R-27 ET "Anomalies"

[Alfa]

The other question is whether the particular weapons control system will allow for a launch without prior lock, even if it would be physically possible. I wouldn't be surprized if the lock-before-launch for IR missiles was a requirement by the "computer".

 

A lock is required in order to get LA for an R-27T/TE or R-73 :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[EvilBivol-1]

I mean in real life... :) Sorry for the confusion.

[D-Scythe]

Thanks for contuning. :) This all about education as far as I'm concerned and as long as we keep things civil it is well worth it to keep going.

 

Right... let the seeker lock onto a heat source and launch with no aircraft guidance... in scan mode or boresight. Now, if you knew there was an aircraft in front of you with hot afterburning engines and simply fired the missile(maddog)... would the seeker not lock onto that heat source after it left the rail?

 

The way I see it, the seeker will lock onto the best heat source in it's FOV and if you were to maddog it at a head on target in a look up situation would it not see that heat source if there was nothing but sky and a fighter in it's FOV? The key words are lock onto the best heat source and IMO, a high speed jet, possibley with afterburners on, against the sky or ground would be the best heat source... which is what we see in the Lock On engagements.

 

We know the seeker is always active once launched because it will lock on to flares or the sun so if there are no flares or no sun why wouldn't it lock onto a highspeed jet in it's FOV after a maddog launch?

 

As for the comments about an IR missile locking onto the burning rocket motor of a missile directly in front of it... it happens in Lock On, as it should IMO.

 

You're describing a perfect situation. Theoretically yes, it would work. But there are problems with a long-range IR missile.

 

One issue is look-up. A look-up target can very quickly become a look down target. Moreover, although the chances for target acquisition is increased in a look up situation, missile range is greatly decreased (not modelled in LOMAC).

 

The other issue is seeker FOV. If you maddog an IR missile and hope it finds a target (i.e. in a typical maddog situation) for the missile it would be like trying to find a target by looking through a straw. Factor in flares (if flares were released before the missile acquired the target), clouds, and other IR noise, all from which the IR missile cannot distinguish if these heat signatures are noise or viable targets, and you see how unlikely the scenario of a successful long range IR launch is.

[Shaman]

LOL, your a funny guy.

Friends tell me I am. If there's someone to make some fun with or to buy a beer, that's definately me.

I can be very insisting at times.

Yes, I'm an armchair pilot and also an A/A combat enthusiast, but at least I know what I'm talking about. I don't just google crap. I don't deny that I am an armchair pilot like you do.

I never denied I'm an armchair pilot. I even really like the term. I don't find it insulting.

I like google. Google is our friend. Though you say I google for crap. Did I link you to anything or something so far? Though it seems you assume that when someone is working with Google that means he is somehow analphabetic and can't read books or even don't know what a true library is? Is this what you've wanted to point out here? That I don't read books? If this is some sort of insult. Yes, I felt insulted by you now. I really do. If there's someone who insulted me most on this forums.. this was the worst. You've just won the price.

I'm also aviation enthusiast, more, military and aircombat enthusiast. But being just an enthusiast I went much futher and actually decided to make it part of my life. And thanks to this I've at last managed to get access to confidential rated literature. But enough brag - both on your and my side.

 

Let's sum up the score shall we?

Oh yes, please...

 

Me: I proved through my tracks that it is quite possible to party all day long in the best conditions possible for a radar missile shot (look up, NEZ range). In fact, I proved that you don't have to do anything - just press the chaff button really fast.

 

You and friends: My tracks are garbage because that's our opinion. People who think otherwise go against our opinion and are stupid.

Your track called head-on "the best possible sollution for AMRAAM" in game is actually not a head-on. Here I give you a track where both aircrafts are at the same angels, so AMRAAM actually will fly into Su from head-on aspect, not from below where it can see clearly huge chaff "contrail".

I dropped [Q key] countermeassures very quick. By using Q you can also see flares clearly, by this you can see the speed at which I dropped chaffs.

