R-27T/ET Lock-on After Launch?

The R-27T/TE missiles do not have DL or any sort of LOAL capability

Anyone familiar with these missiles knows the R-27T uses the Geofizika 36T seeker which isn't particularly sophisticated late 70s tech like you'd find on an R-24T R-60 or Gopher

The R-27TE has a Mayak-80 seeker, the same one found in the R-73 and notwithstanding its innovations, it is still a 1980s Rosette scan seeker.

The R-73 has never been listed as having such a LOAL / DL capability, an important feature in the export market today. The fact its not been advertised or referenced in the info available leads us to the reasonable conclusion its incapable of that.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions surrounding these missiles, honestly they're more for flanking and cold bandits, and usually not out to 120km as brochure range would lead one to believe maybe if the sim is anything to go by, this would allow the Su-27 to engage cold bandits past 25 to 30km as the N001E can't hold a lock on a cold bandit past that it seems

Anyone familiar with Carlo Kopps jumbled mess of missile info at AusAirPower thinks the R-27T uses the Geofizika 36T seeker which isn't particularly sophisticated late 70s tech like you'd find on an R-24T R-60 or Gopher

I've fixed the above for you.

If you checkout the Ukranian defence review you'll see that the R27T and R27ET now use the MK-80M seeker as used on the R-73M.

AFAIK thats also how it works IRL. The R-27R/ER uses pulse dopler for target illumination(SARH operation), where the aircraft radar alternates between pulses for its own target tracking and target illumination for the missile's SARH seeker + transmitting course corrections. I could be wrong, but I don't think the system takes seeker acquistion range into consideration, but starts this procedure as soon as the M-link is established - i.e. at the point of launch.

IIRC, as you've said, the radar transmitter alternates between two channels at this stage (when the missile has been launched), the main channel for target tracking and the other for mid-course corrections and/or target illumination.

As mid-course correction will only be used if the range to target is 1.5x the range of the seeker (the value of which is also influenced by the target size switch I'd presume) or more, if the range is lower, target illumination signal will get emitted in the second channel from the moment of launch I guess.

If the range is 1.5x or more, then mid-course updates (or radio-correction signal) will be sent in the second channel until some pre-calculated moment when the target should be in the range of the missile seeker at which point the radar will switch to sending target illumination signals in the second channel.

I've fixed the above for you.

 

If you checkout the Ukranian defence review you'll see that the R27T and R27ET now use the MK-80M seeker as used on the R-73M.

You're a funny guy, considering you're the one championing his ramblings as truth, please tell us more about the fantasy land flanker capabilities and weapon systems that don't exist.

There is no such thing as an "R-73M" in service, simply RDM-1 and RDM-2 anywhere and there is no missile in service using an "MK-80M" Seeker nor is there a flanker firing Ks-172s there is no R-27EA, no R-77T, no R-77M, no R-30/izdeliye 300 and no other such nonsense like a radar guided R-73 with a booster rocket in serivce

What you've said is vapourware and when you see the one demo model at MAKS You've seen 1/3rd of the stockpile in the world

If you still can't bear with having a realistic flanker I implore you to uninstall DCS and install 1995 Flanker and have a blast

This forum isn't a place for dezinformatsia its one for facts

 

There is no such thing as an "R-73M" in service, simply RDM-1 and RDM-2 anywhere and there is no missile in service using an "MK-80M" Seeker

RDM-1 and RDM-2 are the R-73M1 and R-73M2.

The clue is in the name.

MK-80M is a Mayak-80M, you think technology doesn't get upgraded? If you think Russian seeker technology is stuck in the 80s then carry on.

nor is there a flanker firing Ks-172s there is no R-27EA, no R-77T, no R-77M, no R-30/izdeliye 300 and no other such nonsense like a radar guided R-73 with a booster rocket in serivce

 

I have no idea what you are rambling on about.

How is any of that my concern?

RDM-1 and RDM-2 are the R-73M1 and R-73M2.

The clue is in the name.

