The Missiles Thread.

Hello, everyone! I thought I'd post this thread, as I have a few questions about the real versions of DCS missiles (and some that aren't in DCS), and I'm sure others do, as well. Anyways, I was wondering what the real 'ranges' (I know that a lot of factors are involved) of the AIM-120B/C, R-27ER1/ET1, R-73 and R-77 are, as I've seen ranges of ~100km for the AIM-120B/C, ~80km for the R-27ER1/ET1, ~20-30km for the R-73, and ~80km for the R-77, which obviously isn't the case in the game. The encyclopedia-listed ranges are a good deal shorter-ranged, and the actual launch ranges shorter still. Also, I have a few questions about missiles that aren't in DCS. So, here goes:

1-What are the 'real ranges' for the AIM-120B/C, R-27ER1/ET1, R-73, and R-77?

2-What about the AIM-120D, MBDA Meteor, R-73M, R-74, and R-77-1?

3-What version is the in-game R-73? Is it the baseline R-73, or at least the R-73E?

4-Between the AIM-120D, MBDA Meteor, and R-77-1, which is probably the most capable? I'd also like just general information on the three, in particular the Meteor.

The first two are easy...

1. Anyone who knows won't say

2. Anyone who knows won't say

Hello, everyone! I thought I'd post this thread, as I have a few questions about the real versions of DCS missiles (and some that aren't in DCS), and I'm sure others do, as well. Anyways, I was wondering what the real 'ranges' (I know that a lot of factors are involved) of the AIM-120B/C, R-27ER1/ET1, R-73 and R-77 are, as I've seen ranges of ~100km for the AIM-120B/C, ~80km for the R-27ER1/ET1, ~20-30km for the R-73, and ~80km for the R-77, which obviously isn't the case in the game.

.. it isn't? :D

1-What are the 'real ranges' for the AIM-120B/C, R-27ER1/ET1, R-73, and R-77?

Depends, but vaguely speaking 120C > 120B ~= 27ER > R-77 > 27ET > 73

aaron is right, the above here is from what's been calculated or otherwise discovered.

2-What about the AIM-120D, MBDA Meteor, R-73M, R-74, and R-77-1?

Make your guess.

3-What version is the in-game R-73? Is it the baseline R-73, or at least the R-73E?

I figure it's the E (export)

4-Between the AIM-120D, MBDA Meteor, and R-77-1, which is probably the most capable? I'd also like just general information on the three, in particular the Meteor.

I'd guess the R-77-1 is the least capable. Between 120D and Meteor ... hm. Take your guess :D

You aren't going to get realistic answers in this thread unless someone wants to get a security violation... but all missiles have much larger ranges than what's modeled in game. DCS missile mod does a decent job for publicly available drag indexes and such, would suggest trying that out to see how far you can get your amraams (you can get very far launches beyond what the radar scope in game will tell you), but even that doesn't simulate the realistic flyout of them. DCS you really have to go in with a launch and decide mentality every time, IRL there might be multiple leaves of launch and leave because the ranges allow that before you have to go into a merge but here you shoot to gain an offensive advantage and hope for the best.

Ramjet >> No Ramjet

You aren't going to get realistic answers in this thread unless someone wants to get a security violation... but all missiles have much larger ranges than what's modeled in game. DCS missile mod does a decent job for publicly available drag indexes and such, would suggest trying that out to see how far you can get your amraams (you can get very far launches beyond what the radar scope in game will tell you), but even that doesn't simulate the realistic flyout of them. DCS you really have to go in with a launch and decide mentality every time, IRL there might be multiple leaves of launch and leave because the ranges allow that before you have to go into a merge but here you shoot to gain an offensive advantage and hope for the best.

I had the chance to watch F-16 and F-15 pilots practice a BVR "grind" over the gulf via satellite at Egland AFB. These were simulated engagements with the Aim-120C against other pilots playing adversary. You could see each pilot's HUD on the display screens, about 6 at a time.

The grind consisted of approximately 20nm separating 2-ship teams, about 6-8 pilots total. They took turns launching 120s and covering the other's egress. The adversary would be faced with a wall of amraams and be unable to enter the airspace (or die).

