R-27ET right after R-27ER

So as mention before. Even when you lost the heat signature with the result of lose lock on IRST. If you see the F fighter is turning and is about 35km. You better override and launch to the last reticle position and spect a splash on his face

The T variant snapshots are a effective way to keep enemies away or get them destroyed. But there is many things I don't like in that tactic because the limitations in FC3. It will be interesting to fly MiG-23 with the older R-23 variants to see how it goes there as well, without the IRST benefit.

It is sad that the T model is many ways effective missile, but it requires so much "playing around" to be used as such a way. So much that one could have thought that it would be far easier to just "point and shoot".

What was updated in this porportional navigation? Can you give us insight since you know what it is?

He doesn't make any claims that he knows how it is updated. It is only known it is updated.

Manufacturer states that feature A is now a A+.

Manufacturer doesn't say that what feature A had, or how A+ is different.

That is not the question here that WHAT there has been changed specifically in the navigation system, only that IS IT or IS IT NOT changed.

As one of the manufacturers say that X is updated but doesn't say exactly how, it is evidence that X is updated regardless that no one else knows HOW.

Can you tell us what updated PN is? Or do you legit not know?

Do you deny that one of the manufacturers is claiming that PN is updated?

Whabam! Proof they are sill using 80's missiles.

Proof is only for theoretical mathematics. Everyone else use evidence.

I would also love to see your claimed information from the missile's manufacturer regarding any upgrades or specific guidence methods, do you have a link, website, brochure or book you are basing this all off?

We all have been given the source from one of the manufacturers sites and brochure earlier in this thread. It is the manufacturer that states that R-27T/ET missile has a updated PN.

Nothing more is known.

It all comes to the oddity that if R-27 has not been updated in the 37 years service, then why not?

It can not be so superior and well designed that it doesn't require any updates and it can perform better than competition.

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to handle several different Soviet and American MANPADS in a training environment. (Real weapons, no motors or warheads) I can tell you for fact what the seekers REGULARLY locked on to...was NOT the "bigger heat source (aircraft)."

What is my experience too. Why I hope that we would see a proper IR seekers overall in the DCS, just like a chaff. We should see IR seekers detecting flares and IRST systems as well seeing flares.

A simple fix for all this is that various heat sources are given a range and actual time to exist. Be it a burning wreckage on the ground or a flare up in the air, all emits various heat signatures and you can aim and lock various seekers on them.

We should have challenges to lock on target that is saturating areas with flares, have the seekers go crazy about until we get them locked on wanted one.

Just dropping flare is not enough, you need to as well be maneuvering properly. At least we have that we can turn engines off to minimize their heat signature and maximize missile to go after flare, but many small details should be made to missile seekers logic.

Another important example:

How do when the bad guy want face you back again. 1- wait until he pass the 90 degrees on your HUD arrow directional representation and launch the lethal combination. please also see all maneuvers defeating Two time bad guy missiles. See track below

Notice that this combination only is currently possible with IR and radar missiles, missing the extremally lethal Passive head seeker R-27P. Also that type of missile is modular that mean head seekers and antenna modules are exchanged between R version and P (passive) version. Even when high Russian military statements have been made several year ago and Official manufacturer representor declared available http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27p1-_r-27ep1.html for export many years ago. DCS add instead more weapons for the fighters that fight against limited R-27 users. So you better practice practice with what they're giving to you. :thumbup:

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/r-27p-r-27ep-maks-2005/

R-27ET on the face-4 Counter-Counter attack.trk

So if we dont know what was upgraded, why are we insisting ED upgrade it? They literally have no idea what to do.

He doesn't make any claims that he knows how it is updated. It is only known it is updated.

 

Manufacturer states that feature A is now a A+.

Manufacturer doesn't say that what feature A had, or how A+ is different.

 

That is not the question here that WHAT there has been changed specifically in the navigation system, only that IS IT or IS IT NOT changed.

 

As one of the manufacturers say that X is updated but doesn't say exactly how, it is evidence that X is updated regardless that no one else knows HOW.

 

 

 

Do you deny that one of the manufacturers is claiming that PN is updated?

No im not denying that it was upgraded in some way, but for all we know it could have just been a PN constant tweak, thats certainly an PN upgrade if its tuned better, and improves efficiency. My question is what do you want ED to do?

So if we dont know what was upgraded, why are we insisting ED upgrade it? They literally have no idea what to do.

It isn't about insisting how to upgrade it. How difficult it is to understand?

It is about ED that made a claim that R-27 has not received any upgrades since early 80's to start to do more investigations for that what is updated.

And possibly people to stop insisting that the R-27 missile is over 37 years old without any updates in it.

How much do they know about any other missile? Very little likely. Yet we have them.

So stop going again for the excuse that ED needs to know everything like the chief engineer of the project until they can implement things in the game.

ED doesn't need to know all about to simulate many things.

My question is what do you want ED to do?

Question is that what you want ED to do if you would know that something is updated or possible and they say they have never heard anything about such things?

The upgrade options for a passive modularity system like R-27T and brothers is unlimited regarding technology development. It is only limited by the design itself if someday become developed a more advance design in aerodynamic features. Meanwhile they continue be the guy to use in combination with guided homing head they are doing outstanding job. It is a continuous developing in his lifespan.

