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

I just checked again.

Target - MiG-29. Altitude 10,000 meters, speed 800 km/h.

My aircraft Su-27, altitude same, speed 1000 km/h. Head on position.

The lock range (LA) for both missiles, 27T and 27ET, is the same = 7.5 km.

 

?? strange, i have LA at 22 or 26 km depending T/ET

We don't play the same game :)

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by sylkhan

So that the missile can intercept SR-71 and so.

 

It could be, but you have mig 25/31 with Vympel r-33 for this task.

Su-27 was not design for this type of mission.

Something seems strange, i am not totally convinced :)

MaxMPower, the russian Su-30SM/Su-35 pilot, wrote in this forum that the R-27ET is also used in offensive combat.

 

Yes, that has been said for some people here but they still insist that it is the "chase only" weapon. Why ie. Su-27 has only two pylons wired to be used with it, that is the common explanation.

 

I use them offensively as well, not just for defensive purposes...

 

(to be clear, I don't hold that opinion that it is just for tail-chase targets).

It could be, but you have mig 25/31 with Vympel r-33 for this task.

 

Su-27 was not design for this type of mission.

 

Something seems strange, i am not totally convinced :)

SO? Even if you have a plane designed for that you will probably need other aircrafts capable of helping in that regard, for tactical situation where the mig 31 is not available. People are very strict with labels. Like that the Phoenix its used for bombers so it should not be maneuverable against fighters , or the r27et is for chase so it cannot be used otherwise...

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yea, you use missiles as best as you can for the tactical situation. Just because a missile was designed for a tail chase doesnt mean you cant use it in the front hemisphere, esp since it is capable there in terms of the seeker.

I just ran a missile combat performance assessment based on 10 identical tests. The targets are 4 Su-25s with a full range of countermeasures. I calculated the total number of missiles expended by 4 fighters to destroy 4 targets.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pXGOwbjMZsDnug_wizU4rE-5DXu9jCJ5vx8eJK7g0_c/edit?usp=sharing

 

As a result, the required number of missiles to destroy 40 targets.

AIM-120C = 60

AIM-120B = 66

R-77 = 68

AIM-7M = 100

 

For R-27ER I was unable to complete the tests due to a crash. I'll do it later.

But in my estimation, its efficiency is higher than the AIM-7M.

 

Please look at these attached tracks, i spent some time to make them. All missiles were fired head on, within 8-10km against an A-10 dropping close to 100 chaff every time.

 

Sametests_NoECM.trk

This track was made with no ECM equipped. The results are as follows:

 

- R-77: 0/24 missiles hit. The A-10 survived all 4 encounters (6 R-77 shot at the same time at no-run-zone).

 

- R-27ER: 0/24 missiles hit or 0/32 if you count the time the A-10 stalled, Thats 3/3 or 4/4 encounters survived (8 R-27ER shot at the same time at no-run-zone).

 

- AIM-120B: 7/30 missiles hit - The A-10 did not survive once (6 120B shot at the same time at no-run-zone).

 

R77-R27ER.trk

AIM-120B.trk

These 2 tracks were made with ECM (removing the 10-20m/s closure filter as a factor due to Home on Jam). This resulted in a decrease of AIM-120B PK and increase of R-27ER and R77 PK.

 

- R-77: 1/30 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 5/6 encounters (6 R-77 fired at same time at no-run-zone)

 

- R-27ER: 2-3/56 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 5/7 engagements (8 R-27ER fired at the same time at no-run-zone)

 

- AIM-120B: 8/54 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 2/9 engagements (6 120B fired at the same time at no-run-zone)

 

Please remember that i 100% agree that more modern missiles should track better - a 90s 120B should track a bit better than an 80s R-27ER supported by 80s N001 radar and a 2000s 120C should track better than a 90s RVV-AE. But the results in DCS are problematic.