You'll get owned, no matter how. Unless you are extremaly lucky. I wasn't. This was repeated until I got sick of it.

http://www.icpnet.pl/~solak/lockon_tracks/HEAD_ON.rar

 

Me: IR missiles should not be able to be mad-dogged, and if there is LOAL capability (i.e. inertial guidance), it should be limited because the nature of an IR seeker does not allow it to scan for targets like a similar missile with radar can. Basis is that radar can filter out clutter through the doppler effect.

 

You: The R-27ET should behave like radar missiles. If you don't think so, you're a whiner. Let's bash other people's posts.

This is just another example how you twist others statements.

I've never said anything that infra-red guided missile behaves like radar missiles. I'd like you to quote exactly that. But you can't - the reasons are two - one is at the bottom of this post, second is in my previous sentence.

It doesn't matter what type of guidance missile is using. Make it infra-red, laser, semi-active radar, active radar, inertial, GPS, love&hate guidance system on a missile. Any of these missiles will behave as GUIDED MISSILE. The purpose of guidance on a missile is to move control surfaces and/or thrust vector for change of flightpath - so it can intercept its target. My point is - make it IR/ARH/SARH.. they all behave as guided missiles. At the end the behaviour and purpose is generally the same. The diffrence is in performance (like with every weapon, two sharp stick of diffrent wood thrown, can show slightly diffrent results, but the behaviour will be simmilar)

IR guidance on a missile doesn't use doppler effect, though it uses onboard computer to actually tell the diffrence betweens the diffrent patterns of heat that the IR seeker detects. The program itself is heavily guarded secret. And it is not only because of military reasons but also economic reasons. This know-how is kept secret by the arms industries alone.

 

Me: In an attack with IR and radar missiles, Soviet pilots are taught to fire IR missiles first just to be safe.

 

You: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Let's bash post more, give more factless opinions and just pretend we know it all.

Again, you twisted, so it meets an argument why you can throw up on me.

What I laughed about is actually the fact that soviet modern infra-red missile, or to be exact its onboard computer is not able to tell the diffrence between another soviet (own!) missile's heat signature. And this is exactly what you guys stated, without a single proof, except that a soviet pilot is thought "just for case" not to launch R-27ET after he fired any other missile before - without even proving this! I can prove this if it is true or not - it will take few days, because right now I'm free of duties, but I'll be in the academy at the end of this week. Though even if it is true, take into account pilots are thought many procedures "for just in case", like calling out loud to themselves when they f.e. change gear or flaps position up or down. The routine is highly to be bent in a real combat scenario - and equipment has to be prepared for this.

 

That sums up the score pretty nicely. Remind me to ignore you in the future.

The worst thing is that you are actually not quoting me but pretending you are doing so - and that these are my words (YOU: text text text), however they are not.

 

Yes it does sum it up very nicely.

Oh, and don't forget to ignore this post.

[GGTharos]

I'm also aviation enthusiast, more, military and aircombat enthusiast. But being just an enthusiast I went much futher and actually decided to make it part of my life. And thanks to this I've at last managed to get access to confidential rated literature. But enough brag - both on your and my side.

 

And so do I, which makes me wonder if you're just not reading what you're shown because ...

 

IR guidance on a missile doesn't use doppler effect, though it uses onboard computer to actually tell the diffrence betweens the diffrent patterns of heat that the IR seeker detects. The program itself is heavily guarded secret. And it is not only because of military reasons but also economic reasons. This know-how is kept secret by the arms industries alone.

 

Nah-uh. Nope. A reticle seeker -can- build an image, if it really must, but that's 'time spent' doing just that. On the other hand, beyond 2km or so, a missile's tail, a flare, and a plane look the same to the missile: a dot. The lane would likely be the faintest of them, considering the missile's low flight time ... you don't cool from 1000 deg C to nothing in just a few seconds.

 

Two-color seekers can help discriminate, but again are not perfect, and the missile will look the same as the plane at those ranges (post-motor burn-out).

 

 

From what you've said I simply don't think you know how IR signature recognition is done or what it is insofar as reticle seekers go ... feel free to prove me wrong of course, and don't take it as an insult ... but it really looks that way from here.

