R-27R (not ER)

Looking for PvE servers with Ka-50. Ask yourself why the Red side suck. I will not take part of this show.

whole issue with R is that it sucks, whole issue with ER is that F-pole is nearly irrelevant in DCS (mach 2, 40,000 feet? enemy makes halfheated maneuver, releases 2 chaff bundles, whole plane worth of missiles defeated)

ER would actually be good as long as it had a 10+% chance of actually seeking. as is it is <1% so might as well just crawl around and play in the dirt like everyone else does.

Sorry. Will follow the rules better.

Fell down the YouTube rabbit hole the other day and came across this vid by ralfidude. Hope all the missiles and logic get a look at, at some point. Sounds promising.:)

Link to the thread, IASGATG is the one getting interviewed/ name on forum

Now that's how you do some research to show ED. WOW

There is bias in this simulator and you will have to live with it. Since the majority of DCS Pilots prefer western stuff (which is expected), everything western in DCS performs much better than anything russian, in order to satisfy the customers who expect one missile one kill combat. The Flagship of this bias is the F-15C, which is hard to kill like a cockroach. I have also heard the Matra 530D was buffed, you can guess why. RuAF is arming even their latest jets with R-27R/ER missiles, which means they can rely on them. That on the other hand doesn't prove anything in DCS.

What a piece of weird statements. There may be a bit bias, or they may be not. You don't know that. If Su-27 could fly only 800 kph, then yes. I would agree with you that this is not right.

There are a lot of problems with Russian hardware. It is hard to get real documents, got evaluation data from real firings ect.

How many did Russians fire R-27? How many times did Su-27 fight against something more than drone?

Russia is known for good PR, while in reality results are disappointing or even laughable. What basis do you have to claim or suspect that R-27 must be a good missile? Maybe it is just crap and they use it to deplet warehouse? Maybe it is really quite good weapon...

They use it in Syria? Ok, what threat is there to use better weapon, if of course was Russia capable to mount something new for Su-35. It is more like just saving face, in the area there is nobody to fight against. Especially not Israel which could just annihilate whole Russian army as easy as stepping on cockroach.

I have seen this same theme come up so many time in so many versions. Missiles a broken/wrong. How does any one know? I was in the USAF from 1997 to 2012 and not once did I see any paper, power point, document or manual that say Missile X can do this and missile Y can do that. How do you guys know what what missile can do over the other? What is the main drive to make you guys think a missile is wrong? Because they miss? Because it does not match sales pitch from the people selling them? I have seen a handful of accounts for US missiles and how much they miss. From the USN F/A-18E shoot down of a Syrian SU-22 to the F-14 vs Mig-23/SU-22. From F-15 vs Mig-21/25/29, many accounts and they all talk about how missiles fail to hit.

To add to that, I have yet to read, hear or see any accounts on Russian missiles and its many variants around the world. Not from India, China Iran, Iraq, etc. No clue on their performance. So how do you guys know is right or wrong? If people talk about their opinions is one thing, but so many here over the years convey an absolute knowledge. A certainty the missile Z must act this way or is wrong.

This conversation have been coming up for over 20 years with the same points being made and will continue many more times. But in the end is just people arguing about their personal believes and conjectures not about the missiles and their performance.

Since so many know here, I would like to know with sources please:

How many versions of the R-27R/ AIM-120C/ Skyflash/ AIM-7M are there?

What power their avionics? How reliable are this power sources? How often are they maintained/replaces?

How many different engine do they use? What is the burn time? What is the Thrust? What type of fuel? How reliable are they?

Same questions for their seeker, guidance and control systems.

The R-27R are the missiles for wings stations in Su-27. We can break wings in high G’s if we instead set the bigger ER. Also the R version is part of the Combat tactics in Su-27. Not to mention there is another version of this missile but better don’t off topic about. Actually in DCS the shorter R have not even the capability to kill a fighter from 12 km. Why we must stay quite watching the Mirage shooting down all With the Matra Super 530 even at a really short range using a missile that we don’t know really how good it is.

