R-77's Not tracking Properly With J-11A

ED, There is a really big issue with the R-77's.. For one they Feel VERY draggy and they will NOT track an F-15 Even at 10km.. Meaning even if you get with in WVR range and fire an R-77 , The missile simply will not track and bleed there energy Extremely Way too fast. Only thing we can do is use them to make F-15s go Defensive but thats about it. Can you Guys please Fix the R-77's Flight model and make its tracking system better? because there Very Useless and its making guys on the Red Side VERY frustrated.

Nice report! Unfortunately, all missiles are bugged, not only the R-77 and ED have supposedly been looking at the missiles for a long time. So don't expect a fix anytime soon.

If you're not able to engage targets over 10km, I'd say you're probably too low and slow. Missiles travel much farther and faster if you get some altitude and launch with speed.

The difference between firing at 400kts at 2000ft and 800kts at 20k is probably like... 20km. I've engaged targets from a helluva lot farther away than 10km with the 77.

If you're not able to engage targets over 10km, I'd say you're probably too low and slow. Missiles travel much farther and faster if you get some altitude and launch with speed.

 

 

The difference between firing at 400kts at 2000ft and 800kts at 20k is probably like... 20km. I've engaged targets from a helluva lot farther away than 10km with the 77.

I was at 20,00 feet going over mach 1.3 and fired 3 R-77s at an eagle at 15 miles yet they still didn't hit him. So it really doesn't matter if your high or low , they don't track correctly. Once in a blue moon one may score a hit but in real life i know the R-77 is MUCH better than what ED has it. Its almost like they don't want red side having anything good.

Wut , I'm not having many issues with the 77. Been using it for a long time on the 77. It does have higher drag due to the fins its got at the back so its gonna bleed speed quicker. Not sure how much more speed it would bleed IRL compared to DCS. At close range its the most deadly radar missile due to how well it can manuver.

Tracking wise dont expect it to be a 120. Not sure what you are doing wrong but I havent seen many problems with it apart from every missile needs to be redone and everyone knows that already.

I've got a 20nm kill at high alt and speed and the target slightly manuver (his fault ).

Nice report! Unfortunately, all missiles are bugged, not only the R-77 and ED have supposedly been looking at the missiles for a long time. So don't expect a fix anytime soon.

They likely are doing very big overhaul for all radar related things as they have invested so much time to F/A-18 radar systems. So missiles likely get tuned as well in the same process. As there wouldn't be any reasons to touch to missiles if we are going to get a big overhaul of radar simulation with F/A-18C.

I was at 20,00 feet going over mach 1.3 and fired 3 R-77s at an eagle at 15 miles yet they still didn't hit him. So it really doesn't matter if your high or low , they don't track correctly. Once in a blue moon one may score a hit but in real life i know the R-77 is MUCH better than what ED has it. Its almost like they don't want red side having anything good.

All missiles are FUBAR, the AMRAAM probably the most (as in how far away from RL capability it is). A 15nm missile in DCS (77, 120 or any missile) will not kill any skilled pilot, even if it's launched from >40kft, M1.3.

They likely are doing very big overhaul for all radar related things as they have invested so much time to F/A-18 radar systems. So missiles likely get tuned as well in the same process. As there wouldn't be any reasons to touch to missiles if we are going to get a big overhaul of radar simulation with F/A-18C.

What are you basing this on?

Its not a tracking issue as much as it is a range/drag problem. At least with the R77.

Its not a tracking issue as much as it is a range/drag problem. At least with the R77.

This. The answer to this common question that ED have stated is that it's due to the set drag of all missiles in DCS. Apparently if the drag settings are adjusted to give missiles reasonable range at low & medium altitudes the unfortunate result is that they have insanely inflated ranges at high altitude.

My counters to that argument would be:

1) The atmospheric modelling clearly needs tweaking in that case. Further evidence for this is the excessive speeds that some aircraft are capable of reaching at present.

2) I don't believe that if drag values were changed to make missile ranges reasonable at low & medium altitudes then we would see everyone launching from 40,000 feet at Mach 2. Sure people would do that but there are too many counters to that tactic to make it viable against anything except another high speed, high altitude, non maneuvering target.

