Sidewinder performance

[tmdgm]

You have those missiles on your rails for a reason, not for decorations.

 

I just mean wait till you get behind em. I usually just fire em off, and miss. I doubt the AI even flinched. They did use a few flares tho.

[Weta43]

Pilotasso said:

By contrast the R-73 has at least 3 times the range of it, I just dont understant this gap

3x or more than 2x, cause a bit over 2x is what it's supposed to be in game most websites I checked said 1.5x - 2x (15km - 18km vs 30km) except fas.org which gave a maximum range for the aim-9 of 18 miles (30km) and a maximum range for the R-73 (early variants) of 20km :-)

I think I'll go with every other site & believe teh R-73 SHOULD considerably outrange the AIM-9

[Force_Feedback]

Use common sense to determine which has the biggest range, the aim-9M has big draggy control surfaces and a small rocket, the R-73 has a 7700N of rocket thrust (Russian site) and a longer burn time. And the control surfaces are 2x, maybe 3x sleeker and smaller.

Why this whining, because the aim-9 in falcon has Star Wars performance? If you look at the various videos of live fire trainings, please show me one instance in which the aim-9 is fired from beyond 5km to the target.

[Pilotasso]

R-73 has smaller but more complicated aerodynamic surface control set, I wouldnt go that way. R-73 does have a bigger mass but its not like were seeing people strapping balast to their missiles as a miraculous solution to increase range by a factor of 3! Longer burn time? By how much? 0.5-1s?

 

I do recon R-73 range is bigger but going from that to justify the sidwindfer utter l33tness is streching that argument a little too far IMHO

 

Why this whining, because the aim-9 in falcon has Star Wars performance? If you look at the various videos of live fire trainings, please show me one instance in which the aim-9 is fired from beyond 5km to the target.

 

Your realy expecting the few videos you ever seen to be statisticaly representative of every sidwinder shot ever made? But going by that tokem, can you even hit targets the way those vids show? I bet you cant. Any target exceeding 500kts with a high angle off is just going to make the missile fall short under ONE mile, not 5 km like you said (not that I needed or wanted more anyway).

 

On a side note I would like to point out again I fly all aircraft not just the F-15, so Im here in a quest for realism and I am getting that feeling again the vast majority of people just dont care as long as PK favours them. If only half of you flew all planes to compare as much as I do, you would be wowed on how much the Eagle is made to be a target practice drone, I wonder how it ever got to be the king of skies with such crappy missiles IRL.

 

 

I can spend up to 2 hours to kill one bandit in an F-15 but bag 8 with the nimble mig by flying low and slow in 30 minutes. I managed that the last time I swiched to mig in the 504 server last week. This hapened because I could outshoot AMRAAM's with R-27ET's and R-73's at low altitudes, all I had to do was to turn away after firing them, all US missiles will fall to the ground just like that. Im finding myself going guns too many times with the F-15 after all missiles went dead or fall short sortie after sortie, Im not sh33ting you, just check the kill boards. (BTW I died 90% of the times trying to gun someone by missiles after mine didnt do their job properly with due proper tactical advantage, so you can imagine how many times in total I had to resort to the gun that is not registered in the boards)

[aimmaverick]

Let me get this straight. We do agree that performance of Sidewinder in Lockon is terrible right? Ofcourse R-73 has much bigger range and lethality than Sidewinder we all know that. But Aim-9 here is kinematicly modeled worse than versions from the Vietnam war! This should be on the top priority list for Black Shark. Seeing your missile failing hit even a slow target like helicopter at 2 miles is a joke. We have real fighter pilots in this forum let they comment on this?

Realistic range should be around 10 miles at altitude right?

[pschelchshorn]

Use common sense to determine which has the biggest range, the aim-9M has big draggy control surfaces and a small rocket, the R-73 has a 7700N of rocket thrust (Russian site) and a longer burn time. And the control surfaces are 2x, maybe 3x sleeker and smaller.

Why this whining, because the aim-9 in falcon has Star Wars performance? If you look at the various videos of live fire trainings, please show me one instance in which the aim-9 is fired from beyond 5km to the target.

 

The Max range usually incorporates a head on situation. The Asraam for example is known for its high speed and "long range"..well...head on of course! In a Turning fight i wouldnt want an asraam over an IRIS-T or Python 4/5.

 

Flip

[GGTharos]

I'll go with minizap and say, 'R-73 ballistic performance is not much different from AIM-9M ballistic performance' ... in fact, according to minizap, the R-73 has a shorter range, but then again minizap doesn't use the correct drag factors, so all we can say is 'it's similar'.

