Missile Dynamics - A discussion

Interesting reading.

http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm

N019M is an updated version, developed as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Tested from 1986, it entered limited production in 1991. N019M allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Range increased slightly to 80km. Originally intended to be fitted to the existing MiG-29 fleet as an upgrade, about 22 aircraft with N019M are thought to have entered service with the VVS.

KOLS

Fitted to the MiG-29A, KOLS is a combined IRST/LR device. All aspect device. Acquires targets independently, or with data input from the radar. Can detect a non-afterburning fighter head-on at a range of 12-18km. The collimated laser can provide ranging data from 200-6500m accurate to 3m. Scanning limits are ±30° azimuth, -15°/+30° elevation.

Operates in several scanning modes. In large FOV mode scanning is ±30° azimuth, +30°/15° elevation. In small FOV mode scanning limits are ±30° azimuth and ±15° elevation. Close combat mode scans +16° to -14° by 4°. Lock-on mode scans 6° x 4°. Target tracking rate is up to 30°/sec.

OLS-27

A combined IRST/LR device for the Su-27, similar to the MiG-29's KOLS but more sophisticated, using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor.

Search limits are ±60deg azimuth, +60/-15° in elevation. Three different FOVs are used, 60° by 10°, 20° by 5°, and 3° by 3°.

OLS-27K for Su-33 featured new algorithms and better processor. It allegedly tracked targets in pursuit mode by their IR signature at 90 km during tests.

SPO-15

If the hostile radar switches to tracking (STT) the red circle will flash and a continuous high pitched audio tone will sound.

When a SAM launch is detected a continuous variable pitch sound will be given.

Interesting reading.

 

http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm

 

N019M is an updated version, developed as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Tested from 1986, it entered limited production in 1991. N019M allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Range increased slightly to 80km. Originally intended to be fitted to the existing MiG-29 fleet as an upgrade, about 22 aircraft with N019M are thought to have entered service with the VVS.

Limited, so it could be 2 to???, about 22 aircraft might have this N019M. If so, how many are still flying, what other upgrades have happen since 1991?

KOLS

Fitted to the MiG-29A, KOLS is a combined IRST/LR device. All aspect device. Acquires targets independently, or with data input from the radar. Can detect a non-afterburning fighter head-on at a range of 12-18km. The collimated laser can provide ranging data from 200-6500m accurate to 3m. Scanning limits are ±30° azimuth, -15°/+30° elevation.

Operates in several scanning modes. In large FOV mode scanning is ±30° azimuth, +30°/15° elevation. In small FOV mode scanning limits are ±30° azimuth and ±15° elevation. Close combat mode scans +16° to -14° by 4°. Lock-on mode scans 6° x 4°. Target tracking rate is up to 30°/sec.

OLS-27

A combined IRST/LR device for the Su-27, similar to the MiG-29's KOLS but more sophisticated, using a cooled, broader waveband, sensor.

Search limits are ±60deg azimuth, +60/-15° in elevation. Three different FOVs are used, 60° by 10°, 20° by 5°, and 3° by 3°.

OLS-27K for Su-33 featured new algorithms and better processor. It allegedly tracked targets in pursuit mode by their IR signature at 90 km during tests.

 

 

If the hostile radar switches to tracking (STT) the red circle will flash and a continuous high pitched audio tone will sound.

I'll have to look at this later when I get back from work in about 4 hours. Thx for the link :)

I will chuck this in here:

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId611424

Now about the M-link... if when launching the SARH R-27 the M-link is generated and transmitted by the launching aircraft radar, and this is "seen" by the targeted aircraft RWR as clear radar wave signature of missile lunch at it... then how is it possible that AIM-120 launch that also needs this M-link to be guided by the radar during initial flight phase... be "silent" on RWR?

That is to me clearly equivalent of "double standard" in laws of physics (both launches need radar freq wavelengths) and one is "seen" as clear missile launch signature and the other doesn't? Physics doesn't distinguish between US and Russian equipment so unless Russian RWR is really "dumb" I don't see this being possible.