So, the professionals practice with the idea that they need additional support to "launch and leave" while keeping an acceptable pk for the missile. That kind of teamwork (and discipline) is pretty rare for your typical multiplayer server, but it would be interesting to see what can be done with the F/A-18C once it has the capability (with the F-15's boy-scout radar I don't think it's worth basing opinions on it).

Another difference is engagement altitude. Your typical multiplayer engagement is close to the ground because of the absence of SAMs. Missile range increases with altitude, and while DCS missiles might be short-legged, the vertically challenged combat of multiplayer exaggerates the effect.

:thumbup:

And that's exactly why everyone's buying Meteors instead of 120Ds.

Ramjet >> No Ramjet

The grind consisted of approximately 20nm separating 2-ship teams, about 6-8 pilots total. They took turns launching 120s and covering the other's egress. The adversary would be faced with a wall of amraams and be unable to enter the airspace (or die).

Thats interesting. If we assume they were flying at Med/High Alt and giving themselves room to extend (ie not pushing too close to RTR) than thats not too far removed from current DCS missile kinematics.

And that's exactly why everyone's buying Meteors instead of 120Ds.

You can get a free F16 with a multipack of Diet coke. Doesnt mean its the best.

Every man and his dog has one, and they probably would find it easier to purchase 120Ds than transition to a Meteor platform.

You can get a missile with a ramjet. Doesnt mean its the best.

FTFY :)

PS: DR was strapped onto 120's and 88's in '96 or '97. I wouldn't venture to guess why it was rejected back then - maybe it just wasn't their time yet even though the tests were deemed very promising. Haven't heard of any recent tests - which doesn't mean they aren't happening - and of course, not to say that the west hasn't been late to some form of party or another eg. HOBS missiles. Also, SAMs on both sides have had Ramjets as well - they were removed in favor of solid rockets, not the other way around.

Thats 20 years ago. MBDA are no slouches. When they say they have a missile that has a NEZ orders of magnitude more than anything else out there theyre not kidding. No one here has proof one way or another. But considering the technology theyre using and their track record I have no problem believing the Meteor is king of the hill till something else comes along with either similar or entirely "gamechanging" technology.

Thats 20 years ago. MBDA are no slouches. When they say they have a missile that has a NEZ orders of magnitude more than anything else out there theyre not kidding. No one here has proof one way or another. But considering the technology theyre using and their track record I have no problem believing the Meteor is king of the hill till something else comes along with either similar or entirely "gamechanging" technology.

I agree, the Meteor might be the missile with the best range-performance and longest Rtr but I don't know if that really matters that much to justify the cost. An AIM-120D already has more range than you'd ever really use in a realistic engagement (you wouldn't shoot your missiles at 100nm, right?), it doesn't need a booster to get it up to speed so it's close range performance is a lot better, and it costs less.

I agree, the Meteor might be the missile with the best range-performance and longest Rtr but I don't know if that really matters that much to justify the cost. An AIM-120D already has more range than you'd ever really use in a realistic engagement (you wouldn't shoot your missiles at 100nm, right?), it doesn't need a booster to get it up to speed so it's close range performance is a lot better, and it costs less.

Range is dependent on aspect though. Closer ranges in tail chase would pose lesser missiles problems. Equally, Meteor affords AFs the ability to use less aircraft to cover the same amount of airspace in a war scenario. Less sorties equals less cost.

Other things to consider regarding Meteor vs. 120D

Potential limits to employment range

-RoE

-Radar detection range vs low RCS opponents.

-Radar detection range vs jamming opponents.

-NCTR capability and range

-IFF capability

Other limiting factors that must be considered.

-Meteor's added size due the intakes.

-Meteor's added RCS due to the intakes.

-Meteor's cost (3 million vs 1.8 million of the 120D)

-OPSEC.. 6 euro nations working on one missile vs just the U.S. making the 120D.