The R-27R are the missiles for wings stations in Su-27. We can break wings in high G’s if we instead set the bigger ER. Also the R version is part of the Combat tactics in Su-27. Not to mention there is another version of this missile but better don’t off topic about. Actually in DCS the shorter R have not even the capability to kill a fighter from 12 km. Why we must stay quite watching the Mirage shooting down all With the Matra Super 530 even at a really short range using a missile that we don’t know really how good it is.

Even if R-27R was a bit better, the MATRA is much closer to the performance of an ER than a R or AIM7. It accelerates better and has a much higher top speed. Whether this is realistic or not I don't know, but if you're trying to outduel a MATRA in a fair fight with 27R or AIM7 you're just getting yourself killed. What you can do instead is bait out his shots since he only has 2. Notching also works pretty well against the baguette radar.

Thank you. I just will not fly anymore the FC3 or MAC aircraft.

Thank you so much guys

The 27R isn't a terrible missile compared to the Blue missiles. Unless something has recently changed the 27R has marginally less range than the Aim-7. And unless they've changed it, the Matra 530D is aweful because it loses tons of airspeed and becomes a brick after the propellant is expended.

I use the same tactic with the 27R that I do with the Aim-7

Make sure you are within 15-20km, when you fire, it will give you the best chance of hitting. With missiles it is ok to fire near the launch limit to get the enemy to maneuver, but I would still fire a second between 10-15km for a better hit probability, but you are in R73 range by that point.

The radar missiles do not have a very long range in DCS and have marginally better range than your Active IR missiles. The main thing I use them for is for shooting enemy that are close to friendlies because you don't want your IR missile to track the wrong target and hit a wingman.

Even in Blue aircraft with Aim-120's I tend to carry an Aim-7 or two for that reason alone, not hitting friendlies.

The big problem is something brought up in the above video, missiles in DCS always calculate full lead, even at long range, so missiles bleed tons of energy at long range. The guys you are shooting at are probably doing high G barrel rolls to force your missile to lose speed. Just toss a boresight IR missile into the mix :)

The lead calculation does kill all the missiles at medium to long range. A few wide barrel rolls is all it takes to drop any of them from 20km range to 5km range.

The fact that these missiles fly PN is accurate, so yes, they will always go for 'full lead'. What isn't correct is that the PN is un-restricted.

And here we go again with the conspiracy theories :thumbdown:

 

ED strive for realism. There is no "balance" in DCS. There is no national bias. There is reality, or as close to it as can be achieved.

 

All missiles in DCS suffer from excessive drag which results in unrealistic range. SARH missiles have additional issues with the way in which expendables are modelled.

 

This is all well known & is not a conspiracy.

 

/thread.

This.

I will also add that the modelling methodology for missiles in DCS is not universally applied.

The R-27R is simulated very well range-wise.

Both videos show an rmax of 10-16km. Of course, the aircraft (especially the mig29) were traveling at a slow speed and lower altitude, but its comparable to what we get get in DCS. Another proof are german MiG-29 pilots (there is an interview on youtube with one of them aswell) described the R-27R as a low range, relaively useless weapon.

Now why does the R-27R and T suck so hard? Well, when they were developed, most fights still happened WVR due to IFF limitations. So it just made sense to focus on superiour maneuvarability and the R-73 missile.

Why do the russians use them in syria? Because due tp many countries aircraft operating over syria, the ROE are most likely limited in a way that makes long range missiles useless. Russia is not interested in shooting down an israeli or US aircraft by accident, and will most likely require pilots to visually confirm the targets before even THINKING about weapon use. So if all (possible) fights are limited to visual range anyway, why not just take only short range weapons anyway?

If you are still in doubt, google the ethopian-eritrean war. Out of many air to air kills and launched R-27s, the R27 is only known to have hit a single mig29. Rest of the kills were made with the R-73.

PS: Regarding missiles in DCS and why the mighty AMRAAM seems to be useless above 10 miles, remember that a missile with rMax of 50 miles doesnt actually travel 50 miles. It gets launched at mach 1.5 on an aircraft traveling towards the missile at mach 1.5. It also explains why the SLAMRAAM (Aim120) SAM variant has such a low range.