 

MK-80M is a Mayak-80M, you think technology doesn't get upgraded? If you think Russian seeker technology is stuck in the 80s then carry on.

 

 

I have no idea what you are rambling on about.

How is any of that my concern?

Yes that's why you don't have any proof of it being in service :lol:

Sorry Tax, but you got no clue. Firstly you have no access to credible russian sources (Sukhoi Pilots), and dont speak russian, do you? I do. Then the age old argument about limited service of advanced Russian A/C. Nope, wrong again most Flankers have been modernized along with their missiles these days. I lot have been put into the VKS in recent years.

Anyway, no point to start a meaningless debate. It is clear that Flanker capability in DCS is way below par even for your (80s era) references. ETs we have in DCS are clipped missiles which love flares more than anything. Kinematics are also porked, lift is not correct, etc etc.

Yep, scored some 50km hits like that, high and fast launch, turn cold. Dude flies into it.

So *that's* how they keep knocking me down with ETs when I'm not even in AMRAAM range yet!

AD

Sorry Tax, but you got no clue. Firstly you have no access to credible russian sources (Sukhoi Pilots), and dont speak russian, do you? I do. Then the age old argument about limited service of advanced Russian A/C. Nope, wrong again most Flankers have been modernized along with their missiles these days. I lot have been put into the VKS in recent years.

 

Anyway, no point to start a meaningless debate. It is clear that Flanker capability in DCS is way below par even for your (80s era) references. ETs we have in DCS are clipped missiles which love flares more than anything. Kinematics are also porked, lift is not correct, etc etc.

Interesting, but do you have any proof of such upgrades? Specifically to the 27 fam. and the 73. because I do know some people, you know.

I am not saying the kinematics and aerodynamics of our current R-27 fam. in DCS are correct, they obviously lack a proper CFD treatment but for that matter, you shouldnt even be able to fire an ET if there are any clouds or the target has active or passive countermeasures.

I think ET is intended for ECM environment, datalink could be jammed. Plus for tailchase engagements, at those ranges you will always have seeker lock from the rail.

Correct.

The main reason for a longer range IR missile is the ECM. in a heavy ECM environment non TWS launch attempt will be worth it if the ECM fighter keep maneuvering. When you maneuver with ECM ON while the missile is on course correction mode, this TWS missile will go no where.

The retirement of AIm-54 long range missile have a lot to do with that. See what is doing in DCS Aim-54 and they leave it like that no giving nothing about. But yeah Su-27 is the major been downed by this simulation, so they don't care.

So that mean R-27ET is undervalued because the investors and management on this simulator want to keep ECM with very poor effect on the radars and missiles.

R-27ET was in very early stage developing at early 90s. Russian are on charge on every improvement on those missiles. They don't out to public info about improvements. Not even Ukrainians got whatever Russian improved. Ukrainians companies just developed some parts of the missiles to then be complete ensembled in Russia. Ukrainians are not anymore involved in parts for Russians military hardware.

The main reason for a longer range IR missile is the ECM. in a heavy ECM environment non TWS launch attempt will be worth it if the ECM fighter keep maneuvering. When you maneuver with ECM ON while the missile is on course correction mode, this TWS missile will go no where.

You keep talking about fighters when the main purpose of aviation at that time was to defend the homeland from bombers.

The retirement of AIm-54 long range missile have a lot to do with that.

The retirement of the AIM-54 had to do with not wanting to keep the F-14 around (and favoring Boeing) in the face of a lack of the old threat that the 54 was designed for - that would be big bomber raids with airplane-sized anti-ship missiles. The F-14 was the only aircraft capable of carrying the missile is it was retired after the AIM-120 reliability was proven while the threat from Russian bomber raids diminished.

The AIM-120 has now taken over for dealing with that specific threat.

You keep talking about fighters when the main purpose of aviation at that time was to defend the homeland from bombers.

 

 

 

The retirement of the AIM-54 had to do with not wanting to keep the F-14 around (and favoring Boeing) in the face of a lack of the old threat that the 54 was designed for - that would be big bomber raids with airplane-sized anti-ship missiles. The F-14 was the only aircraft capable of carrying the missile is it was retired after the AIM-120 reliability was proven while the threat from Russian bomber raids diminished.