Separately I think there are issues with guidance. Maybe not so much with active radar missiles such as the AIM-120 & R-77, but certainly SARH guidance & response to countermeasures really does need to be reviewed, but ED have said that this will be done eventually.

To answer the OP, empirically if you watch youtube videos made by AIM-120 experts such as the 104th guys, they're typically launching from about 10-12 nm at low altitude. Without having seen the 51st guys and therefor being able to offer reasonable comment, I can't imagine that the R-77 is a million miles away, in fact it should be reasonably close in terms of performance at those sort of ranges.

So I agree with Rage that this is mostly a range / missile drag issue for the R-77.

What are you basing this on?

2) they have said the F/A-18C hornet brings a ray based radar simulation.

So count 1+1=???

And Heatblur F-14 is waiting many radar systems from ED...

So what we are receiving is big overhauls to radar systems, and if someone thinks that missiles guidance and all related to that is kept with current ID and range multiplier based systems then I say he is likely going to surprise.

--

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.....

To answer the OP, empirically if you watch youtube videos made by AIM-120 experts such as the 104th guys, they're typically launching from about 10-12 nm at low altitude. Without having seen the 51st guys and therefor being able to offer reasonable comment, I can't imagine that the R-77 is a million miles away, in fact it should be reasonably close in terms of performance at those sort of ranges.

10-12nm, low alt is for a 120C. Its not a guaranteed (kinetic) kill shot but a reasonable launch range down low for a C.

The equivalent for a 77 would be about 6-7nm. For a kill shot, about 4nm, damage issues notwithstanding.

I don't know where you get the idea it's so great and must perform thusly, considering there is little data available and little or no combat service... We can only guesstimate.

Missiles are FUBAR, but that's not limited to the R77... and please leave the RedFor conspiracies outside -_- Seriously? Eagle Dynamics ARE RedFor, I'm sure they want good representation @@ I remember a comment a dev made years ago about people's nationalistic inclinations affecting their judgement of performance

It is very much not just a drag issue, the guidance is completely borked. All missiles in game, IR/RF, use LOS-rate PN. Radar guided missiles should be taking into account range/range-rate, angle/angle-rate, altitude, target accelaration, target maneuvers and so on, influencing the guidance response. INS is not modelled for RF guided missiles, when they loose lock they stop pulling any Gs and just fly straight. Lofting isn't properly implemented and just kills all the missile's speed instead of extending the range.

All this combined with the drag, CCM issues, netcode/proximity fuse issues makes ALL missiles a lot less effective than they should be, making for unrealistic BVR dynamics.

10-12nm, low alt is for a 120C. Its not a guaranteed (kinetic) kill shot but a reasonable launch range down low for a C.

 

The equivalent for a 77 would be about 6-7nm. For a kill shot, about 4nm, damage issues notwithstanding.

Thanks for the info. 4-7 nm. Yep, that needs to change. 4 nm should be R-73 territory.

It is most definitely a drag issue which is closely related to guidance, there is ample evidence for this and even the guys from Heatblur have commented on it: regarding how they have had to lower the G limits on the AIM54, so that it could have its historical range. How the missiles are currently implemented in DCS, each time a missile makes a course correction a significant amount of drag is induced, much higher than it should be in real life, which is why no one even bothers with Rmax shots because as soon as their engines stop producing thrust they are basically useless against any maneuvering targets.

Thanks for the info. 4-7 nm. Yep, that needs to change. 4 nm should be R-73 territory.

You nailed it. It's an R73 equivalent with much better flare rejection.

Thanks for the info. 4-7 nm. Yep, that needs to change. 4 nm should be R-73 territory.

Maybe for a non-maneuvering target. 4nm head on with a heater vs another fighter at low altitude should be a bit of a 'hmmm' sort of deal - both on account of maneuvering and seeker effects which are not modeled.

Parameters for the R-77 in this image aren't given - what we do know is that is has a comparatively low fuel to mass ratio.

So yep, it's a bit of a disappointing missile. Still dangerous.

Maybe for a non-maneuvering target. 4nm head on with a heater vs another fighter at low altitude should be a bit of a 'hmmm' sort of deal - both on account of maneuvering and seeker effects which are not modeled.

 

Parameters for the R-77 in this image aren't given - what we do know is that is has a comparatively low fuel to mass ratio.