There is bias in this simulator and you will have to live with it. Since the majority of DCS Pilots prefer western stuff (which is expected), everything western in DCS performs much better than anything russian, in order to satisfy the customers who expect one missile one kill combat. The Flagship of this bias is the F-15C, which is hard to kill like a cockroach. I have also heard the Matra 530D was buffed, you can guess why. RuAF is arming even their latest jets with R-27R/ER missiles, which means they can rely on them. That on the other hand doesn't prove anything in DCS.

I will try to throw there some facts that I think contradict your complaints. Just for your interest, I love both russian and western fighters and i regularly fly both and as such I believe i do not possess any bias towards any of them.

1- Over the past years, ED has proved many times that what they simulate is based on available data. Avoiding as much as possible any bias. A totally different discussion is, perhaps the equipment being modelled creates an unbalance (for example AIM120C post 2000 againt R27R pre-1990s), but that is due to the timeframe of each weapon and is up to mission design to allow such loadouts.

2- ED/BST is a russian/east europe company, which would make quite peculiar any bias against russian equipment (not saying it is impossible).

3-RuAF arming there planes with the same missiles means nothing. Think about this: while you are seeing the same body, the internal electronics could be hugely, hugely improved, heck they could very well being active missiles now with an AESA head and a very much improved engine. The only thing that tells you is that the original design is quite good (so they have good maneuverability).

4.Matra 530D should outperform both Aim7 and R27R in sheer speed.

5-Not everything western perform better than russian equipment, e.g: R73 is a beast compared to aim9. Also R27ET is suspiciously good. I cant believe the tracking range of its seeker head... indeed the EOS system of russian fighters works like a magical radar at huge distances, if they wanted to nerf russian equipment this would not be as good. At least tells me there is no clear bias.

These threads keep popping like a cancer metastasizes lol.

Both ED and the community have pinpointed some deficiencies in missile implementation and they are being worked on like the guidance logic and energy loss in turns. The fixes surely will not come anytime soon as this is a complicated matter.

Everything else is just conjecture and bitching about people’s favorite sides with opinions presented as facts.

These threads keep popping like a cancer metastasizes lol.

NEED........REP..........BACK!!

I don't know, I believe that for a SAM, a 10nm umbrella is nothing to sneeze at.

PS: Regarding missiles in DCS and why the mighty AMRAAM seems to be useless above 10 miles, remember that a missile with rMax of 50 miles doesnt actually travel 50 miles. It gets launched at mach 1.5 on an aircraft traveling towards the missile at mach 1.5. It also explains why the SLAMRAAM (Aim120) SAM variant has such a low range.

The fact that these missiles fly PN is accurate, so yes, they will always go for 'full lead'. What isn't correct is that the PN is un-restricted.

Weren't they working on implementing a loft logic for the AIM-7? That should increase reach at FOX-1 long and medium, right?

A light on the horizon: SAM and AA missiles. The system of variable coefficients of proportional navigation is implemented. Only for MIM-104 Patriot so far. WIP.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3583357&postcount=20

There is bias in this simulator and you will have to live with it. Since the majority of DCS Pilots prefer western stuff (which is expected), everything western in DCS performs much better than anything russian, in order to satisfy the customers who expect one missile one kill combat. The Flagship of this bias is the F-15C, which is hard to kill like a cockroach. I have also heard the Matra 530D was buffed, you can guess why. RuAF is arming even their latest jets with R-27R/ER missiles, which means they can rely on them. That on the other hand doesn't prove anything in DCS.

Bwahahaha... Russian dev company... Western bias... Bwahahahaha

Loft increases Rmax by about 20%.

Weren't they working on implementing a loft logic for the AIM-7? That should increase reach at FOX-1 long and medium, right?

I have seen the Aim-7 do loft maneuvers when i fired it... by my experience though, unless its a phoenix, when the missile is far enough away to loft, it is not going to hit a defensive fighter (unless he is AI or getting a sandwich).

These threads keep popping like a cancer metastasizes lol.

Both ED and the community have pinpointed some deficiencies in missile implementation and they are being worked on like the guidance logic and energy loss in turns. The fixes surely will not come anytime soon as this is a complicated matter.

Everything else is just conjecture and bitching about people’s favorite sides with opinions presented as facts.

I was thinking to myself, "I need a cancer screening," after reading the first page of posts...