 

Not to mention an off-bore launch should really eat away at the range, and US missile ECCM should better than Russian.

 

Yes, the AIM-9M would appear to be totally porked in LO. It doesn't mean it needs to have 10nm range. It just needs to reach things 2nm away in a tail chase, and the proof for such things is in HUD tapes already, where you can clearly see the DLZ.

 

 

In addition, it should behave well in up to 30deg off-bore launches, just not as close as an R-73.

[S77th-GOYA]

the proof for such things is in HUD tapes already, where you can clearly see the DLZ.

 

Got a link to any? Showing altitude, velocity, closure, etc.?

[GGTharos]

Search on youtube for HAF vs TUAF or something like that - easiest ones to find, and they contain all the data you mention if you know how to read the HUD.

[D-Scythe]

Let me get this straight. We do agree that performance of Sidewinder in Lockon is terrible right? Ofcourse R-73 has much bigger range and lethality than Sidewinder we all know that.

 

How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?

 

Lethality: Seeker-wise, the technology in the R-73 is about the same as the AIM-9M. In the absence of classified information, there should be no difference in lethality between the two provided each missile is fired within their respective employment envelopes (which is much bigger for the R-73).

 

Range: Ballistically, there is no reason to expect the R-73 flies that much further than the AIM-9. The missile certainly does NOT have 3 times the range of the Sidewinder, unless the Russians are using some super propellant that's many times more energy-efficient that HTPB. In terms of drag, the AIM-9M is not even draggy - it's drag index compares very favourably to the AIM-120 and AIM-7.

 

But Aim-9 here is kinematicly modeled worse than versions from the Vietnam war! This should be on the top priority list for Black Shark. Seeing your missile failing hit even a slow target like helicopter at 2 miles is a joke. We have real fighter pilots in this forum let they comment on this?

Realistic range should be around 10 miles at altitude right?

 

WAFM would solve everyone's problems. I don't think an interim solution would be all that desirable.

[Force_Feedback]

Ofcourse its drag index is favorable, and sure, a 200 grams model rockets drag index is much more favorable than of an ICBM, but those are totally different classes of rocket propelled controlled projectiles.

 

Here's a Russian site (that changes the text from Cyrillic to Latin for no apparent reason :/) http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/aim9.html, it states that the Aim-9M Mk.36 mod 9 rocket motor provides total thrust of 3700 kg/s

 

This site here has a launch table for the oldest R-73 (with the 45 deg designation angle and 75 degree off bore seeker angle)

http://airbase.ru/hangar/russia/weapon/aam/r/73/

 

The conditions:

 

No regard to seeker head limitations. Carrier speed 900 km/h, target speed 700 km/h, straight flight, no manoeuvering from either. Range data for various altitudes (10000, 5000, 1000 m) and headings (Front hemisphere 0/4 1/4 2/4 3/4, sideways 4/4, rear hemisphere 0/4 1/4 2/4 3/4)

 

FHS=Front hemisphere, RHS=rear hemisphere

 

+----------------------------------------------------------+ | | | FHS |side|RHS | | | |-------------------| |-------------------| |Missile|Height|0/4 |1/4 |2/4 |3/4 |4/4 |0/4 |1/4 |2/4 |3/4 | |----------------------------------------------------------| |Р-73 | 10000|17.5|16 |15 |13 |12 | 8.5| 9 | 9 |10 | |----------------------------------------------------------| |Р-73 | 5000|13 |12.5|11.5| 9 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6.5| 7.5| |----------------------------------------------------------| |Р-73 | 1000| 9 | 8.5| 7.5| 6.5| 5.5| 4 | 4 | 4.2| 4.8| +----------------------------------------------------------+ // Источник таблицы - Valeri_ (<- table source: Valeri_)

 

Guess it's safe to conclude the R-73 is not draggy ;)

 

So, at 1000M from sea level, travelling at 900 kph, head on, the target at 700 kph, the missile should fly 9km (with that ACMI program), and it should cover 4 km before hitting a target in pursuit. Now, let the testing begin.

[GGTharos]

On the other hand, the AIM-9M and R-73 are pretty much in the same class ;)

 

In fact the AIM-9M and the R-73 seem to have similar propellant mass (30kg vs. 34 kg) but the rest of the weapon differs more ... 85kg for AIM-9 vs. 105kg for the R-73. Regardless, based on propellant mass alone, these two should have *very* similar range performance.

