riojax Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) I did a exhaustive investigation about some typical weapons used on both platforms. The first topic is about the seeker tone distance on rear and front aspect. # TONE - REAR ASPECT F-5E MiG-21 --------------------------------- R-55 1.53 nmi 2.21 nmi R-60 1.78 nmi 2.56 nmi R-3S 1.90 nmi 2.73 nmi R-60M 2.41 nmi 3.46 nmi R-13 3.56 nmi 5.18 nmi R-13M1 3.58 nmi 5.19 nmi R-3R 5.34 nmi 5.34 nmi (RADAR GUIED) RS-2US 5.34 nmi 5.34 nmi (RADAR GUIED) GAR-8 5800 ft 1.38 nmi AIM-9P 2.35 nmi 3.42 nmi AIM-9P5 4.75 nmi 7.00 nmi As you can see seems that the MiG-21 IR signature is almost the double than the F-5E, later will discuss a bit about this topic. Also the seeker distance seems a bit strange, look at R-13s, R-60M and AIM-9P5, something seems broken there. # TONE - FRONT ASPECT F-5E MiG-21 --------------------------------- R-55 4200 ft 4200 ft R-60 4400 ft 4400 ft R-13M 4400 ft 4400 ft (NOT GUIDING) R-13M1 4500 ft 4500 ft (NOT GUIDING) R-3S 4800 ft 4800 ft (NOT GUIDING) R-60M 1.34 nmi 1.34 nmi R-3R 5.15 nmi 5.15 nmi (NOT GUIDING??) RS-2US 5.15 nmi 5.15 nmi (RADAR GUIED) GAR-8 0.00 nmi 0.00 nmi (NO TONE) AIM-9P 0.00 nmi 0.00 nmi (NO TONE) AIM-9P5 1.68 nmi 2.35 nmi Ok, this is really strange. The R-3R seems to be "rear aspect" and from front it's unguided, like a rocket but the fuse works, the R-13M, R-13M1 and R-3S works the same (but on IR). Now this is the effective current lethal range: # RANGE - LETHAL R-55 1.25 nmi RS-2US 1.42 nmi R-60 1.78 nmi R-3S 1.86 nmi R-60M 1.88 nmi R-3R 2.02 nmi R-13 2.10 nmi R-13M1 2.33 nmi GAR-8 1.38 nmi AIM-9P 2.60 nmi AIM-9P5 2.75 nmi The ranges, also seems to be bad, the R-60 and R-60M range is too small. Also I tried to know the maximum range on a pure heads-on, but I was unable to launch the soviet missiles without tone, and with tone, is always into the maximum range. # RANGE MAXIMUM RS-2US 3.26 nmi R-3R 5.15 nmi AIM-9P5 8.95 nmi (NO TONE IMPACT!!!) Yes, the AIM-9P5 will impact a hot contact on front aspect at 9nmi WITHOUT TONE. Now we will return to the IR signature. I don't have any IR image to confirm that, but the F-5E engine exhaust temperature at 100% RPM (without AB) is 550ºC for each engine (two engines) and the MiG-21Bis at same parameters is on 630ºC I doubt a lot that this can make a huge difference in favor of F-5E. TL;TR Maybe the Mig-21 IR signature is too high, the R-60 and R-60M seeker too bad, the R-13s too good on rear aspect and the AIM-9P5 can hit from a god-alike distance without tone.F-5E_AIM9P5_WLOCK.trkF-5E_AIM9P5_LOCK_F5.trkF-5E_AIM9P5_LOCK_MIG21.trk Edited February 6, 2020 by riojax Add AIM-9P5 and F-5E tracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Very interesting investigation! I'm flying both planes for some years now but this thread has really opened my eyes! 1 Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted February 7, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 7, 2020 Hi The team will review it, but it will take some time. Thanks 1 Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 7, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) I can't say about MiG-21 IR signature because data files of 21 are cripted, but I can show what we have in the DCS for several aircraft. F-5E IR_emission_coeff = 0.4, -- without afterburner IR_emission_coeff_ab = 2, -- with afterburner Su-17 IR_emission_coeff = 0.69, IR_emission_coeff_ab = 3, MiG-29 IR_emission_coeff = 0.77, IR_emission_coeff_ab = 4, F-16 IR_emission_coeff = 0.6, IR_emission_coeff_ab = 3, The ranges, also seems to be bad, the R-60 and R-60M range is too small. Why do you think so? Edited February 7, 2020 by Chizh Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 For the R-60, the original non cooled variant someone in another thread posted these: could be worth looking at. Additionally how are the IR signature values calculated? What do the values mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riojax Posted February 7, 2020 Author Share Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) I can't say about MiG-21 IR signature because data files of 21 are cripted, but I can show what we have in the DCS for several aircraft. Su-17 IR_emission_coeff = 0.69, IR_emission_coeff_ab = 3, Ok, is it possible to ask to LN about the MiG-21 values? Also checking it, the Su-17 Lyulka AL-21F-3 engine is similar to the F-4 GE-J79 but using only one engine. Maybe this value is a bit high. Why do you think so? The R-60 OGS-60TI "Komar" seeker, had a conventional single colour scanning detector with a ±12..