat aircraft is a ridiculous statement.

 

And how so?

 

Are the weapons part of the aircraft in the reality?

An engine is part of aircraft.

A stick is part of aircraft.

A undercarriage is part of aircraft.

 

A missile is not part of aircraft.

A cannon shell is not part of aircraft.

A fuel pod is not part of aircraft.

 

Have a missile like R-27 in the game core library, and you set that on what aircraft it is available, and they get to have it in their inventory.

ED should be responsible to make the weapons, not the studio. Otherwise we have all kind variants for the same missiles because different studios has different ways to make them for different reasons!

 

The idea that the very specific weapon belongs to specific aircraft is ridiculous!

It is only determent by ED and studio that is a given weapon available at given year or given country if it is technically possible to be carried.

 

Like example the LAU-88 three Maverick thing with F-16C. Technically nothing is denying it to be there. It is just a operational rule not to because politics.

 

Can you launch a R-27R missile and then after it a R-27T missile? Sure, technically possible but you are under missile behavior that how the IR seeker will behave and act, regardless if in reality you would never do so stupid things. But hey, it is a simulator!

 

While I agree that 100% accuracy is an illusion, its nevertheless illogical to talk about a "sim" if it doesn't strive to be as accurate as possible.

 

Accurate based to lack of information?

So if I now pick your own definition "accurate as possible", then isn't that exactly that I am saying, many things should be allowed and even considered by ED to be implemented based "educated guesses" when no information is contradicting it?

Like we know that we do not have a anti-gravitation engines, so X-wing is completely impossible, out of this reality.

How about R-27P seeker? How much information we would get about its seeker? We know about its wavelength scale and target purposes, and we know principles how a anti-radiation seekers work, we know everything that we already do about missile engine and flight dynamics as all in the missile is same from seeker to engine as T and R variants. We can get accurate physical properties of the seeker head from even walking to a weapons expo and measure them to do a CFD modeling, again for good educated guess level.

 

How much do we really need to accept it to be included in the game and simulate its operational use in fantasy scenarios?

 

...not to mention sea units, but...

 

Sorry, should have said "surface units"....

 

How the hell would that help?! - IMHO what you are suggeting(according to the sandbox philosophy) is part of the problem - pouring all the worlds military aircraft/weaponry of all times into the sim just makes it less and less likely that any of it will recieve the attention required for proper implementation....least of all ground and sea units.

 

How it would help? To generate a better scenarios? Is the lack of units better than dozens of more where each one is given proper time to implement them?

Our ground units (and sea units etc) are still likely based to level of the Flanker 2.0. You give them couple rings and you give them value of ammunition, turn time, reaction time etc all basics shared with all units and then you let players to throw them on the map with unrealistic scenario and pretend them to be great pilots.

 

Example, put a single SAM on the ground middle of nowhere and what you have? A training scenario for a F-16C pilot to train how to bomb a target? How to use counter measurements? How to use a RWR to generalize the SAM position when unknown? Sure, all that can be simulated in training purposes. It is exactly similar as for a normal soldier is to be on the shooting range. They learn how to aim and shoot for longer distances after they have learned the principles of how to handle the weapon. But nothing of that is training for scenario when someone is shooting back at you. When someone is trying to hide from you etc. For those you need completely different training.

 

A simulation of the real war? Nope...

 

Of course its possible - in most cases thats the order in which they are employed(since the radar guided variant has much better head-on launch range). The only restriction is if fired in quick succession, you need to insert a 2-3 second delay to avoid the IR seeker being affected by the missile plume of the previously launched missile....that would obviously also be the case if this was another IR missile.

 

The real Su-27SK manual states 8 second delay after R before T is launched. And I can launch then in quick succession and I don't get the T variant track the R variant.

In fact, the T variant is so terrible that it just doesn't track basically anything so many times.

 

Example here is a short sample of the T variant incapability to track a easy simple tail-chase target, but R variant has no problems.

 

 

 

What?

 

You can try it out yourself. Have just a R-27ET missiles, fly against a known target by a EWR and keep your radar off. Use only your IRST for scanning.

 

Then launch two R-27ET missiles without a lock in estimated intercept course just by "eye balling" the target by EWR provided vector.

 

You can see in your HUD in Su-27S by the data provided IRST that how the missiles heat signature is visible while they fly toward the enemy.

 

IIRC its less than 8 seconds(the short burn R-27 doesn't even have 8 seconds of burn time).

 

The manual clearly states 8 seconds, and even after that the rocket engine is done, the missile is hot.

 

Does the game impose a delay between launches as it is now?

 

No. But you are missing the point. The point is that if there is something possible to be done that is stupid, then it should be allowed to be done by not limiting it by programming things so it doesn't happen. Like allow LAU-88 launchers to be used if technically they are possible to be mounted, and allow players to mount the three mavericks on them if so wanted, but properly simulate the effects of that stupidity. So if there is probability/change to burn a stabilizer or a hatch or a tire in various aircrafts, so be it. But don't deny that possibility artificially. That is all about the simulation, you simulate the bad and good things, like a one popping tires in bad landing. So if one doesn't learn to land properly, then in the simulator mode you have damages as expected. In a game mode or special mode you can add some assistance or resistance that helps some players in some scenarios (we need to as well remember that this is a game, and it can be great experience to let a "not so serious" people to enjoy from it, be them a kids or kid minded... But as long that we offer possibility for the highest realism for those who so want, including limiting weapons or enemies based the mission dates etc)

 

 

LOL.

 

Have you seen a R or T to lose a lock to chaff or flare that they were locked after losing a lock to actual target they were launched at? So they go from Target > CM > Target?

We can see easily often how they go from Target > CM > Ballistic once the CM timer ends them. (I do have a very faint recollection that someone would have shown a video where a IR SAM tracks A-10 but then locks on the flare far off the boresight, then flare burns out couple seconds later and the SAM locks back to A-10 and goes zig-zag after A-10C, but it is like 10 years now and likely false memory).

 

We don't either have flares or chaff on radars or IRST, seeker jumping around so much etc, but it is a FC3 limitation likely.

As I recall that if one enables the easy reticle mode in MiG-21Bis to present the IR missile seeker direction and launch range, it will jump around flares too. I am not sure about that but that recollection I have it was so, but it was years back when that feature as added (or otherway around).

Haven't flown hornet either for a while, but likely there the AIM-9X seeker was possible be locked on a flare as well, but not possible to launch one at it. But at least one can launch R-73 and AIM-9X at the other missiles (AIM-9X now sees them very easily far away after long flight) while R-73 seems to be more restricted.

But compared to those, R-27T is blind or super easily deceived.

 

Why firing first R-27ER and then R-27ET is almost useless as you do not likely have R-27ET tracking anything than flares.

This 5 sec straight flight without missile reaction are really questionable. 5sec straight for after that look for a static position, something stand on the air.

 

 

... do you have a lock/LA when you fire?

... do you have a lock/LA when you fire?

 

Manufacturer tell on Lock-on the missile go PN. Of course I trust manufacturer, not people have nothing to do with Russian hardware.

Manufacturer tell on Lock-on the missile go PN. Of course I trust manufacturer, not people have nothing to do with Russian hardware.

 

I believe he asked about your screenshot moment, that did you get a Launch Authorization without overriding it?

I believe he asked about your screenshot moment, that did you get a Launch Authorization without overriding it?

 

This answer is key. That’s why he ask that. Because they want all keep the same until now and ignore manufacturer description :thumbup:

Nobody is interested in what you think is "key", its a simple yes/no answer that your track already answered: you overrode LA, so obviously the missile will fly straight until it finds something. Its not meant to be overridden IRL.

... do you have a lock/LA when you fire?

No he doesnt, looked at his track, he overrode it.

So he's expecting a missile to function in a way it doesn't.

 

 

The behavior is correct, end of story. The missile is to be locked on the rail, it doesn't get some fantasy LOAL instruction from the WCS, and this has nothing to do with PN.

So he's expecting a missile to function in a way it doesn't.

 

 

The behavior is correct, end of story. The missile is to be locked on the rail, it doesn't get some fantasy LOAL instruction from the WCS, and this has nothing to do with PN.

 

You are not manufactured source. You don’t have a single post in this thread for support a user question you only post all the weaknesses of Russian weapons and so on. So what worth your opinion that doesn’t help Russian pilots in the community.

 

I am quoting manufacturer. You? Telling manufacturer is wrong and your opinion about how must be implemented all you go against in the simulator.

 

Your action is trolling all the help we can do for Russian pilots community. They should know what is wrong and how they must do to fix in combats issues about real implementation missed.

Edited August 16, 2020 by pepin1234

I am quoting manufacturer.

SHOW US THE QUOTE. Like really. You keep on saying that the manufacturer said it has LOAL, but you have provided ZERO links/qoutes/sources.

SHOW US THE QUOTE. Like really. You keep on saying that the manufacturer said it has LOAL, but you have provided ZERO links/qoutes/sources.

 

So then it is completely wrong in the game, that you can not launch it without launch authorization and it will lock on first target after launch it detects?

Guys, everyone keeps falling for the bait, this is one huge circlejerk without any substance whatsoever. Clearly pepin and Fri are trolling all of you if you all keep falling for it. I suggest some mod to close this thread to avoid further incidents and reports. If said individuals really have something to back up their claims or show they can private message one of the ED developers.

So then it is completely wrong in the game, that you can not launch it without launch authorization and it will lock on first target after launch it detects?

 

You can launch without LA (specifically by overriding) without a lock. According to the manual, it is how you jettison missiles from these rails since there's no other way to do it.

The seeker may or may not be cooled, and given that very generally speaking no one launches heaters without a lock if they can help it, you shouldn't expect it to do anything useful. Since there are no distractions modeled in-game such as reflections of the sun from various surfaces or clouds and the missile seeker is always cooled, you can use this missile (and actually, any heat seeker) in a way that it is not used IRL.

Edited August 16, 2020 by GGTharos

Guys, everyone keeps falling for the bait, this is one huge circlejerk without any substance whatsoever. Clearly pepin and Fri are trolling all of you if you all keep falling for it. I suggest some mod to close this thread to avoid further incidents and reports. If said individuals really have something to back up their claims or show they can private message one of the ED developers.

 

We are not trolling. We have presented official statement from manufactures with proof of a track and pictures showing a non sense guidance with 5sec straight flight for first stage wasting energy for an additional turn. If we show this evidence of official Russian manufacturer source and you all not agreed to an official statement. You also participated been in the thread to debate this weird 5sec and two extra turns in this thread been censored by an Admin without a single evidence that proof the contrary over the official statement. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4455149#post4455149 Those two turns have any sense in an air to air missiles computing interception for a moving target.

 

You all want R-27T behave like an short range R-73 missiles. Manufacturer representative have information about proportional navigation implementation in this longer range missile and you all keep contradicting the official statement. You are not presenting evidences to proof that those two nonsense turns have something to do with the manufacturer statements.

 

Basically, those no sense two turns are killing the performance of R-27T

 

The first stage with 5sec with missile in straight flight trajectory without guidance spend rocket time and increase the curve to after that go for a static position even when that missile was made to face moving air targets in longer range than R-73.

 

The way is implemented this two stage of flight toward nowhere have any relation with a proportional navigation method on lock-on. The lock-on is made by aircraft sensors and the proportional navigation method have been ignored.

 

The 5sec limit straight flight have no reason to be there, neither the turn to a static point after missile left rail. When the missile left the rail after 5sec look for pursuit an specific static point contrary to the enemy Flight trajectory. This is not called proportional navigation method, and with the missile on the air the statement on lock-on with missile on the carrier is ignored.

 

So basically DCS is ignoring the Interception calculation by aircraft sensors. the official manufacturer statement said when missile is on the carrier on lock-on a proportional navigation method is part of this specific R-27T missile.

 

See: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

 

You are assuming the proportional navigation method is accomplished only after the homing head got an IR signal. That’s wrong. The word lock-on is related to aircraft sensors as radar or IRST, those will send the proportional navigation calculation to the missile. You don’t want to accept this and all you want put your personal opinion on top the manufacturer statement.

Edited August 16, 2020 by pepin1234