 

In these situations, either all 6 missiles should hit or all 6 should miss, as is the case with R-77 (when ECM is off), which still uses 2.5.5 chaff resistance code. But this is not the case with the 120B in DCS post-autopilot-patch. Most of the time 2 hit while 4 miss, despite them being the exact same shot seeing the exact same amount of chaff at exactly the same angle. With 120C its even more severe, with on average 3 missing and 3 hitting. This sort of dependence on luck over skill is a serious problem for people who take air combat more seriously in DCS.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Max1mus

Everyone I think the comment about chaff resistance code applies to all fox 3s, they all have the changed resistance

Everyone I think the comment about chaff resistance code applies to all fox 3s, they all have the changed resistance

 

Wrong, not the R-77. Only SD-10, 120, AIM-54. Hence my post, which also explains why SARH should get a similar change.

aircraft like B-1 and B-52 which have significant ECM equipment and can make life hard for an R-27R. In the end, it's a rocket module swap, so it's not like the R-27ET is all about Vympel - it's all about the user and how they decide to assemble the rocket.

 

Hohoo that’s neat to read that from you. Suddenly The ECM is hard for guided missiles on your opinion when is about R-27 against B-52. When is the contrary Aim-120 against whatever Russian with ECM, then the best way to make the life easy for people don’t use such long range weapon with heat seeker (R-27ET) is removing the ECM impact on guidance inside 50km range as happening in game now.

 

So what is the R-27ET counterpart for F fighters in game? Maybe the absence of ECM in 50km range made by developers?

 

What you gonna tell me next the Aim-120 will catch everything in whatever ECM/maneuverability/Countermeasures condition exist? Let’s think YES that's correct (it is not) what about the accurate information the missile must receive from the launcher radar? So the ECM is a big problem for F fighters without the Magic donation from developers making ECM ineffective in 50km.

Edited August 8, 2020 by pepin1234

Just because a missile was designed for a tail chase doesnt mean you cant use it in the front hemisphere, esp since it is capable there in terms of the seeker.

 

No one has ever produced any evidence that it is only for tail-chase scenarios or especially designed only for a such purpose.

 

Instead all the evidence from the manufacturer points that it is a BVR missile where the R variant, just with slightly limited range and limited engagement envelopes (because it is IR seeker and not a all-weather-seeker).

 

One of the major problems is that the IRST systems are not properly modeled in the DCS. Same thing is with the missile seekers, counter-measurements, IFF and many many other things from small to major.

 

Lots of these are simply far behind the multiple various layers of protections for information access (designed as well natural and just accessibility etc) but many are just because the DCS engine simply can not model the functions properly and requires either rework or just acceptance for simplification in simulation. (You don't need to perform any physics modeling and calculations to simulate a roll of dice, you can do it with simple code with random number generator in about 10 or so lines of code).

So when majority is based about educated guesses, hypothesis and vague public sources etc, we only get to be "as good as get". Is it a problem? No, not at all. It is amazing that what Eagle Dynamics has managed to pull out with hard work and all. It is just that too many has way too high expectations or believes that what DCS World really is about, and one cause for that is the word "simulation" that is for many a some kind "highest truth out there" with all complexity etc.

But when we have only a single PC to run it all, it doesn't even matter. And even for a military purposes if you need to train procedures, you don't need all the possible elements in the given task as it is about training the specific procedures (ie, if you are to train a aircraft start-up, you totally don't need someone to blow stuff around you).

 

It is just annoying when something obvious and logical doesn't work, but is just "good as is" for some narrow minded task. This is common thing example in some old shooting games where in a shooting range you can't shoot anything else than the target boards, where huge immersion is when you suddenly could kill your yelling drill sergeant and he died, you hear something about court marshal and murder and game ends there. So why would you do a such thing? As you are not suppose to shoot anything else than the targets, so why to even spend time to make a such an effect etc? Because... Someone wants to do it and gets impressed when you could do it even when it was wrong and so on.

So when in DCS you can't lock on anymore on destroyed target, it is question "Why would you?" and answer is "Because I want to, I might need to" and if it doesn't work so, it breaks the immersion by revealing the limited programming and capabilities of the "simulator".

 

Like one of the most major features for DCS World that I am waiting is the weather engine. To get a properly expected effect to radars, IR seekers and counter measurements etc. It can sound for many "Oh, pretty puffy clouds" or "those cloud shadows on the ground!" but it is far more than that! It is about spotting something on ground or in air, it is about challenges in the combat or navigation etc. So what to do when you have a large highly IR reflective clouds behind a target that you are aiming with IR seeker? Something else than "Oh, how pretty".