±17° (more like to ±12°) off-boresight capability and 35°/sec tracking rate. The R-60M OGS-75 "Komar M" seeker increased the off-boresight capability to ±20° and improved tracking rate. With this the Komar M seeker is a bit better than the AIM-9L seeker and the Komar, like the AIM-9P-4. About the rocket solid fuel and engine, I don't have good sources, for this I will only estimate some data, knowing that the R-60 mass is 43.5kg with 3kg warhead, and for the R-60M the mass was increased to 45km and 42mm larger (probably all is fuel and fuselage) using the same fuel this can be a 106.15% burning time (the warhead and fuselage mass was already taken account), this also will increase the mid speed. With this we will suppose that the ISP is around to 120s, with a burning time of 4s and an a rate of 5kg/s this means an a thrust of 5.884kN, using a full mass of 43.5kg and a dry mass of 23kg (3 for the warhead, 2 for the seeker, 18 for the fuselage and engine) will gave us an a dV of 750m/s that plus 150m/s plane speed is the same that the alleged 2.5 mach speed for the rocket. With this is easy to say a peak speed of 750m/s plus the plane speed at 4s burn time for the R-60 and 790m/s plus the plane speed for the R-60M. IMHO, the current R-60 and R-60M implementation is very far from this estimated data, all is similar (burn time, mass rate, etc.) but the ISP is totally off with a peak speed at 4s of 460m/s plus plane speed. Edited February 7, 2020 by riojax typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 7, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 7, 2020 What do the values mean? This is a dimensionless parameter relative to the adopted unit, the military power of the Su-27. Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max1mus Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 To add to the topic: AIM-9P5 is smokeless, while the newer AIM-9L is not in DCS. Why so? Will this be corrected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 7, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) Ok, is it possible to ask to LN about the MiG-21 values? Yes. You can do it. Also checking it, the Su-17 Lyulka AL-21F-3 engine is similar to the F-4 GE-J79 but using only one engine. Maybe this value is a bit high. These engines are distinguished by thrust. AL-21F has 110 kN J79 has 80 kN With this the Komar M seeker is a bit better than the AIM-9L seeker and the Komar, like the AIM-9P-4. I thing the western technology in 9L and 9P-4/5 is a qute better then soviet Komar. Soviet missiles have always tried to catch up with the American. An exception may be the R-73, which was very good for its time. About the rocket solid fuel and engine, I don't have good sources, for this I will only estimate some data, knowing that the R-60 mass is 43.5kg with 3kg warhead, and for the R-60M the mass was increased to 45km and 42mm larger (probably all is fuel and fuselage) using the same fuel this can be a 106.15% burning time (the warhead and fuselage mass was already taken account), this also will increase the mid speed. With this we will suppose that the ISP is around to 120s, with a burning time of 4s and an a rate of 5kg/s this means an a thrust of 5.884kN, using a full mass of 43.5kg and a dry mass of 23kg (3 for the warhead, 2 for the seeker, 18 for the fuselage and engine) will gave us an a dV of 750m/s that plus 150m/s plane speed is the same that the alleged 2.5 mach speed for the rocket. With this is easy to say a peak speed of 750m/s plus the plane speed at 4s burn time for the R-60 and 790m/s plus the plane speed for the R-60M. IMHO, the current R-60 and R-60M implementation is very far from this estimated data, all is similar (burn time, mass rate, etc.) but the ISP is totally off with a peak speed at 4s of 460m/s plus plane speed. According to our estimates, the R-60 missiles in the DCS is very close to the his real prototype. We focused on Soviet documents on flight performance. You can compare it by yourself. R-60 motor impulse total = 3726 kN Edited February 7, 2020 by Chizh Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riojax Posted February 7, 2020 Author Share Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) Yes. You can do it. These engines are distinguished by thrust. AL-21F has 110 kN J79 has 80 kN The IR fingerprint in DCS is according to thrust? I thing the western technology in 9L and 9P-4/5 is a qute better then soviet Komar. Soviet missiles have always tried to catch up with the American. An exception may be the R-73, which was very good for its time. Ok, but the current seeker values are too low, the Komar M seeker detection is almost the half than the AIM-9P5 in DCS, and in reality is only a bit worse than the AIM-9L. # TONE - REAR ASPECT F-5E MiG-21 --------------------------------- R-60M 2.41 nmi 3.46 nmi AIM-9P5 4.75 nmi 7.00 nmi According to our estimates, the R-60 missiles in the DCS is very close to the his real prototype. We focused on Soviet documents on flight performance. You can compare it by yourself. R-60 motor impulse total = 3726 kN Ok, replicating this chart in DCS it gave me these ground distances. 10km - 14.31km 5km - 10.50km 1km - 8.13km This is a bit less than the attached chart. I attached tracks.R60M_10km.trkR60M_5km.trkR60M_1km.trk Edited February 7, 2020 by riojax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Yeah DCS's R60 performance in terms of kinematic range isn't awful, my own CFD results matched almost exactly with ED's current implementation so the range is good imo. In terms of seeker range its hard to say i personally havn't seen anything saying DCS's representation of the R60/60M seekers are wrong in terms of range not this Additionally: I'm wondering does a chart like this exist for the SU-27? I'd base the relative range values off of how these charts compare to the baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinkerbuck Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 I know I've somehow been hit head on at probably a mile distance by a Mig21's R3. In tacview it just said R3, but I assume it was a radar missile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Probably but it does seem it may be a bit buggy at the moment according to that other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 9, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 9, 2020 R-60 motor impulse total = 3726 kN I was wrong. It is impulse of R-3S missile. R-60 and R-60M total impulse = 2452 kN. Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 9, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 9, 2020 Komar seeker In the MiG-29 combat manual there is an indication that the lock of the Mi-8 helicopter possible at ranges of 1-2 km. In DCS, R-60M do lock Mi-8 noticeably farther, about 2.8 km. Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 was it indicated if this value was max possible? Or was it more along the lines of max head on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonnieRock Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 R-60 motor impulse total = 3726 kN I was wrong. It is impulse of R-3S missile. R-60 and R-60M total impulse = 2452 kN. We are all human and make mistakes. It takes a man to admit a mistake has been made. You Sir, Chizh, I shake your hand. :beer: Glad you are here interacting with the community to make DCS the best it can be / will be through this type of leadership you have displayed. Thank you, Monnie Rack Rig: Rosewill RSV-L4000 | Koolance ERM-3K3UC | Xeon E5-1680 v2 @ 4.9ghz w/EK Monoblock | Asus Rampage IV Black Edition | 64GB 2133mhz | SLI TitanXP w/ EK Waterblocks | 2x Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB | Seasonic 1000w Titanium | Windows 10 Pro 64bit | TM Warthog HOTAS w/40cm Extension | MFG Crosswind Rudders | Obutto R3volution | HP Reverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 10, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 10, 2020 was it indicated if this value was max possible? Or was it more along the lines of max head on? It is maximum seeker range about 45 degree aspect angle, without any missile dynamic estimation. Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow KT Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 I am guessing the MiG-21 afterburner heat signature disappearing bug also plays a part 'Shadow' Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 It is maximum seeker range about 45 degree aspect angle, without any missile dynamic estimation. Ok seems reasonable for a heli from that aspect, now of course in DCS as you noted this number is a bit high. Maybe something worth investigating is a rework of some of these values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted February 11, 2020 ED Team Share Posted February 11, 2020 Ok seems reasonable for a heli from that aspect, now of course in DCS as you noted this number is a bit high. Maybe something worth investigating is a rework of some of these values? Yes, we will see what there are is can be not right. Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonne Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 May I ask why the R-55 seeker is performing so bad? It is said to have the R-13 seeker, so should it not behave equally? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoak741 Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 On 2/7/2020 at 6:55 PM, riojax said: Ok, is it possible to ask to LN about the MiG-21 values? Also checking it, the Su-17 Lyulka AL-21F-3 engine is similar to the F-4 GE-J79 but using only one engine. Maybe this value is a bit high. The R-60 OGS-60TI "Komar" seeker, had a conventional single colour scanning detector with a ±12..±17° (more like to ±12°) off-boresight capability and 35°/sec tracking rate. The R-60M OGS-75 "Komar M" seeker increased the off-boresight capability to ±20° and improved tracking rate. With this the Komar M seeker is a bit better than the AIM-9L seeker and the Komar, like the AIM-9P-4. About the rocket solid fuel and engine, I don't have good sources, for this I will only estimate some data, knowing that the R-60 mass is 43.5kg with 3kg warhead, and for the R-60M the mass was increased to 45km and 42mm larger (probably all is fuel and fuselage) using the same fuel this can be a 106.15% burning time (the warhead and fuselage mass was already taken account), this also will increase the mid speed. With this we will suppose that the ISP is around to 120s, with a burning time of 4s and an a rate of 5kg/s this means an a thrust of 5.884kN, using a full mass of 43.5kg and a dry mass of 23kg (3 for the warhead, 2 for the seeker, 18 for the fuselage and engine) will gave us an a dV of 750m/s that plus 150m/s plane speed is the same that the alleged 2.5 mach speed for the rocket. With this is easy to say a peak speed of 750m/s plus the plane speed at 4s burn time for the R-60 and 790m/s plus the plane speed for the R-60M. IMHO, the current R-60 and R-60M implementation is very far from this estimated data, all is similar (burn time, mass rate, etc.) but the ISP is totally off with a peak speed at 4s of 460m/s plus plane speed. source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riojax Posted July 6, 2023 Author Share Posted July 6, 2023 On 7/3/2023 at 5:11 PM, Smoak741 said: source? - Seeker info: Doug Richardson (Janes Missiles and Rockets) in his article “Iraqi heat-seeking Gainfuls found” - Rocket info: me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts