A little May update about MiG-19P

Cool stuff!

 

Is it still planned for a release this year?

In this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=213418 it was said to be coming this year.

Let’s hope it’s still on track. :)

The F-14 is great and all but it’s really the MiG-19 that i can’t wait to fly this year.:pilotfly:

Beautiful images! This is gonna be great!

R-3S salvo fire test. Missiles are launched one after the other with a 3 seconds interval.

1st. Missile fired

2nd one got the target.

Ok, that does it. I shouldn't have asked for images. You're killing me there, buddy :pilotfly:

Can't wait to see how well she performs against the F-5 on my server!

... and by the way, it looks like the first missile was fired from afar. Maybe that's why it missed.

R-3S salvo fire test. Missiles are launched one after the other with a 3 seconds interval.

(Snip)

Very nice! :thumbup:

I would like to point out, and this is something your team may want to look into in regards to the stock R-3S: every missile introduced by Leatherneck has been having performance issues related to how they angle acceleration/AoA. Magnitude 3 was 'looking into it' last I checked, and it is on their bug forum:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3609750

This bug does include the R-3S that we have right now in the game, and as I understand it weapons are shared between planes in the game code (Which means the L-39 has this problem, too). Which may be why your first shot missed. It may be worth looking into changing the missile to match the performance of the GAR-8 if this problem persists.

Yes. Auditor is right.

Besides the current bugs on the R-3S... Leatherneck/Magnitude3 version of the missile is not as well simulated first generation IR missile. It tracks and fly more like a modern missile.

In real life R-3S is a direct copy of GAR-8 (AIM-9B), down to the part numbers. difference is a heavier warhead on R-3S.

DCS World has a very detailed GAR-8 that was created by Belsimtek for the F-86 and F-5E.

For optimal simulation and accuracy I would suggest to re-use GAR-8 missile code and also add additional explosives to the warhead. It would make a sense from both simulation and gameplay point. Cold War NATO and Soviet with equally capable missiles.

Thanks for the updates Zeus67. Will buy this one for sure :thumbup:

EDIT for inspiration. Found a video of live fire of R-3S. As you can see, the real missile did actually fly like a "snake" in those days, that is why it was called a sidewinder :)

Great video, Schmidtfire. :thumbup:

I, too, would love to see the classic snaking motion on our older sidewinder-based missiles. It may be something to just think about if Razbam takes initiative on fixing the R-3S before M3.

In real life R-3S is a direct copy of GAR-8 (AIM-9B), down to the part numbers. difference is a heavier warhead on R-3S.

R-3S never was a direct copy of AIM-9B. R-3S missile got lot of changes, different warhead, totally new gas generator ( source of power on missile's aboard, prolonged systems life time from 11 to 21 seconds ), different body construction, changes in engine, and rollerons with totally new construction ( with after launch safety blokade which don't exist on the AIM-9B ). Only IR seeker retained without bigger changes . We can say that generally was a new missile inspired by AIM-9B.

R-3 was strict copy of Sidewinder, but only few hundreds were produced, and she never saw regular service in units.

Just ignore him...

(Snip)

Looks great! Are the lighting effects going to be a bit closer to how the Mig-15 looks?

R-3S never was a direct copy of AIM-9B. R-3S missile got lot of changes, different warhead, totally new gas generator ( source of power on missile's aboard, prolonged systems life time from 11 to 21 seconds ), different body construction, changes in engine, and rollerons with totally new construction ( with after launch safety blokade which don't exist on the AIM-9B ). Only IR seeker retained without bigger changes . We can say that generally was a new missile inspired by AIM-9B.

R-3 was strict copy of Sidewinder, but only few hundreds were produced, and she never saw regular service in units.

I would like to see a source on this, because this sounds more like you're describing the R-13.

The R-3S, however, is almost identical mechanics wise. Even the rocket engine itself is thought to be a copy.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/r3.htm

All R-3 variants are powered by the DWP-80A, a single-stage, solid fuel rocket motor. Given how faithfully the guidance system of the R-3S was copied from the AIM-9B, it is probable that the DWP-80A is a direct copy of the Thiokol Mk.17

Just ignore him...