Hohoo that’s neat to read that from you. Suddenly The ECM is hard for guided missiles on your opinion when is about R-27 against B-52. When is the contrary Aim-120 against whatever Russian with ECM, then the best way to make the life easy for people don’t use such long range weapon with heat seeker (R-27ET) is removing the ECM impact on guidance inside 50km range as happening in game now.

 

So what is the R-27ET counterpart for F fighters in game? Maybe the absence of ECM in 50km range made by developers?

 

What you gonna tell me next the Aim-120 will catch everything in whatever ECM/maneuverability/Countermeasures condition exist? Let’s think YES that's correct (it is not) what about the accurate information the missile must receive from the launcher radar? So the ECM is a big problem for F fighters without the Magic donation from developers making ECM ineffective in 50km.

So you want AMRAAMs to be easily fooled by ECM, but not your favorite russian missiles? I could easily say the same about the lack of affect on russian missiles vs ECM. Also the only counter blue needs for the ET is idle throttle + flares. No need for your conspiracy stuff.

He just wants to attack me, he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

 

 

PS: The knowledge regarding the B-52 jammer comes from an F-15 eagle pilot's quote who was performing a simulated attack on the bomber. He mentioned a couple of very interesting and revealing things - one, that the 7 would have missed, two, that he knew this because the closure rate on his scope was very wrong (Vc/doppler deception :) )

 

 

 

The typical PN algorithm used since the 50's for SARH includes the closure as a term in the calculation for taking the correct lead. If it's 'very wrong', well :)

So you want AMRAAMs to be easily fooled by ECM, but not your favorite russian missiles? I could easily say the same about the lack of affect on russian missiles vs ECM. Also the only counter blue needs for the ET is idle throttle + flares. No need for your conspiracy stuff.

 

Not. You didn't understand or you don't want to...

 

I am telling the guidance to a target with ECM ON/Maneuvering/Countermeasures inside the 50km it is an unrealistic donation and bias by developers codding giving a bias bonus to F fighters to do everything with ECM targets. While russian fighters are designed from scratch to have options to face ECM targets since Mig-23 Era. We found stuck here with a generation ahead seen how developers set ECM absence inside 50km.

 

that's why you can even talk soo quietly about set your idle throttle + flare. Because you even don't get stressed in combat after been test by you all that bias codding to limit the closer combat against a RU fighter inside ECM environment.

 

That's why was made the IR heat R-27ET to face this situation with ECM and we are limited to ignore the use in combat inside ECM and see how developers forced russian pilots throw away such great missile while you easily tell here soo fresh lets set idle throttle to then enjoy how you guide an AA missile in an unrealistic manner against ECM ON target and see how the R-27ET become trash when is not so easy IRL make such representation.

 

But Yes so is the current situation in this simulator and we need to deal with Fanboys kids.

 

PS: ED is giving the bonus to even go relax in a AA combat. your assumption with your post clearly confirm that.

Edited August 9, 2020 by pepin1234

But Yes so is the current situation in this simulator and we need to deal with Fanboys kids.

Like you? :megalol:

Sorry, can you please make some easy points on what changes are you expecting pepin?

 

Its difficult to follow your post.

 

I understand that what you are saying is that ecm should make missiles to miss a lot even at close ranges, so r27et can be used and will find much more operational use? And right now ecm is almost totally ineffective?

 

If that is the case i agree to an extent, although i'm not sure how that can be done to a minimum realistic level since everything is classified wrt ecm.

 

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Edited August 9, 2020 by falcon_120

Not. You didn't understand or you don't want to...

 

I am telling the guidance to a target with ECM ON/Maneuvering/Countermeasures inside the 50km it is an unrealistic donation and bias by developers codding giving a bias bonus to F fighters to do everything with ECM targets. While russian fighters are designed from scratch to have options to face ECM targets since Mig-23 Era. We found stuck here with a generation ahead seen how developers set ECM absence inside 50km.

 

that's why you can even talk soo quietly about set your idle throttle + flare. Because you even don't get stressed in combat after been test by you all that bias codding to limit the closer combat against a RU fighter inside ECM environment.