 

So yep, it's a bit of a disappointing missile. Still dangerous.

So the graph shows "max range against non-manoeuvring targets." I'm confused, is that supposed to be Rmax or Rtr? Either way, yes that is a bit disappointing.

Rmax (for some definition of Rmax - there's probably as many definitions as there are years between the 50's and now).

Russia was dissapointed with the R-27R performance vs AIM-7. So they made the R-27ER. The R-77 was to be a competitor to the AIM-120A, but they were a bit dissapointed with that missile also (not to mention that it was left in the dust for economic reasons. Seeker maybe was improved but the first major redesign to make it into payload has been the 77-1 AFAIK).

Still, it is a dangerous missile and people don't disrespect it.

So the graph shows "max range against non-manoeuvring targets." I'm confused, is that supposed to be Rmax or Rtr? Either way, yes that is a bit disappointing.

^ GGTharos dropping wisdom again. I suspect the R77 is a pretty draggy missile IRL, but a very agile one within its optimal launch parameters (lattice fins). It is telling that the Russians are reportedly opting for AMRAAM-style conventional fins in their next R77 iteration (izdeliye 180).

Given the current state of drag physics and missile flight profiling in DCS you get a missile that isn't of much use after the sustainer burns out. If I were a DCS J11 driver I'd still use it though. It's an extremely dangerous pre-merge missile that is nigh on impossible to beat when fired head on inside ~5nm at decent speed (ala AIM120B). You could use R73 in this role too but that missile seems slower and gobbles flares voraciously (better as a follow up or post merge shot). R77 can get there quick enough to beat the other guy's emergency 9G pull to notch + chaff dump.

The lattice fins also require less torque to operate, meaning the possibility of using smaller motors (AFAIK the R-77 fins are electrically driven). The missile can develop more AoA thanks to them; I would guess that this makes it a bit more maneuverable at slower speeds. It's hard to tell what trade-offs, if any, have been made here :)

^ GGTharos dropping wisdom again. I suspect the R77 is a pretty draggy missile IRL, but a very agile one within its optimal launch parameters (lattice fins). It is telling that the Russians are reportedly opting for AMRAAM-style conventional fins in their next R77 iteration (izdeliye 180).

This fits with what I've always suspected - that the VKS essentially hasn't bothered with the R-77, with the exception of a very small number used on Su-35's deployed to Syria, although those could have been export marketing essentially; and are probably waiting for the Izdeliye 180 / K-77M which will arm the T-50 / "Su-57" when it eventually enters service.

This fits with what I've always suspected - that the VKS essentially hasn't bothered with the R-77, with the exception of a very small number used on Su-35's deployed to Syria, although those could have been export marketing essentially; and are probably waiting for the Izdeliye 180 / K-77M which will arm the T-50 / "Su-57" when it eventually enters service.

And considering that... About 35 years those missiles has been taken up in the air as only missiles to defend a whole countries without other upgrades than one... While everything else has gone through big update programs...

And in 27 years that AIM-120 has been in service, it has got more than 4 versions and 6 updates.

--

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.....

The lattice fins also require less torque to operate, meaning the possibility of using smaller motors (AFAIK the R-77 fins are electrically driven). The missile can develop more AoA thanks to them; I would guess that this makes it a bit more maneuverable at slower speeds. It's hard to tell what trade-offs, if any, have been made here :)

Actually it is more maneuverable and less draggy at high speed ;)

And based to usual logic here, R-27 line is so terrible that it wouldn't fly anywhere and every fighter with such would be shot down before they even could launch and that those should be replaced as quickly as possible by ARH as otherwise it is just dead weight and only good missile is R-73 and even that is almost like dead weight....

Indeed :) ... If we look at the russian SAHR missiles, with R23 introduction it was in front of AIM7E (Russians got AIM7E and made a copy - R25 which did not perform as well as R23 which used monopulse homing head) and when 7F came out, R24 INS link was answer to the range increase. With introduction of 7M the US was again on pair. Basing on this history, it's only logical that R27 would not be a step backwards ... and we must also not forget that R27 now is not the same as R27 in pre '90s as well... if Russian could make R24, R73... it is a naive to think that R27 is a flop :)