I don't think ignoring people is the answer, we need to have these conversations because it's important if we wish to have the most accurate experience possible.

That said, I'm not sure if Razbam or any of their developers are even going to touch the R-3S in its current state. Would like confirmation if that's being worked on or if it's being deferred back to M3.

Nothing to see. Finished mapping the electrical system. Now all systems only work if there is electrical power for them.

 

 

You will have to click on a lot of switches. :smartass:

If you're working on this module now, who is finishing off the M2000 and Harrier?

I thought Overstratos' team was supposed to be a seperate team for the -19 and -23?

Thank you, Schmidtfire, for the video! Very nice to see that missile flying like a snake into the air. A very nice feature to have in DCS. Pretty much like firing a Vikhr from the Ka-50. The missile does sway from left to right, and the faster it flies the less swaying there is.

I love small details :thumbup:

I would like to see a source on this, because this sounds more like you're describing the R-13.

The R-3S, however, is almost identical mechanics wise. Even the rocket engine itself is thought to be a copy.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/r3.htm

Uncle Google is able find proofs in few seconds, technical description is achievable, lot of photos for compare technical differences. Everything what you need is time, and russian language knowledge.

PRD-80A wasn't direct copy of Thiokol, is one from many Cold War myts. Soviet engine was shorter ( 1570 mm vs 1900 mm in AIM-9B ), burning time up to 3,2 sec ( AIM-9B - 2,2 sec ), max thrust impulse 38 kN vs 36,47 kN of AIM-9B.

IR seeker gimbal limits +- 28 deg for R-3S, +- 25 deg for AIM-9B, R-3S max range 7,6 km, AIM-9B max range 4,8 km........ .

AIM-9B rolleron.

R-3S/R rolleron.

I remember reading about a GAR-8 getting lodged in the fuselage of a Chinese mig-15 near Taiwan, and that being used to reverse engineer it? So far as to included exact part numbers? Is that not true or are you talking about later models on one or both sides?

Yes, Soviets got missiles from Chinese military, and they copied them - this way was created R-3. But very small number of those missiles were produced and they never were used in operational units. Soviets quick realized that AIM-9B have a lot of shortcommings and those can be improved. So keeping aerodynamical layout, they changed many internal things and R-3S show up. Conclusion is simple: R-3S is inspired by AIM-9B/R-3, not copied from.

Uncle Google is able find proofs in few seconds, technical description is achievable, lot of photos for compare technical differences. Everything what you need is time, and russian language knowledge.

PRD-80A wasn't direct copy of Thiokol, is one from many Cold War myts. Soviet engine was shorter ( 1570 mm vs 1900 mm in AIM-9B ), burning time up to 3,2 sec ( AIM-9B - 2,2 sec ), max thrust impulse 38 kN vs 36,47 kN of AIM-9B.

IR seeker gimbal limits +- 28 deg for R-3S, +- 25 deg for AIM-9B, R-3S max range 7,6 km, AIM-9B max range 4,8 km........ .

 

 

 

AIM-9B rolleron.

 

 

 

R-3S/R rolleron.

Could you provide a link, then? Because all the sources I find state that it is 100% a copy:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/missile-air-air-atoll-also-designated-k-13-aa-2

https://www.plane-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/aim-9-sidewinder-missile-series/

https://theaviationist.com/tag/aa-2-atoll/

And even in this book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qh5lffww-KsC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=AA-2+missile+history&source=bl&ots=jDDYF2BxTv&sig=yR1tcTpAqYXuWSa4qpdLWt7yLmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6ioqboq7dAhVIvFMKHWcnC304ChDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=AA-2%20missile%20history&f=false

All of them mentioning that the R-3S and the AIM-9 were such a close relation to one another that parts could be substituted off one and placed on the other.