 

That's why was made the IR heat R-27ET to face this situation with ECM and we are limited to ignore the use in combat inside ECM and see how developers forced russian pilots throw away such great missile while you easily tell here soo fresh lets set idle throttle to then enjoy how you guide an AA missile in an unrealistic manner against ECM ON target and see how the R-27ET become trash when is not so easy IRL make such representation.

 

PS: ED is giving the bonus to even go relax in a AA combat. your assumption with your post clearly confirm that.

OK, but as I said the russian jets ARENT properly affected by ECM, no less than the AMRAAM carriers arent. Im failing to see your point. All youve pointed out is that DCS ECM is bad, which affects ALL aircraft however you may want to deny it. Just stop with you conspiracies and "bias". Your making it very difficult for us to have any trust in yous statements. Oh btw, just fyi, over the last week or so the main plane I've been flying is the mirage, dealing with AMRAAM's. So its fairly safe to say this has nothing to do with me wanting to "relax" in BVR (although even with AMRAAM carriers its not easy but w/e).

EDIT also, do you actually think the west didnt have any form of ECCM? Really dude?

 

The challenge is that no one than very strictly chosen personnel can have access to the IFF technology and its functionality in a military level. That is the "black box" of the whole thing that is one of the highest grade military secret there is.

But you don't need to know anything about the black box to simulate a correctly functioning IFF system as we know what is expected to happen for input and output of that black box. We just don't know what happens in reality inside, just that what is expected.

 

 

 

 

Yes. Simulation vs Emulation.

If that is the case i agree to an extent, although i'm not sure how that can be done to a minimum realistic level since everything is classified wrt ecm.

 

We actually know very much about various ECM methods. Just like the IFF system, we know what is expected from various of the ECM methods. Not all of them and not exactly by the details but enough.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170600&page=2

 

Example the Su-27 jamming pods would very easily be modeled at far better detail than now.

 

1) False speed = You can't get DLZ or Authorization for the launch.

2) False angular position = You see the target jumping around in space.

3) False distance = You see target jumping closer and further from its true location.

4) False targets = You see multiple targets around the real target as your radar receives multiple echoes through different sweeps.

5) "Ghosting" target = Target it is not there, then it is there for one sweep, then again it is not there.

 

And the system is smart one, only emitting signals when it is sweeped. So it is not a noise jamming where it is a "lighthouse at night".

 

With a noise jammers we can simulate the locking problems, that even if you see the target "being there", you don't get the range nor even altitude. And then when you start to get closer the target becomes possible to be locked but then you drop the lock. Your radar has difficulties to maintain lock for very long period until you really get to the "burn through" at good shorter distance.

 

These things are not so difficult to simulate really, it is more about just doing it properly with features for the given jammer and their capabilities.

 

Like if one would listen even just one podcast with public information, this would be a good one to sum those ECM aircrafts capabilities and ways:

 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/083-electronic-attack/

 

And if someone wants to see something from the early 60's:

 

 

There is a lot of public information about what are the challenges and results and answers. Again, it can be simulated but requires that someone programs a good proportion of it to DCS core so it is all radars and all jammers that gets worked on and then make each jammer and radar to operate with own functions than just "ECM On = Radar lock distance X 0.85" etc as it is right now.

 

This brings us to another challenge. We are in a challenging era disadvantage on the RED, while on BLUE we are on huge advantage. We are betting a 80's Su-27 against 2005 Hornets, there is almost 30 years difference in the technology and digital processing etc. But it doesn't mean that we simply accept "Okay, flanker ECM is completely ineffective against Hornet". And I think this is where we need to make some balancing by accepting that we can't have just one capabilities in the set, but make them more balanced like consider that maybe the Flanker would swap the pods in the time and so on Mission Designer again decides that what variant of the ECM pods does Flanker get to use in mission. As that is the idea with all carried ECM systems that you can decide to carry them or not, and upgrade them by the mission purpose.

 

 

These things are not challenging in todays computers and era of how much programmers we do have! If we go back to 90's, we have challenge in both. But still possible.

 

This even slightly realistic ECM systems would truly start making various missions far more important. We need as well to have a properly simulated other levels too:

 

1) Communications, we need a A-6 or something else to be able jam radio communications and even navigation systems (forcing to INS systems from GPS etc), jam the datalink systems (again requires more to get between the sources). We need as well new units on ground to triangulate communications, datalinks etc sources for electronic purpose. Now when ED is bringing the new VoIP system for DCS, it should be detectable when pilots use it. Possible to jam it. All electronic transmissions would be revealing the units location, if not accurately (long enough or repeatedly) then at least in generic area.

 

2) Recon missions. We truly need the ELINT missions to be one important task, as well all optical camera systems. Fly missions to take photos, collect the electronic data and build a "hub" where these are available for others on the server, especially on the dynamic campaign mode. This so that we get to do more than just bomb or shoot down something. We can have missions to go recon an area that is expected to have a new SAM site to be built or there are large troops movements as there is odd radio transmissions, so get there and take photos from area and get out.

 

3) Search and Rescue missions. Every pilot that ejects, has a emergency beacon and radio with them. Turning those On will not just give your people the help, but enemy as well might pick up those. We need the pilots to get back to base with all the data they have gathered or it can't be added to the electronic warfare and intelligence hub. This needs to be a new level of missions where helicopter pilots has reasons to go pick up the pilots so they could then input data they remember to map. CA players to generate missions for special forces to recover the data from the wreck etc.

 

4) Radar operators, GCI and all that is right there in the center of the intelligence gathering and operations. Multiple radar sources, datalinked together to pinpoint targets. SAM sites with optical cameras, radio guidance instead radar guidance, IR missiles like Strela-10 becomes very valuable. Human players on backseat of F-14, F-4 or maybe even in future Su-30 and such, will become important to handle all kind other tasks than just radar and launch missiles. As they work with communications and coordinate attacks etc. Chaff would become very critical as you can blind not just enemy radar, but your radar too. New weather system to simulate chaff floating in the air properly, causing EWR problems, making BVR combat ineffective and dramatically change the radar guided missiles performance lower.

 

5) We need unreliable information for the troops. No accurate data ever unless it is datalink. So if a radar detects something, it is on the radar screen but not on F10 map. Troops locations should be based to commands and not to units locations. Right now every unit is like perfect GPS, perfect accurate data of their status and all. That should be completely removed and based to only communications data. You can't anymore know accurately who is where and what they are doing, what makes ECM and IFF systems critical to success and SAM systems gets their advantage, and it leads eventually to situation that pilots are going to meet each others far more often in visual ranges than ever. In multiplayer servers the players would need to be more distributed to ground operations than just for flying. And there are always more RTS players there than virtual pilots. There will be a lot of players who want to be the "backseater" (unlike Grim Reapers claim) in F-14 or coming F-4 and truly make the missions come through.

 

Suddenly the R-27T/ET and R-27P/EP missiles becomes a very important arsenal to have in Su-27 and MiG-29. They would be far more valuable for many situations because the combat moves away from unrealistic and super simple radar based combat to multi-level-phase combat where pilot is just a one small part in large puzzle, that needs to work together.

Suddenly the R-27T/ET and R-27P/EP missiles becomes a very important arsenal to have in Su-27 and MiG-29. They would be far more valuable for many situations because the combat moves away from unrealistic and super simple radar based combat to multi-level-phase combat where pilot is just a one small part in large puzzle, that needs to work together.

 

This :thumbup:

On 7/16/2020 at 11:38 AM, dundun92 said:

Oh gosh not this again... you think CFD's and research on the rocket motors are for "bias" and making russian missiles ineffective? Please. If that was their goal it would have been done long ago. And I am not saying that the CFDs etc are prefect. But you arent providing data/evidence that is remotely helpful in adjusting the missiles. You are merely whining about how your favorite missile is now ineffective vs AMRAAMs. And yes, I am fully aware that both our ER and SA-10s are in desperate need of an update. I wish ED had honestly done them at the same time. But whining about why the AMRAAM was updated first is not going to change what has happened, nor make the ER/SA-10 updates happen any faster. ED already has been notified about the problems with the ER and SA-10. It's up to ED do do the work. We have to be patient.