 

The AIM-120 has now taken over for dealing with that specific threat.

:thumbup::music_whistling:

On 5/24/2020 at 10:35 PM, Breakshot said:

It is clear that Flanker capability in DCS is way below par even for your (80s era) references.

Reduced acceleration and max speed reach time, increased drag, increased fuel economy thus reduced autonomy, increased speed buildup recovery time, short negative G that immediately goes into reversed flatspin, pilot high G over-sensibility limits edge dogfights, no stick G-limit overide function, reduced sensors TA ability, reduced missile performance, increased missile CM sensibility.. list goes on and on.. what about fragile wings and tail surfaces.. Kick the Flanker out of the DCS. This is engineering mockery at this state. Lets get over with it. No more discussion and problem solved. DCS Flanker is not The Flanker world knows about. Not even close. ED, kill the flanker properly if you allready have such intentions. I'm serious.

What a bunch of hysterical drama queens. Do you have any sense of dignity?

On 1/8/2021 at 2:19 PM, DD_Fenrir said:

What a bunch of hysterical drama queens. Do you have any sense of dignity?

In a lack of reasonable arguments underrated discussion member usually reaches for attack on persona rather then argument itself. That attitude discredits any reasonable discussion and translates it on personal level which doesnt require much IQ to be used.

Posted observation is based on decade of involvment in evaluation and testing of certain modules that appear in DCS franchise in a role of user or player - role not to be neglected or ignored as its honestly based on unbiased and neutral standpoint build on SP or MP gaming experience.

One of pillars of DCS is Flanker. By history record, ED has started its gaming industry involvement by just this sole module - Flanker 2.0, which gave ED planetary success in combat sim market and was basis for DCS franchise success. During period of LO(MAC), Flanker had certain combat ingame value that manny players go tuned to and tuned own performance to fit module edge performance ingame. During next decade, manny players have experienced radical degradation of its performance and combat ability, shifting power on side of newcomers and modules that have higher commercial value. This has been done intentionally, by my observation, not in favour of "old" modules which gave DCS its reputation as neutral and politics-free fairplay simulation developer but in favour of unrealistic and biased approach instead of fact-checked module performance implementation.

By implementing this performance reduction, ED have undoubtfully shifted from neutral to polarised developer. Even if it is against EDs will, the outcome is obvious to manny "just" players who want to have certain amount of skills learned manifestation and joy espetially in PvP MP combat arena. Blaming module coding instead of players performance is worst thing that can happen to any game - if its a game in a first place.

If this is all true, reasons behind this approach could be export-reduction based on current global political climate but even so none cant stop any software developement studio, if theres a will, in using the numbers gained by reverse engineering processes extracted by pure geometrical properties of certain flight machines of interest that have publically available graphical material. Which is the best of all, numbers ingame dont have to exact match actual performance, and error margin should be as minimal as possilble in virtual enviroment compared to publically available data if this process is done properly. It is no sin at all to guess something and none needs to look deep under the actual hud - this material its still classified after all so let it stay so. What DCS needs is proof of ingame module-against-module side-by-side performance check comparrison against RL publically available data. That would answer manny questions and doubts and open eyes to manny that want proof of perfromance simulated - against official data, whatever they are, to closely match.

Actual climate on this-forum is very personal, emotional or national-pride driven. I'm personally out of that as I have no national or political interest in DCS or any combat warfare simulated here but I do mind neglection of sportsmanship and fairplay approach by simply said - intentional and post-deployment drastic interfierence into something that has no emotions or politics within at all. Very few people can reach this i-dont-give-a-f zen state and forget the politics, global realtions that btw can flip in any moment, and focus solely on its own inner fight against itself reaching the best inside in a fight against near-equal opponents perfromed in virtual enviroment.

What is so bad in this standpoint that has to be attacked on personal level?

10 hours ago, jackmckay said:

What is so bad in this standpoint that has to be attacked on personal level?