If you have sources to the contrary, I would like to see them.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but every source Uncle Google is giving me is telling me that they are indeed copies of one another. If the R-3S has better performance than the GAR-8, that would be good news for me because I want the 19 to have the best missiles possible.

Thank you, Schmidtfire, for the video! Very nice to see that missile flying like a snake into the air. A very nice feature to have in DCS. Pretty much like firing a Vikhr from the Ka-50. The missile does sway from left to right, and the faster it flies the less swaying there is.

I love small details

I want this to be a thing, as well. However, we're still not sure if Razbam is even going to update the R-3S we already have to behave like it should. It may come down to M3, and that is going to be a battle all on its own.

I just want to tell my opinion without any knowledge, just some believes...

I have as well read that soviet made direct copy that you could use any parts from either ones.

But I never stopped to think... Why?

Soviets has policy to make own little better than counter part it would get challenged by. Like 10-15% better where it mattered.

So why would they make a direct copy, instead improve what they found out?

When you dissemble something, you must learn why it is so, otherwise you can't make a copy even. As you can't produce anything of you don't know how it is made.

And once you learn why and how things are done, you can modify it, improve it if you know how.

Like there are these claims that Soviets didn't manage to do anything well with missiles. Like how a R-27 is so terrible and weak and R-77 failed etc.

Yet for decades they didn't swap R-27 to anything else... They didn't need to developed R-77 to replace R-27...

Why? Because they knew that fighters with those would get shot down without a change because those were so bad, because lack of funds they couldn't make fighters capable to do what designed and be just dead targets to shoot anyways?

Why to save money if you waste it all for weapons that doesn't work in first place and keep doing it for decades?

Same thing, if you get enemy weapons, and copy it... Why not make it better if you are going to use it in first place?

If you have a change to make it fly further, faster and track better... Why not? After all over half the work is already done for you!

Were Soviets thinking they could supply enemy with their missiles, or use their missiles to supply own fighters?

It is actually interesting how little information there really is from Soviets weapons, even from users itself, as there were iron curtain blocking information and feeding false information even to pilots.

Espionage was biggest threat in both sides, and pilots as engineers spying and leading information to West in promise for a lot of money was huge problem.

Inputting all information to pilots handbooks and giving them to pilots at homes etc? Hah....

If you can give an enemy false information, that is better than no information leaked...

--

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.....

Thank you, Schmidtfire, for the video! Very nice to see that missile flying like a snake into the air. A very nice feature to have in DCS. Pretty much like firing a Vikhr from the Ka-50. The missile does sway from left to right, and the faster it flies the less swaying there is. I love small details :thumbup:

Here is another "rare" video. 7:45 in - Launch of R-3R! :)

On the R-3S and GAR-8 subject. A lot of sources claims them to be almost identical and that the parts can be swapped between them.

But foxbat155 might be right that some modifications was done. Why create an equally good missile without making any improvements?

Warhead was changed to be heavier. But was it more effective? Other stuff like electronics, fuzing etc. was dependent on Soviet industry, so while very similar, there must have been some differences in guidence/performance. Good or bad.

I have also read multiple sources on differences in system lifetime, so that is probably true aswell.

R-3S has been used for such a long time, there should be a lot of documents on it. I guess a lot of confusion comes from a mixup between the R-3, R-3S, R-13 models.

The thing about current R-3S in DCS (beside performance bug) is that in my point of view, it guides and tracks more like a modern missile. It pulls G's right off the rails, when the GAR-8 need time after launch to start steering and correct it's flightpath. Current DCS R-3S is still over performing in-close against a manouvering target. It lead-pursuits a hell lot better.

Maybe R-3S was just that good IRL, but im very doubtful about that :p

In the late 1960s Israel captured a load of R-3S (AA-2) from Egyptian airfields in the Sinai - and not only tested them they pressed them into service (apparently)

They found it comparable overall to the AIM-9B and thought both were better than the Shafrir 1. They also state it was inferior to the Shafrir 2 and AIM-9D.