 

 

EDIT: also, have you actually been on any MP servers as of late? Cuz I have, flying against AMRAAM carriers, and I can assure you that the missile is not going active at 70km. That's 37nm. There is no way the A-Pole is that far away.

Oh geez, you never heard about gaming balancing? What is the point of releasing ONE SIDE of the story without releasing another to compete? Do you know anything about game psychology? And then they say ruskies are the tyrannical ones...

Your assumption about what he's saying is also completely absurd. Military Gaming simulation in the "West" has been dead for a while now and everyone who's been around before Janes knows ED is a Russian company. There's no way your conspiracy theory makes sense. All so you can complain about somebody else complaining when all they are doing is reporting what they saw based on what THEY KNOW. It's quite rude, disrespectful and annoying to watch.

On 7/17/2020 at 8:19 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

While granted, DCS is currently in a very weird transitional period in regards to missile modeling and radar as well.

I don't think OP should scream bloody murder in this fashion, it certainly doesn't help his case

 

 

 

Maybe inquiring about the progress of ECM implementation/Adder & Alamo performance in a slightly more erudite fashion might work, get more flies with honey than vinegar and all that jazz.

What Westeners fail to understand is most of the world doesn't think or behaves like they do.

On 7/18/2020 at 1:44 AM, Cmptohocah said:

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think only AIM-120 should loose less speed when pulling Gs. I mean it doesn't matter if a plane, a missile or a washing machine is pulling the same amount of Gs, they should all loose the same amount of energy - they are exchanging speed (kinetic energy) for angles (change in flight path). My previous statement is in case when neither of the mentioned objects has any thrust whilst pulling the Gs.

 

When it comes to Russian A/C getting more obsolete: well, all I can say is that I've flown Red A/C since the times of LockOn and it alwyas felt that Blue had slight advantage, but those differences were quite tinny, in my opinion. However, today I see things which make absolutely no sense:

 

 

• F-18s flying at 10km and bombing Russian fleet like they were wood-models
• Russian SAMs not being able to hit a target from 5-8km distance. Yes I have a recording of an F-18 dodging 5-6 SAMs being launched at it from different platforms.
• Try reading an RWR of Su-25T
• Try reading the instruments in a MiG-29A/S at night
• I am not even going to mention R-27s - this discussion was mentioned so many times
• Su-27 has a roll-rate and roll-inertia similar to something like A380, all though I've noticed similar behavior in an F-15
• AIM-120s fired in TWS just need to be in the approx. area of the target because even if the launching radar looses its track (in TWS) they magically scan everything in front of them (once pit-bull) and lock-on to a target in a microsecond and then keep out sending LA warning to the target's RWR even when they have no more energy left and are just dangling in the sky (like a balloon)
• Try reading the instruments of an Su-33 during the day
• And yeah, for some reason ECM takes some time to "warm up" before it switches on

 

Then if the F-15 behaves crappily like the Su-27 does this has nothing to do with the "side" but with what always talks, MONEY.

"Simpler" models don't get "upgraded", 80 USD models do. End of the story. No need to take "sides" here. I haven't seen the first "realistic" Russian ASF in DCS yet and I doubt I will until 2030 after the Su-57 takes over. If we get there.

The only problem with it is that ED is for SOME reason ignoring the very basics of Gaming Psychology and this is a game after all. When the BIG RAT always beats the small rat the small rat won't play anymore. Telling someone that they're crazy, spreading lies and accusing them of absurd conspiracy theories about a Russian company making their own side crappy on purpose isn't going to change that Psychological FACT. So, back to the Mirage I guess.

On 7/27/2020 at 3:15 PM, Teamasian said:

ED doesn't have much of a choice other than to make Russian equipment obsolete. Most sources on semi-modern Russian equipment are heavily censored, making it near impossible to simulate missiles and planes at their true capabilities. It is not speculation. Its real and nobody but Russia can do anything about it.

SO how  did Lock On work then? A 20 year old game.

Edited December 6, 2020 by einarabelc5

On 8/6/2020 at 3:51 AM, falcon_120 said:

 

Pepil, you need to stop this whining and conspiracy thing... it looks ridicoulous.