Kuky its NOT the M link that triggers RWR its the change in main radar waveform in the launch process that triggers the RWR change in status from STT to Guidance waveform ... indicative of a launch in process. This is a very common almost generic RWR type trigger for many systems including SAM's. Now no such thing happens with AIM120 or R77 but it does for AIM7/R27.

See my post about 4 posts up

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1621502&postcount=50

I saw that post... this is basically what we have in sim already. I am still puzzled though why if all these missiles (R-27, AIM-7, AIM-120, R-77) have INS guidance at first, they are not accurately guided, instead just approximated and only at terminal stage they get proper accurate guidance (isn't this what should be triggering the missile warning?) for SARH this guidance is from aircraft RADAR and for AR it's from their own radar?

Say if I was to make program for SARH guidance, I would most certainly not code it so that I immediately start transmitting accurate guidance to the missile... if my radar knows initial position and I achieve STT lock and transfer this data to the missile and let it off the rail... I would want it to get closer first before my radar starts accurate guidance and consequently broadcasting everywhere that I have shot a missile at you from far away... it just seems the most dumbest thing to do intentionally...

If I understood this correctly, isn't the reason for this specifically the tuning of the guidance waveform on radar and the missile? This is out of my area, so to speak, but from what I understand it's not enough to have "a" guidance waveform; you need to tune them as well so radar and missile is in "sync" so to speak.

As for why to do this? To ensure that if you and your wingman both fire, your missile will go to your target and not his target. And to do this tuning, there obviously needs to be that waveform to tune to - meaning you must "broadcast" your intentions before the weapon leaves the aircraft. (Compare to passing info to a JDAM.)

I don't know enough about what happens exactly during the launch of a 120 and 77 to figure out the differences there, though.

Well that's the thing EtherealN, I don't get why this "talk" between radar and missile in one instance would trigger RWR and in another instance it doesn't? It just doesn't make any sense. In either way with any of these SARH and AR missiles there needs to be some link between radar and missile, so why would one be triggering RWR and other one wouldn't?

Well that's the thing EtherealN, I don't get why this "talk" between radar and missile in one instance would trigger RWR and in another instance it doesn't? It just doesn't make any sense. In either way with any of these SARH and AR missiles there needs to be some link between radar and missile, so why would one be triggering RWR and other one wouldn't?

Kuky its not the "talk" between the missile and radar that triggers the RWR (that actually happens by the umbilical link so its secure anyway) its the change in Host radars wave form to a guidance suitable wave form*. Consider it dumb whatever you like the fact is that is what happens. it does in the AIM7 thats a FACT, it almost certainly happens with the R27 as well. It even happened in Steam weapons like the R530 ... though it took a whole lot longer !

The reason you don't get RWR from the AIM120 (or I guess R77) is that there is no tell tale change in radar signature from the firing aircraft at launch.

Its also a fact that it happens with many Russian Semi Active SAMS as well. Its a very common trigger used by countless RWR systems to indicate the shift from ACQUISTION to ENGAGEMENT.

As to dear old Carlo I grimace at the mention of his name :) nice looking articles though I agree.

*also as Etheral mentions specific handshake between Missile and Radar regarding exactly what freq they are going to use for "this" engagement is a requirement in the multi aircraft scenario. If everybody launched on the same freq pandemonium would ensue.

Alfa you said:

" So the radar does initiate an M-link at the point of launch and the R-27R/ER does have antennas(rectangular vanes on the seeker section) to recieve updates"

Are you referring to the red rectangular sections between the Canard and main fins ? I think these are Influence fuse antennae.

As to dear old Karlo I grimace at the mention of his name :)

let me guess... you know him?

No I dont but I do know what most of the Australian defence (in the fighter field) establishment think of him. He is kind of like Australia's version of Yeffim Gordon :)

There are things about these missiles that we will never know. This stuff is top secret! If I were to be able to fly in a simulator, I wouldn't even be allowed to use 120's or AIM-7's. When I got my flight my pilot said I don't care if you take pictures, just don't take pictures or video of the radar/MFD's. There is a reason for that stuff, don't want info leaked on the web. We only get a small portion of what's going on with these missiles. I've talk to a few friends that flew F-16's and they couldn't tell me anything about the 120's, besides the obvious. One actually came to my house in Alaska and flew Lock on when it first came out and laughed at the 120 in game. Just like the F-22/PK/J-20, that stuff is keep in hiding.