 

What you're describing is more akin to FPA seekers and even -then- they can fall for CMs /if/ fired from afar.

[Alfa]

I mean in real life... :) Sorry for the confusion.

 

So did I Evil ;) .

 

The firecontrol system(SUV-29) will not let you launch an IR missile unless its seeker has target lock.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Shepski]

You're describing a perfect situation. Theoretically yes, it would work. But there are problems with a long-range IR missile.

 

The other issue is seeker FOV. If you maddog an IR missile and hope it finds a target (i.e. in a typical maddog situation) for the missile it would be like trying to find a target by looking through a straw. Factor in flares (if flares were released before the missile acquired the target), clouds, and other IR noise, all from which the IR missile cannot distinguish if these heat signatures are noise or viable targets, and you see how unlikely the scenario of a successful long range IR launch is.

 

How "long" is long range in your opinion?

 

I don't know what range and FOV limits the seeker might have but a "straw" seems a little extreme. :) and what has been mentioned here is that in Lock On players are trying to make that perfect shot by leading the target if it's a high angle off tail shot. Again, in Lock On, other IR noise isn't modeled so with respect to the sim that doesn't really matter.

[D-Scythe]

How "long" is long range in your opinion?

 

For an IR shot? Anything over 8 miles I suppose.

 

I don't know what range and FOV limits the seeker might have but a "straw" seems a little extreme. :)

 

It is (to an extent), but it's a useful analogy :p

 

...and what has been mentioned here is that in Lock On players are trying to make that perfect shot by leading the target if it's a high angle off tail shot. Again, in Lock On, other IR noise isn't modeled so with respect to the sim that doesn't really matter.

 

But it should matter. Just because the noise isn't modelled doesn't mean the limitations of a weapon shouldn't be there. Otherwise, what's the point of playing a simulation where one weapon has all its advantages (where every shot is considered ideal) while the next weapon has these limitations?

 

BTW, ladies and gentlemen (mostly men), if you would please download Shamandgg's track, you would see that it demonstrates wonderfully the ability of the AIM-120 to reacquire the target if the target is dumb enough to stay perfectly centred in its FOV.

 

Ok, that was my last post. Promise. Even Shepski can't get me out of this one :p I just don't feel like arguing with people who think all missiles are the same except for physical performance. I'm not gonna even touch that one with a 30 mile AMRAAM. Nope. My AMRAAM would implode.

[GGTharos]

It isn't extreme, Shepski, no IRH seeker I've seen described has an FoV of over 3 deg (more typical 2.5-3 deg) and the gimbal tracking rates do not exceed 17 deg/sec in non-classified examples (so possibly 20-25 deg for modern ones at best, just by extrapolation).

 

But yep, exactly what you said ... other noise isn't modelled ... and it should be :)

[GGTharos]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would please download Shamandgg's track, you would see that it demonstrates wonderfully the ability of the AIM-120 to reacquire the target if the target is dumb enough to stay perfectly centred in its FOV.

 

Ok, that was my last post. Promise. I just don't feel like arguing with people who think all missiles are the same except for physical performance. I'm not gonna even touch that one with a 30 mile AMRAAM. Nope. My AMRAAM will implode.

 

I'm sorry, but you lose: This is completely improper modelling. It should explode.

[Shepski]

Ok 3 degrees at what max range as I would assume the seeker FOV extends in a conical form.

[Crusty]

And so do I, which makes me wonder if you're just not reading what you're shown because ...

 

 

 

Nah-uh. Nope. A reticle seeker -can- build an image, if it really must, but that's 'time spent' doing just that. On the other hand, beyond 2km or so, a missile's tail, a flare, and a plane look the same to the missile: a dot. The lane would likely be the faintest of them, considering the missile's low flight time ... you don't cool from 1000 deg C to nothing in just a few seconds.

 

Two-color seekers can help discriminate, but again are not perfect, and the missile will look the same as the plane at those ranges (post-motor burn-out).

