New move in favor Aim-120? No R-27ER LA while they have it?

I'm hoping that ED will revise their opinion on R-27R/ER as those missiles are not same as AIM-7....

I'm hoping that ED will revise their opinion on R-27R/ER as those missiles are not same as AIM-7....

Indeed they're not, that's why the rocket motor and flight are different, as well as the flight restriction feature.

Chizh, are there plans to give the R-27 the AMRAAM treatment? With the fins' reaction time and all that modelled? Or is it going to be just an FC3-like modelling of the missile?

Nevertheless, in the future we will conduct CFD research of these missiles to set the record straight.

Just a generic question, how long it takes as average to run the CFD simulations per missile?

Chizh, are there plans to give the R-27 the AMRAAM treatment? With the fins' reaction time and all that modelled? Or is it going to be just an FC3-like modelling of the missile?

Afaik thats the long-term goal which is still some ways out, which is why theyre implementing this interim measure.

Yes.

The R-27 is a quite stupid old analog missile without any on-board computers or processors

A missile does not need a digital computer to not be completely dumb.

Just look at the datalink. The R-27 receives updates on the targets coordinates in 3D space as well as its velocity vector. Not bad for a missile without a brain.

Or this:

"To adapt to a wide range of flight conditions, a nonlinear law of missile control surfaces manipulation is used to change coefficients depending on the flight time, altitude, and speed;"

"In some cases, corrections are introduced into the guidance law applicable to the radar-guided missiles to optimize their flight trajectories for best performance of the radar homing head and proximity fuse. For example, to avoid a stream of clutter by taking the missile out of the aircraft radar's primary beam or provide for a diving attack on the target at a preset angle."

Also the missile changes its lockon ranges depending on flight altitute and target aspect.

It also gets a special command when the time to target is about or less than the burntime of the motor, very likely to change its coefficients for close combat maneuverability.

So R-27 obviously adjusts its flight behaviour depending on the situation.

Good read, unofficial but plausible: https://www.mycity-military.com/Avioni/MiG-29-Fulcrum_2545.html#p2092008

What I can find is that there is three production lines, in Russia, in Ukraine and in China. China bought license to manufacturing from Ukraine and not from Russia.

And to produce the same old missiles without any upgrades just sound.... Wrong. Considering that all aircrafts and their radars has been changed many times already, and all manufacturers talk about modernized seekers, computers and digital processing, as well that all of them still be building a missiles same as at 1983 or so.....

Meanwhile everyone else is upgrading and modifying their missiles, except Russia.

 

These are odd logics, upgrade heavily launching platforms, their firing computers and all, but run almost everything with a 40+ years old missiles, produce them with same designs and materials and all.

 

Either Russians engineers are stupid as falling leaf, or they made superior missile 40 years ago that doesn't require any upgrades or modifications as it is so amazing....

And meanwhile Russia keeps producing and selling those R-27 missiles to latest fighters for export and domestic.

I want to repost this post by a 3d party dev:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3850200&postcount=17

"R27ER

yes some of the stuff seems to be magical, but in the end there are some bugs too. Opposing to what people believe, this missile, the r27er platform, is, in regards to one guy we have access to who was a su30 testpilot, well undermodelled and roughly hits the prottype specifics of 1980 time.

Specs about the real R27ER are as follows:

head on range on fast moving targets at an altitude of 30000ft+ is 125km+ when you go supersonic with speeds around 1.5m of the launching platform.

The 27ET has a range in the same specs of 115km roughly.

Both platforms are _INS guided like the aim54 platform and only use ion terminal flight thier seekers. Roughly 10sec before impact these missiles use thier seekers, which is controlled by the weapon avionics logic of the launching platform, which is controlled by datalink. I can not go to much into detail, but also the countermeasure resitance is very strong compared to what you see in DCS, which means, the 27Er is chaff resistant and also does the 27et has a seekerlogic that bans certain heat ranges of the flares of nato, cause they burn in a very specific heatrange.

The INS guidance of these missiles makes it possible for su27 and mig29 platfroms to shoot these missiles in TWS too. The max ammount of TWS targets differs and is dependand on the date of the radar build in the su27 family. So if we are speaking of tuning down the 27er and 27et, ok cool, but that is a different topic."

I know some people have dismissed this but it seems probable to me. It is hard for me to believe that the Russian airforce has not done any upgrades to the r-27 family of missiles in 40 years - a missile that is still widely used on their front line fighters.