Another important example:

 

How do when the bad guy want face you back again. 1- wait until he pass the 90 degrees on your HUD arrow directional representation and launch the lethal combination. please also see all maneuvers defeating Two time bad guy missiles. See track below

 

Notice that this combination only is currently possible with IR and radar missiles, missing the extremally lethal Passive head seeker R-27P. Also that type of missile is modular that mean head seekers and antenna modules are exchanged between R version and P (passive) version. Even when high Russian military statements have been made several year ago and Official manufacturer representor declared available http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27p1-_r-27ep1.html for export many years ago. DCS add instead more weapons for the fighters that fight against limited R-27 users. So you better practice practice with what they're giving to you. :thumbup:

 

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/r-27p-r-27ep-maks-2005/

 

You realise those are all from an exhibition, right? No one bought them. I wonder why.

Nice graphs!

 

Do you also have the straight line flyout performance for the R-27R and T as well?

 

I have the curved plots but those are confusing because they say the T and R have the same range.

Dont have the straight line flight distance for those right now but the R and T should be really close kinematically, the only factors are the seeker performance and detection range.

I found a copy of the one for the R a while ago but its really low res. Anyone have a higher res version?

IRL depend of the mission they go with a combination of R-27R and R-73.

In Syria they use this combination as there are not a real threat for Russian fighters.

In DCS I have downed several times using a combination of long range missiles and terminating the bandit with R-73 on his face. Even when we still don’t get the R-27P and some others methods of missile navigation we still make some opposition. Just imagine with full equipment. Keep strong guys. Trolls are everywhere. Keep the faith up.

2:40 in this video shows a modified R-27R. Note the green proximity fuze antennas.

Questions such as if the R-27 family have received any upgrades while in Russian service and particularly from when the Dux factory started production again in the last 10 years would be best answered by actual RuAF pilot of which some do frequent these forums.

2:40 in this video shows a modified R-27R. Note the green proximity fuze antennas.

True. Didn’t notice the green color.

Anyway I don’t believe they gonna tell what that mean. At least they share some good information on the tactical missiles corporation web site. Notice the R-27P on this web site is a ridiculous head design never seen. Jajaja obviously They share Little enough to keep you asking how is everything. Lot of simulator for real pilots and old stuff to use in practice and go sleep for next day. It is not needs to tell anything other than what the export corporation show.

A different situation is see the Upgrade information and keep telling again and again all what the 1991 western test show.

On the manufacturer's site it says the following about the R-27T/ET:

"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]

Does anyone know what "updated proportional navigation method" means?

Looks like this part puts a nail in the coffin when it comes to data-link capability:

"target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier."

No, it maybe have been using an updated (ie. some form of APN, and there are so many forms of APN :) ) PN algo from version one. Or, they updated whatever was there with something new. But who knows :)

On the manufacturer's site it says the following about the R-27T/ET:

 

 

"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]

 

Does anyone know what "updated proportional navigation method" means?

 

Looks like this part puts a nail in the coffin when it comes to data-link capability:

"target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier."

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/modifitsirovannyy-metod-proportsionalnoy-navigatsii-dlya-perehvata-aeroballisticheskoy-tseli-pri-ogranichennom-sektore-navedeniya/viewer

Couldn’t it just mean that the navigation is updated throughout flight and not just once? Pretty broad meaning

Couldn’t it just mean that the navigation is updated throughout flight and not just once? Pretty broad meaning

Wouldn't it then be "proportional navigation with updates"? As "updated gimbals" or "updated engine" means that those are updated.

Wouldn't it then be "proportional navigation with updates"? As "updated gimbals" or "updated engine" means that those are updated.

Updated compared to what? These are base export variants, the T1 and ET1, time has passed but there’s no other concrete indication of a change. We have no proof either way. Aren’t the rest of the specs listed exactly the same?

And even if we do find evidence of guidance law change, how will we know what changed. Or alternatively, with an IR seeker that does not know distance, what would you possibly improve? An updated navigation method in brochure speak could be some meaningless change under the hood

Couldn’t it just mean that the navigation is updated throughout flight and not just once? Pretty broad meaning

IMHO it could mean one of two things - either as GGtharos suggested, some form of APN(where "updated" could be another term for "Adaptive") or just a general brochure statement along the lines of "up-to-date" technology.

As manufacturer clearly describe R-27T have an updated proportional navigation on the carrier. So we should have the option to get improvement for proportional navigation method taking account official description of the export representatives company of Russian federation. As community asked to improve western A-A missiles for a better implementation of PN. We have the right to ask for the same to be implemented as official sources confirm.

If you see the track 1 on my post 32 you will see R-27ET leaving the rail on pursuit first to then go for a IR signature. That’s wrong and make the missile waste a lot of energy without a correct proportional navigation from the carrier as official source described.

Your guesses are worthless. You all are not official sources. You are the guys that wanted R-27T be decoyed easily to get victory in an unrealistic manner so how come DCS should take account on your guesses and negative proposition against the enemy missile you will face.

You want to reinvent the meaning of Updated Proportional Navigation. So for a weapon you use against R-27T users PN should be well accomplished and for the R-27T itself you want to change the meaning of the concept. Wow...