When I got my flight my pilot said I don't care if you take pictures, just don't take pictures or video of the radar/MFD's.

True but..I think it's mostly related to the general policy of not taking any chances with civilians on board rather then seeing something you haven't already seen, to some extent simulated, in a simulator.

Are you referring to the red rectangular sections between the Canard and main fins ?

Yes I was, but considering that the R-27T in your photo seems to have them too(didn't recall that being the case) they can't be what I thought they were.

I think these are Influence fuse antennae.

Possibly yes.

There are things about these missiles that we will never know. This stuff is top secret! If I were to be able to fly in a simulator, I wouldn't even be allowed to use 120's or AIM-7's. When I got my flight my pilot said I don't care if you take pictures, just don't take pictures or video of the radar/MFD's. There is a reason for that stuff, don't want info leaked on the web. We only get a small portion of what's going on with these missiles. I've talk to a few friends that flew F-16's and they couldn't tell me anything about the 120's, besides the obvious. One actually came to my house in Alaska and flew Lock on when it first came out and laughed at the 120 in game. Just like the F-22/PK/J-20, that stuff is keep in hiding.

Ill say it again to show you my point of view Cali.

The point, in real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss. You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games. That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while.

This is proven to work in GI multiplayer campaign since the opponents don't know if they are fired upon by R or ER they have to take same defensive maneuvers as it would be ER.

Ill say it again to show you my point of view Cali.

The point, in real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss. You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games. That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while.

+1

Ill say it again to show you my point of view Cali.

The point, in real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss. You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games. That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while.

+1

Ill say it again to show you my point of view Cali.

The point, in real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss. You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games. That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while.

 

This is proven to work in GI multiplayer campaign since the opponents don't know if they are fired upon by R or ER they have to take same defensive maneuvers as it would be ER.

And how is this relevant when we are actively engaged in a concerted effort to identify problems and improve Missile Dynamics?

How does that help in identifying and rectifying issues?

I've read it three times now and I'm not seeing it........:helpsmilie:

And how is this relevant when we are actively engaged in a concerted effort to identify problems and improve Missile Dynamics?

 

How does that help in identifying and rectifying issues?

 

I've read it three times now and I'm not seeing it........:helpsmilie:

My same thought.

Ill say it again to show you my point of view Cali.

The point, in real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss. You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games. That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while.

 

You said it, some people are very good at exploiting loopholes in the game which ruin it for people that play fair. Making missiles more deadlier is going to change what? In FC2 you had to put 2-3 missiles into people ate some times, in FC3 putting 1 is going to fix what? At least in FC2 we had some sort of nice failure rate and things not working correct all the time. Another thing, missiles aren't a magical weapons, they do fail like everything else. This argument can go on for days.

And how is this relevant when we are actively engaged in a concerted effort to identify problems and improve Missile Dynamics?

 

How does that help in identifying and rectifying issues?

 

I've read it three times now and I'm not seeing it........:helpsmilie:

lol

ps:Sorry dude but this gives me a good laugh

Now I know that man sees what he wants to see.

Ill say it again to show you my point of view Cali.

The point, in real life you would never tell your self this missile is bad so I pincer and wait, I know it will miss.

I don't know of whom devised the tactical premises by which you operate, but if one wants to survive, they respect *all* threats well enough to understand their effective capabilities within the framework of intelligence their air force has. Anything else is tantamount to suicide.

The flip side of this is that the pilot on the other side is going to utilize the weapons in a fashion that increases their PK. That demands tactics and guile, something that appears to be outside the framework of your willingness to simulate within the context of FC3.

You react different since you cant relay on your gathered intelligence as you can in games.

Seriously- what?