Proof? PROOF?

 

Proof is hard documentary evidence that Real World performance is significantly less than that shown in game. And thus far, as ever, YOU HAVE EXHIBITED NONE.

Only in highly abstract mathematics there are proofs.

Evidence is material to support or deny some particular idea in everything else.

When you have enough sufficient evidence to support something, that it can be accepted without evidence to deny it, then it becomes a fact, but it is still open that at any given moment there can be found new evidence that will explain subject better than so far.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes.

The R-27 is a quite stupid old analog missile without any on-board computers or processors.

 

 

But I want to please the Su and MiG pilots a little. We have revised the missiles aerodynamics and made some changes.

• R-27 missiles family. Reduced the value of the induced drag, increased lift. Lift to drag ratio now is more accurate and provides better performance against maneuvering targets, compared to AIM-7 performance level.
  
• R-77 missile. Reduced the value of the induced drag, reduced transonic zero-lift drag, increased the lift. Missile will better save energy, slightly increased range at low altitude.
  

It will be in the next update.

 

Nevertheless, in the future we will conduct CFD research of these missiles to set the record straight.

Will the R-77 get its chaff resistance changed to the new code like AIM-120, SD-10, AIM-54?

Are there plans to give R-27 the new chaff calculation too? The new code entirely changes the rules of fighting at the no escape zone (missile needs to be defended significantly more than in 2.5.5), so it would be good to not have different missiles with similar technology follow entirely different physics.

Yes.

The R-27 is a quite stupid old analog missile without any on-board computers or processors.

 

 

But I want to please the Su and MiG pilots a little. We have revised the missiles aerodynamics and made some changes.

• R-27 missiles family. Reduced the value of the induced drag, increased lift. Lift to drag ratio now is more accurate and provides better performance against maneuvering targets, compared to AIM-7 performance level.
  
• R-77 missile. Reduced the value of the induced drag, reduced transonic zero-lift drag, increased the lift. Missile will better save energy, slightly increased range at low altitude.
  

It will be in the next update.

 

Nevertheless, in the future we will conduct CFD research of these missiles to set the record straight.

Excellent, it is much appreciated :) it will relieve a lot of pain till you get time to model CFD's

Now R-77 has chaff resistance close to 120B.

Now as in whats in game in the current OB, or now as in coming in the next patch?

Yes.

The R-27 is a quite stupid old analog missile without any on-board computers or processors.

Well that is a falacy. It does not mean that the weapon system: missile + plane's WCS is uncapable of more complicated operation that a flying dart.

There is enough available data on the internet, ranging from science papers of the R27 guidance down to the manuals, etc. which could provide enough information for the model. If anything, all hard data points to DCS being in poor state in current simulation of such systems.

That being said.. it is a welcome news to read that there is a roadmap to improve the simulation. :thumbup:

This is not entirely true. The missile does not receive any coordinates or parameters of target movement. In the aircraft is simulated the corresponding position of the target and missile in space and two angular position are transmitted to the missile seeker to be directed to the target. No any digits.

 

The datalink is transmitting both discrete corrections on the positions (delta L), as well as the rate of change of the position (delta i, which is the same as the velocity vector). The missile uses a stabilized coordinate system. It uses gyros and accelerometers to track its own position.

Angular coordinates may only be used when the range to target is so close that datalink is not used, just a one time command instead.

No.

The description from the chief designer himself said it changes coefficients depending on flight time, altitute and speed. And you just say that is wrong.

 

The datalink is transmitting both discrete corrections on the positions (delta L), as well as the rate of change of the position (delta i, which is the same as the velocity vector). The missile uses a stabilized coordinate system. It uses gyros and accelerometers to track its own position.

 

 

Angular coordinates may only be used when the range to target is so close that datalink is not used, just a one time command instead.

 

 

 

The description from the chief designer himself said it changes coefficients depending on flight time, altitute and speed. And you just say that is wrong.

I think the export version from the 80s of that missile is not datalink guided corrected. But as you all can see a lot have been changed in the export policy for the new Russian export market view after 2000s.

Including Ukrainian batches... seem to me they are taking only features of what have been western tested instead of look on the information shared by the new missiles companies created by Russia at 2000s.

The correction vector is needed to correct the direction of the vector to the target in order to turn the finder to the target.

And the correction vector and the rate of change (target speed vector) is sent via datalink every second, not just the pure angular coordinates to the target as you wrote earlier.