A lot were fired by the VPAF in an actual combat environment. A lot missed just like the AIM-9B, even firing it in parameters at a level flying target is no guarantee of a hit, these early missiles often went stupid or were easily distracted by minor heat sources (clouds etc).

Of course for a computer game like this I expect they are pepped up a bit to keep the players happy.

Pictures posted by me few posts earlier shows different rollerons, small proof that already missiles wasn't 100% interchangeable, lot of others parameters ( seeker gimbal limits, range, weight etc ) clearly show that those missiles differs and because of this parts cannot be placed each other ( maybe except screws ) . Those book stories are just kind of urban stories, some kind of memories colorization. True source is original manual. I don't judging which missile was better ( data shows that R-3S was slight better, but this really deciding in combat situation? ), but for me one thing is sure: Soviets appreciated AIM-9 simplificity, production easiness, and created own missile, tailored to they's own production and service standards. They copied ideas not missiles. Many modern technical devices are very simmilar, using many simmilar technical solutions but this not means that they are interchangeable.

I just want to tell my opinion without any knowledge, just some believes...

 

I have as well read that soviet made direct copy that you could use any parts from either ones.

 

But I never stopped to think... Why?

 

Soviets has policy to make own little better than counter part it would get challenged by. Like 10-15% better where it mattered.

 

So why would they make a direct copy, instead improve what they found out?

 

When you dissemble something, you must learn why it is so, otherwise you can't make a copy even. As you can't produce anything of you don't know how it is made.

 

And once you learn why and how things are done, you can modify it, improve it if you know how.

 

Like there are these claims that Soviets didn't manage to do anything well with missiles. Like how a R-27 is so terrible and weak and R-77 failed etc.

Yet for decades they didn't swap R-27 to anything else... They didn't need to developed R-77 to replace R-27...

Why? Because they knew that fighters with those would get shot down without a change because those were so bad, because lack of funds they couldn't make fighters capable to do what designed and be just dead targets to shoot anyways?

 

Why to save money if you waste it all for weapons that doesn't work in first place and keep doing it for decades?

 

Same thing, if you get enemy weapons, and copy it... Why not make it better if you are going to use it in first place?

 

If you have a change to make it fly further, faster and track better... Why not? After all over half the work is already done for you!

 

Were Soviets thinking they could supply enemy with their missiles, or use their missiles to supply own fighters?

 

It is actually interesting how little information there really is from Soviets weapons, even from users itself, as there were iron curtain blocking information and feeding false information even to pilots.

Espionage was biggest threat in both sides, and pilots as engineers spying and leading information to West in promise for a lot of money was huge problem.

 

Inputting all information to pilots handbooks and giving them to pilots at homes etc? Hah....

 

If you can give an enemy false information, that is better than no information leaked...

 

 

 

 

--

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.....

I put the part that I wanted to respond to in bold. While I do appreciate the sentiment, and it is true that information on old soviet technology is fairly spotty as well. At the same time, this is a simulator and the idea is to get the most real experience possible with the information that we have available to us. We don't always have that luxury, and many times we have to use estimations or second hand accounts

Granted, most of the information I've posted so far are not in-depth looks into the missiles. They're just things that mention how the AA-2 came into being. None of them look into the mass-production missile at any serious length, and they don't bother trying to compare differences or go any more in-depth than just mentioning it like a tidbit.

foxbat155 makes a good point about the rollerons: they're very clearly different on some level mechanics wise, but we don't know how different and at what scale. Which is why we need to have these conversations so we can put together the best evidence we have to make the most accurate picture of how it truly handled.

I would like to know if Basher54321 has a link to any sources that detail the Israeli capture of those missiles, because that's very interesting.

I would like to know if Basher54321 has a link to any sources that detail the Israeli capture of those missiles, because that's very interesting.

2004 Alomi.S Israeli Mirage & Nesher Aces p47

UARAF lost 4 bases in Sinai with ammo depots - 2012 Arab Migs Vol 3 p218