You act as though a trained fighter pilot in a serious air force doesn't have reasonably valid intelligence data to act upon. I hate to tell you- opposing nations have a much better understanding of the combat potential of opposing threats than Kopp, Gordon, Brassey's, or Jane's would have you believe. Further, the laws of physics (which govern maneuvering potential, range, and detection) do not change.

Effective response against inbound threats is built upon this information, whether you happen to like that fact or not.

That's why to emit this situation in a simulation you have to make missile deadly on both sides so the level of realism reaches in another point then just technical where the pilots learn how to exploit it after a while.

Don't *ever* make this argument, then proceed to tell someone how you want an apparent level of realism. Especially when the object of your affections is the R-27 Alamo- a weapon that, for all its storied history, can only be linked (through circumstantial evidence) to the destruction of ONE opposing aircraft, against dozens of combat launches.

ONE KILL.

You don't want to simulate the challenge of using Red Air against the F-15; you want balance through hand holding. Forget the fact that the R-27- you demand that it have functionality bringing it to some level of employment parity with the Slammer, a weapon that is technologically generations beyond the capability of the Alamo (let alone the R-77).

Tell me- what training/research value is a simulation in which a known variable is intentionally fudged to bring a level of equality?

Zero.

This is proven to work in GI multiplayer campaign since the opponents don't know if they are fired upon by R or ER they have to take same defensive maneuvers as it would be ER.

Yawn.

The funniest part of this conversation is that it wasn't really all that long ago that because of their performance deficiencies, F-15s were having to employ their weapons in the fashion outlined by Soviet doctrine in this *simulation*. Red Air proponents cried about AMRAAM spamming, while factual, unclassified data points on the AIM-120's performance was put forward by the Eagle fans.

Then something happened; the Slammer got dangerous. Not as dangerous as it would be in RL, but enough to make Red Air complain that it's not *fair*. And in reply there is not fact, but voluminous amounts of opinion, and a lot of bunk as to how SARH missiles function. TWS doesn't work. Missile launch for an SARH gives the waveform shift.

OH DEAR!!!1!

It all points to an unwillingness to use the Su-27, Su-33, and MiG-29 as the circumstances would demand, and how their RL operators doctrine outlined, instead expecting to be made peer against the most advanced BVR fighter of its generation. It's a disservice to the intended experience of simulating the environment, and is an insult to the pilots of post-Soviet types from the late 80's to the modern era. You wish to hold them on a pedestal and tell us about how skillful they are, and how powerful their weapons are, yet you are totally unwilling to accept a level of challenge commiserate to what they would have faced. No- you want parity in employment capability.

It's pathetic when one considers how fundamentally neutered the Eagle is in FC.

Red Air proponents plying such a trade no longer get to make claims about desiring increased realism. None. Nada. Not allowed. Does not compute. No comprende. Disavowed. No mas. Do not pass "Go", do not collect 200 internetz.

lol

 

ps:Sorry dude but this gives me a good laugh

Now I know that man sees what he wants to see.

The blind leading the blind :D

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cali/GGTharos/IvanK/Viper again."

If only one could spam rep like people should be the R-27...

I will chuck this in here:

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId611424

 

Now about the M-link... if when launching the SARH R-27 the M-link is generated and transmitted by the launching aircraft radar, and this is "seen" by the targeted aircraft RWR as clear radar wave signature of missile lunch at it... then how is it possible that AIM-120 launch that also needs this M-link to be guided by the radar during initial flight phase... be "silent" on RWR?

 

That is to me clearly equivalent of "double standard" in laws of physics (both launches need radar freq wavelengths) and one is "seen" as clear missile launch signature and the other doesn't? Physics doesn't distinguish between US and Russian equipment so unless Russian RWR is really "dumb" I don't see this being possible.

Without knowing anything about how any this actually works, wouldn't one relying on an STT lock logically have something to with the difference in launch detection. By your logic while in TWS mode every RWR in the radar's field of view would get a launch warning from the single launch on the PDT. All targets in your scan cone see you nose hot, but nothing distinctly indicates to any of them that they are being tracked. While a STT lock is more immediately focused, that intent has already grabbed full attention of the RWR.