 

 

From what you've said I simply don't think you know how IR signature recognition is done or what it is insofar as reticle seekers go ... feel free to prove me wrong of course, and don't take it as an insult ... but it really looks that way from here.

 

What you're describing is more akin to FPA seekers and even -then- they can fall for CMs /if/ fired from afar.

 

Are you saying modern heaters dont use processing to help discriminate between a flare and an Aircraft engine?,

[Shepski]

So did I Evil ;) .

 

The firecontrol system(SUV-29) will not let you launch an IR missile unless its seeker has target lock.

 

No launch overide Jens?

[GGTharos]

Ok 3 degrees at what max range as I would assume the seeker FOV extends in a concical form.

 

It's 3deg (at best ... it seems the tighter the fov, he better the missile) at all ranges. So pick a range.

 

At 10km that's a 510m diameter circle. But RL, for what I hear anyway, head-on targets in co-alt or even look-up at difficult beyond 5km (esp with AB off) and that's -with- cueing ... ad at this point your circle is 250m diameter, too.

 

Look down would be worse.

 

You can get an idea of how the contrasts work if you see some of the AIM-9X telemetry footage, and just keep in mind that this is NOT what reticle seekers see ... but it should give you some idea of what the missile's looking at, particularely where contrast is involved.

[GGTharos]

Are you saying modern heaters dont use processing to help discriminate between a flare and an Aircraft engine?,

 

No, I'm saying that 'processing' is a very loose term and might not be as complex or intelligent as you may think :)

[Ironhand]

...At 10km, IF it was that sensitive, it would be looking at 400m diameter patch of space, and TBH it's not likely that 10km is a good lock-on distance for any heat seeker in head-on situations...The perturbation of the missile throughout its flight alone should already have it looking at the wrong place. With a 2.5deg FoV, you don't need much perturbation, which you get /plenty/ of /just/ launching the missile it self! That thing comes off the rail and /wobbles/ .... and it does /not/ know where to go!

Okay. I thought I was following the arguments in this tennis match pretty well but you lost me here and now I'm confused. Let's take the last statement first. If the missile is launched with interial guidance (go from here to there), why wouldn't it be pointing in the right direction even if it bounced around coming off the rail?

 

To the first point: 400m is roughly 1/4 mile. So, in a headon engagement, why would it be so unlikely to find the target? The field of view is sufficiently small that it's not likely to be looking at either the ground or a sky filled with other hot objects. I'm thinking here, in fact, of the "Uber-ET" track that started all this. The target aircraft were not maneuvering and flying directly toward the missile until after the missile acquired one of them.

 

Rich

[Alfa]

For an IR shot? Anything over 8 miles I suppose.

 

Hmm I dont get it D-Scythe......I must admit I havent read through this whole thread and I may have misunderstood what this discussion is all about.....but the effective range of IR shot is depending on the nature of the heat source the missile seeker is tracking.

 

In a rear aspect engagement the seeker of an R-27TE is said to be able to acquire a fighter type of target(at full military) at up to 30+ km while for a head-on engagement your 8 miles would be about right......10-15 km.

 

However, in both cases the missile is required to make the lock before the firecontrol system will let you fire it.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[504Goon]

However, in both cases the missile is required to make the lock before the firecontrol system will let you fire it.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

If i am not completely mistaken, you just gave us the answer to the whole thread..:)

What about LA override? If i've understood correctly, LA override is done by just pulling the trigger for a longer period of time..?

[Ironhand]

Jeesh. I can't even keep up with this conversation. I'm at work and with interruptions on my end the conversation has moved 5 pages beyond where I was when I clicked the "Reply" button.

 

Rich

[Galaad]

R-27T/ET ir sensor range 8 mn, field of view:2.5°, Guimbal limits :20°

R-73 ir sensor range 16 mn, field of view:2.5°, Guimbal limits :60°

[GGTharos]

So, here's the problem ... INS' are not very accurate on missiles, so far that is my impression anyway ... they are in-accurate enough that I would not find it surprising if they were a degree or two off by the time they 'got there' ... that in itself isn't hugely significant, but you now have another issue, that of 'missile must arrive pointing traight at target' and well ... that's some shootin' tex!