 

You will be able to find 1000 examples of things that favour blue force over red force, that is true, but you will be able to find other cases where red force is actually overmodelled (For example, the R27ET detecting planes further away than a 9X is ridicoulous, as far as i know it does not have a data link so you should not be able to shoot further than maybe 8 nm ish away). So I don't think the reason is a conspiracy from ED to downgrade russian equipment.

 

Most of the time, its just lack of resources to improve all legacy planes and content, and the fact that right now there are lots of american fighters under development is not actually helping either, cause money prioritisation obviously favors content for those fighters. But i'm sure ED would love to develop a SU35 if they got the chance, heck, most of programmers and management are russian and participate actively in the russian forum.

 

I really want that ED start working on the R27 and R77 improvements, but you need to stop acting like a child talking about conspiracies.

Why is it that EVERY Westener that reads this guy's post think's he's thinking about conspiracies? The guy literally reports what happens and then they call him crazy.

On 8/6/2020 at 4:12 AM, pepin1234 said:

 

Is obvious you don’t support any improvement on the Russian side fighter. Because you fight against them having fun how they get struggled trying to do something.

 

As you disrespectfully ask me to stop use my freedom of comment the true and unfair situation in this particular case. I respectfully ask you move on and let the people ask for fair things. You are free to comment in the F-18 forum. Nobody stop you... I will not go there to wish bad things for your enjoyment. You are free, let the people be as well. Otherwise you are trying to behave in a dictatorship environment.

I'm seriously starting to consider moving next to an ex gulag. It's getting scary over in the West. Ironic no? They've been brainwashed too much. Hey, at least this guy was respectful, should've seen the first guy.

On 8/6/2020 at 4:26 AM, Lt_Jaeger said:

You should read and understand the whole post hb made.

 

Yes, they improved chaff resistance for all aim-54 but declared in the same post, that it is a interim solution until Ed figured out the new msl model to be then toned down again. Did you read also that the aim 54 isn't worth anything in the moment due to the F-14 radar being bent and this not being fixed in the next patch. Oh, there are some aim 54 guiding problems too.

Guess not, otherwise you wouldn't wine about your conspiracy.

 

Maybe I should claim that the Russian developers sabotage the western planes. Yeap, as silly as your claim.

 

Said that I would be more than happy to get my hands on some decent eastern planes. Got the Fishbed and will for sure will get the Flogger. Would love a Fencer and Fitter as well......

 

 

Gesendet von meinem LYA-L29 mit Tapatalk

What you fail to understand is that you're talking to someone from a COMPLETELY different culture than yours that barely knows how to put words in English together and yet, ALL OF YOU, expect him to think the exact same way you already do. Which is at the very least, taking things for granted. When you grew up in a real totalitarian environment CONTROL does exist, or the appearance of it, so your mind goes to blame those in power AUTOMATICALLY. Freedom is a two side sword.

On 8/6/2020 at 4:46 AM, falcon_120 said:

 

Please, dont do the you are not with me so you are against me thing. Still ridiculous.

 

Not only I want r27 and r77 to be improved, I said in this same forum (you can search my posts) that i think its time for ED to introduce other more modern variants like the R77-1. And one of my favourite all time planes, i would buy on day one is the Su30 in any of its variants (A su30MKI would be amazing and could be done by a third party)

 

 

 

Fair enough. You are free to speak up about whatever you like, it is not my intention to tell you otherwise. If anything, my reply was concerning "how" you present your disconfort and how you talk about conspiracies. Which i still believe is not the reasons for what is happening.

 

On the other hand many of your points are valid and need attention by ED. We need better ECM implementation, reworked r27/r77 and in general, more modern russian fighters.

 

Would you ask a Martian to eat pasta with a Fork or with a Spoon? Why do you expect a Slav to behave and think like a Westener?

P.S. THANK YOU for being respectful.

On 8/6/2020 at 2:12 PM, BlackPixxel said:

 

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

 

Controls systems are one thing, digital computers that EMULATE control systems are another and there were very powerful specialized analog computers.

On 8/6/2020 at 2:26 PM, Fri13 said:

 

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.

Lawyer?

 

Thank You!!