-Missile Sensor capabilities (while I'm sure the meteor is highly advanced, history tells us that U.S. radar technology is superior to Euro manufacturers by ~7 years, and well beyond that of REDFOR nations)

In the end, for 5th gen fighters, it may be more important to have more missiles, or more advanced seekers, rather than longer range missiles.

Never the less, the Meteor is an intimidating threat in the 4th gen combat scenario. Especially against high value targets like AWACS and other ISR aircraft.

Other things to consider regarding Meteor vs. 120D

 

Potential limits to employment range

-RoE

-Radar detection range vs low RCS opponents.

-Radar detection range vs jamming opponents.

-NCTR capability and range

-IFF capability

Most of these issues can be mitigated with sensor fusion and some of the other advanced features that may be present such as buddy/awacs guiding etc. I really cant think of any reason why you would not want increased range, particularly NEZ.

In the end, for 5th gen fighters, it may be more important to have more missiles, or more advanced seekers, rather than longer range missiles.

I disagree. I think we're approaching a time where missiles are becoming much much more deadly. You cant 'dodge' them and you cant 'spoof' them. Youre best bet is to outrun them and avoid being caught within RTR.

Given the above I think reliable detection range (both launching platform and missile) and the size of NEZ will be the key dictators of air combat.

I wonder what will happen when laser-protection pods become standard. How will missiles deal with that?

But considering the technology theyre using and their track record I have no problem believing the Meteor is king of the hill till something else comes along with either similar or entirely "gamechanging" technology.

And I have no problem believing the AIM-120D is the king of the hill based on their multi-proven kill record of the AMRAAM 20 years ago :lol:

Nobody here knows the real answer, and if they did there is 0% chance they're going to tell a bunch of flight simmers.

I wonder what will happen when laser-protection pods become standard. How will missiles deal with that?

You need the pod to successfully detect an object with a frontal aspect the size of a human torso coming in at Mach 3, 4 or higher, at enough range so that you can eliminate it in a timely manner before it can hit the aircraft, either directly or through shrapnel. That sounds kind of tricky, but I'm oblivious to the specifics of how these pods work.

You're mostly right, but some vague statement have been made, like 'AMRAAM does 80% of the job for 50% of the cost' etc.

Hard to know what the missing 20% is or rather, if the range is the only contributor there ... or even if that statistic is at all correct! :)

Nobody here knows the real answer, and if they did there is 0% chance they're going to tell a bunch of flight simmers.

These threads inevitably turn into awkward childish nationalism with no facts and too many feelings. At least Beamscanner provided some interesting dicussion points instead of just listing opinions.

These threads inevitably turn into awkward childish nationalism with no facts and too many feelings. At least Beamscanner provided some interesting dicussion points instead of just listing opinions.

Well apart from this bit:

-(...)history tells us that U.S. radar technology is superior to Euro manufacturers by ~7 years, and well beyond that of REDFOR nations)

which is both nationalistic, and incorrect in fact, the obvious example being the MiG-31 which fielded an electronically scanned x band fire control radar in a fighter 10 years before the US did.

Neither the F-15A nor the early F-16's had radars notably more technologically advanced than their Russian contemporaries.

Yes, some soviet satellite countries held onto backwards gear for a long time (the USSR was never in a position to be able to give multiple allies a billion dollars a year to spend buying Soviet weapons), but so have some Western countries - both allies like ROC, and even in the 5 eyes intelligence inner circle - the NZ air-force never has never fielded a fighter more advanced than the Skyhawk (the US nearly persuaded us to buy F-16[the RNZA was so certain that it was going to happen that they commissioned an official celebratory 1/72nd kitset scale models with the expected markings & decals - I somehow have one in its box unmade], but in the end sanity prevailed).

Russia may have fielded only limited upgrades for a period after the collapse of the USSR - they were broke.

They've had a few decades of oil/as revenues to fund development, and to assume that they have led the US in SAM development and rocket technology for the entire post-war period, but can't keep up in radar technology seems naïve...

Well apart from this bit:

 

which is both nationalistic, and incorrect in fact, the obvious example being the MiG-31 which fielded an electronically scanned x band fire control radar in a fighter 10 years before the US did.