 

From 15nm with no aiming cues?!

 

That's fine for a perfectly head-on, non-maneuvering target I suppose ... why not?

 

But combine this with look-down and a maneuvering fighter (doesn't even need to maneuver much) and you get very little, assuming a perfect shot, even.

 

Perhaps Shaman is correct though, and people really don't maneuver all that much.

 

Finally, about reticle seekers: They use an 'error measuring' technique, which means a small signal can -slowly- seduce the seeker away.

Small being defined as anything the seeker doesn't outright reject but it weak compared to flare/plane.

[Galaad]

If the missile is launched with interial guidance (go from here to there), why wouldn't it be pointing in the right direction even if it bounced around coming off the rail?

Rich

 

Correct

[D-Scythe]

Hmm I dont get it D-Scythe......I must admit I havent read through this whole thread and I may have misunderstood what this discussion is all about.....but the effective range of IR shot is depending on the nature of the heat source the missile seeker is tracking.

 

In a rear aspect engagement the seeker of an R-27TE is said to be able to acquire a fighter type of target(at full military) at up to 30+ km while for a head-on engagement your 8 miles would be about right......10-15 km.

 

However, in both cases the missile is required to make the lock before the firecontrol system will let you fire it.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

Alfa too? Ok, gotta reply to Alfa. I was saying that a maddogged 27ET (I know, no such thing) is unlikely to acquire a target on its own at long range, so LOAL. Shepski asked what was long-range. I said a long-range maddog shot for an IR missile I guess would be over 8 miles. Assuming there is no excessive IR noise (i.e. ideal situations), and the target isn't offering its tailpipe for lunch.

 

I think you're talking LOBL when you state your ranges?

 

Oh! Ironhand too. I think what GG is saying is that inertial guidance is not accurate enough to automatically place the target within the missiles' 2.5 degree FOV cone, or somewhere close to it. And if the ET doesn't have datalink for mid-course updates, any maneuver by the fighter would likely trash the missile completely.

 

IIRC, UK's Tornado ADVs had this problem even with their AMRAAMs. There was no midcourse datalink updates available initially, so the implementation of AMRAAM, a radar missile with far superior target searching abilities than the ET, was delayed until the datalink thing could get sorted out. Thus, even if the missile is pointed in the general FOV of the target, chances are it would probably still not be enough.

 

EDIT: Damn, can't find the source right now. Maybe some other time.

[Alfa]

No launch overide Jens?

 

I dont think so Mark.

 

I had a long discussion with Octavian about this once in connection with the possibility of launching an R-73 based entirely on HMSD or radar lock and the point he made for dismissing this possibility was exactly that the firecontrol system wouldnt let you fire the missile unless the seeker itself had a firm lock on target prior to launch. I.e. that a lock with these acquisition means could only be used to steer the seeker into the direction of the target, but that it would be necessary to manouver to bring the target into the FOV of the missile seeker and obtain a lock with this before the missile can be launched.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Shepski]

In a rear aspect engagement the seeker of an R-27TE is said to be able to acquire a fighter type of target(at full military) at up to 30+ km while for a head-on engagement your 8 miles would be about right......10-15 km.

 

However, in both cases the missile is required to make the lock before the firecontrol system will let you fire it.

 

Jens... by "lock" do mean have the "NP" cue appear or just a sensor lock and can you use launch overide for an IR shot(IRL)?

 

In Lock On head on "NP" comes at about 6-7km and when launched outside that range the missile doesn't start tracking until about 7km.

 

Tail on "NP" comes at 13km(C-17).

 

The initial launch vector of the missile off the rail is at the target or where the target will be so there is information sent to the seeker prior to launch on a locked target and prior to the "NP" cue if launched in overide mode.

 

A true maddog launch would be from a CAC mode and using launch overide and in this case the missile must be aimed by the longitudinal axis of the jet to meet the target quite precisely prior to launch when outside "NP" range for it to acquire the target.