When someone shows that an FM is not matching IRL performance or that at least it behaves in a very suspicious way, ED always looks into it.

But you have to do actual work to achieve this.  All you do is post philosophy.

On 1/10/2021 at 5:26 PM, GGTharos said:

When someone shows that an FM is not matching IRL performance

That "someone" prooving they match should be ED, atleast in acceptable error margin. Right? Also, ED doesnt have wind tunnel or actual Su27 in hangar nor actual pilot input records vs flight telemetry. So none here can't put hands on Su27 and evaluate it against simulated one and shouldnt in a first place. What any gaming studio can do is best guess its perfromance by comparing data available vs ingame telemetry. That ingame telemetry of su27, by my observation, is wrong - actually slugish, dangerous and underperforming well bellow official records. Feedback telemetry of FMs doesnt give out enough aerodynamical data like combined drag vs AoA in various configurations. If ED gets config pallete drag numbers in any CFD software and stores it in a chart, then places all modules of interest, side by side, in same game enviroment, commits various simultatious tests and extract ingame telemetry, things would be much clearer to understand. Take the max speed vs T/W ratios in example. Flanker is slower than Hornet in DCS. Official numbers say different story same as T/W ratio comparrison.

Sensors are topic of this post and they too in 27, by my personal long time obesrvation, are well underperforming. Thermal sensor doesnt count temperature differentials of hot target against cold sky and is very limited. Radar doesnt paint in HMS mode targets within 10km (huge downgrade as pilot is unable to lock targets that are visual). Next issues are, aside sensors, insufficient energy conservation (either drag is to high or trust is too low as plane just takes to much time to regain energy and control or it bleeds emergy too fast), wrong inertial tensors (probably miscalculated weight distribution propagation that should match the actual CG of FM configurations), low reynolds numbers used in drag calc (thus drag calculations wrong as plane feels like flying thrue the honey instead of air), explicit su27 pilot oversensitivity to high Gs (that should be universal game element to maintain fair-play principle) and brittle aerodynamic surfaces (killing own plane was never easier - shouldnt pilot "feel" the danger regimes first).

Thermal sensitivity of EOS should be racalculated and sensor gain increased. Radar should work in close combat. Right now, Flanker is still 3rd league plane in DCS - unusabe in modern combat scenario unless someone corrects this issues.

Open the official explicit topic, i'll gladly give you the drag, energy and time numbers back even based on crude model. Lets do it together, I dont mind spending some time on science. If theres no will in ED quarters, announce that, none should ask any "phylosophical" questions here anymore.

15 minutes ago, jackmckay said:

Open the official explicit topic, i'll gladly give you the drag, energy and time numbers back even based on crude model. Lets do it together, I dont mind spending some time on science. Thermal sensitivity of EOS should be racalculated and sensor gain increased. Radar should work in close combat. Right now, Flanker is still 3rd league plane in DCS - unusabe in modern combat scenario unless someone corrects this issues. If theres no will in ED quarters, announce that, none should ask any "phylosophical" questions here anymore.

I am actually currently running some CFD testing for the R-27ER missile. Once that's done I would gladly do some CFD for the Flanker if you are willing to join me in this endeavor.

Sure, I dont mind kicking some CFD asses here. lol.

Quote

Open the official explicit topic, i'll gladly give you the drag, energy and time numbers back even based on crude model. Lets do it together, I dont mind spending some time on science. If theres no will in ED quarters, announce that, none should ask any "phylosophical" questions here anymore.

No one was ever stopping you from doing science.

The blue bias is real. Might as well just delete FC3 and make this NATO vs NATO which is what this game is. 

Hmmm “semi active TSD with lock on after launch” just read this in the manual.

24 minutes ago, Kaniuk said:

Hmmm “semi active TSD with lock on after launch” just read this in the manual.

And what manual is that?

9 минут назад, Fri13 сказал:

 

And what manual is that?

 

Bad one

2 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Bad one

Because in the phonebook there is one wrong number for the contact, it doesn't render all contacts informations invalid....