I'm very familiar with the Flashdance radar... And while they got a fighter ESA first, it's first iteration ended up under-performing (poor scan limits, detection range, waveform selection, etc.).

But if that's the logic were going to use, then the Russians have still failed to field an X band AESA radar for operational fighters. An achievement reached by the U.S. and Japan in 2000, then by France in 2012, and the CAPTOR-E and whatever SAAB has shortly after.

Neither the F-15A nor the early F-16's had radars notably more technologically advanced than their Russian contemporaries.

Planar Array design, superior memory and signal processing, mono-pulse tracking, number of weapons quality tracks, NCTR, Doppler Beam Sharpening (used with SCAN RAID), superior RWR tech (a by-product of superior radar engineering), ECCM countermeasures..

As an example, the AWG-9 and Highlark radars went operational in 1974 and 1972 respectively. Both fitted to newly introduced interceptors. The AWG-9 was a coherent pulse doppler radar that a had Planar array, mono-pulse tracking, coherent pulse integration (CPI), track while scan (24 targets), HPRF & LPRF waveforms, and sported a detection range of ~100nmi against a large fighter.

The Highlark was coherent, but was not pulse doppler, only used a LPRF waveform, had no multi-track capability, no mono-pulse receiver, non-coherent pulse integration (envelope detection), and a detection range of ~24nmi against a large fighter. The radar is said to have been similar to operational U.S. fighter radars from the 60s. More-over, they struggled to get the thing to work and ended up releasing the first MIG-23s with the old Jaybird radar from the MIG-21.

Russia may have fielded only limited upgrades for a period after the collapse of the USSR - they were broke.

They've had a few decades of oil/as revenues to fund development, and to assume that they have led the US in SAM development and rocket technology for the entire post-war period, but can't keep up in radar technology seems naïve...

My point exactly. Part of having inferior technology, is not having the funds to research, develop and test new designs. This also means less experience in the field. I don't presume that Russian engineers have lower IQs. :huh:

As for SAM developments, this ties into funding just explained. U.S. doctrine relies on air/naval dominance for offensive and defensive strategies, not SAM sites. Never the less, I wouldn't dare say that the THAAD's TPY-2, ARROW ll's Green Pine (joint venture with Israel), or the Patriot's MPQ-65 are inferior to Russia's S-400 system radars.

Russia has led the way with rocket design. They've put alot of money into it and made some risky moves that westerners didn't think could work (closed-cycle rocket engine design).

I disagree. I think we're approaching a time where missiles are becoming much much more deadly. You cant 'dodge' them and you cant 'spoof' them. Youre best bet is to outrun them and avoid being caught within RTR.

 

Given the above I think reliable detection range (both launching platform and missile) and the size of NEZ will be the key dictators of air combat.

As I said before, the U.S. is interested in more missiles with more advanced tech, rather than longer range missiles for 5th Gen fighters.

https://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

Also, a great article on the whole 'is the meteor worth it' for America topic.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4678/is-the-european-meteor-air-to-air-missile-really-the-best-in-the-world

The Highlark ............. no mono-pulse receiver

The last MiG radar that used conical scan for locking was MiG-21's RP-21. RP-22 from MiG-21bis is monopulse. MiG-23M, MF radars naturally are also monopulse. Even R-23R missile seeker is monopulse.

MiG-23M, MF radars - monopulse, inverse cassegrain antenna

MiG-23ML, MLD, P radars - monopulse, twist cassegrain antenna

How does the R-77-1 compare with the AMRAAM (any version)? And, is there a difference between the Mica EM and the Mica RF? What about between the Super 530D and the Super 530F?

The last MiG radar that used conical scan for locking was MiG-21's RP-21. RP-22 from MiG-21bis is monopulse. MiG-23M, MF radars naturally are also monopulse. Even R-23R missile seeker is monopulse.

 

MiG-23M, MF radars - monopulse, inverse cassegrain antenna

MiG-23ML, MLD, P radars - monopulse, twist cassegrain antenna

Nice. Didn't know the Highlark had mono-pulse detection. That being said I'm willing to bet it used amplitude comparison instead of phase comparison.