[S77th-GOYA]

How on earth did you jump to that conclusion?

 

Lethality: Seeker-wise, the technology in the R-73 is about the same as the AIM-9M. In the absence of classified information, there should be no difference in lethality between the two provided each missile is fired within their respective employment envelopes (which is much bigger for the R-73).

 

A seeker never brought down an a/c. He probably meant the difference in warheads.

[GGTharos]

The AIM-9's warhead is bigger IIRC ... and typically western fuzes are more advanced, too ...

 

In E/E, /IIRC/ only some 3-4 R-73's hit out of 10, whereas Sidewinders were hitting about 8 out of ten ... or course there might be other reasons for this (the export versions of R-73's, which may have been used, are more susceptible to CMs)

[Pilotasso]

Well said Pilotasso, I fly all jets also and the AIM-9 kills I have had in the 504 were sneaky ones or I just got lucky and the target was out of flares. The AIM-9 is will miss with a few flares then the 73, that is a known fact. Heck throw a heat pack out your cockpit and I bet it will go for that. We all now that the US missiles you have to be very close to hit anything. The only way you get a long range kill is if it's a noob. Trying being at 45,000 feet and firing on a target 20-30 miles away. At that altitude your missile should have good speed, but one little turn from the bandit and there goes your speed. I have tried that numerous times in TWS and 80% of them missed.

 

Don't believe everything you guys see on websites. It just because something is unclassified doesn't mean they know all the fact and stats. That is where a lot of you guys fall to, you think everything on the net is true!

 

I'll go with minizap and say, 'R-73 ballistic performance is not much different from AIM-9M ballistic performance' ... in fact, according to minizap, the R-73 has a shorter range, but then again minizap doesn't use the correct drag factors, so all we can say is 'it's similar'.

 

Not to mention an off-bore launch should really eat away at the range, and US missile ECCM should better than Russian.

 

Yes, the AIM-9M would appear to be totally porked in LO. It doesn't mean it needs to have 10nm range. It just needs to reach things 2nm away in a tail chase, and the proof for such things is in HUD tapes already, where you can clearly see the DLZ.

 

 

In addition, it should behave well in up to 30deg off-bore launches, just not as close as an R-73.

 

Im not even worried about the Sidwinders flare rejection. Its kinetic capability is just too poor to be able to judge seeker perfomance. Usualy It falls short faster than the enemy needs to press flare key too often anyway.

[D-Scythe]

Ofcourse its drag index is favorable, and sure, a 200 grams model rockets drag index is much more favorable than of an ICBM, but those are totally different classes of rocket propelled controlled projectiles...

 

Guess it's safe to conclude the R-73 is not draggy ;)

 

I never said the R-73 was draggy. I simply stated that the AIM-9 is pretty sleek as well.

 

So, at 1000M from sea level, travelling at 900 kph, head on, the target at 700 kph, the missile should fly 9km (with that ACMI program), and it should cover 4 km before hitting a target in pursuit. Now, let the testing begin.

 

9 km ballistically is not that great - keep in mind when the missile is locked onto a target, the seeker isn't perfect - the missile is going to waste a LOT of energy just guiding onto a target flying a straight profile due to errors in PN (i.e. the "sidewinding" effect that ALL missiles that use PN have).

 

And once again, in terms of the rocket motor, unless the R-73 is using a propellant that is substantially - like by orders of magnitude - more powerful and efficient than HTPB (such a thing does not exist), there is absolutely NO WAY that the R-73 can triple the range of the AIM-9M.

[D-Scythe]

A seeker never brought down an a/c. He probably meant the difference in warheads.

 

I thought he just meant the lethality of the weapon overall. In any case, the seeker (and the guidance computers that use it) is everything - you can literally have NO warhead but a flawless seeker and you'd STILL have the best AAM in the world.

 

Skewering your targets with hit-to-kill missiles has been in Vogue for the last couple years.

[pschelchshorn]

concerning another missile, i think the new stingers dont even have a warhead, they just slam into the aircraft (preferably helicopters!)..

 

Flip

[GGTharos]

I'm pretty sure they have a warhead, they just don't have a prox fuze.

[S77th-GOYA]

AIM-9 - 9.4 kg (20.8 lb) WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation warhead - Speed: Mach 2.5+

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html

 

R-73 - 7.4kg HE expanding rod warhead - Speed: Mach 2.5

 

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r73.asp

[D-Scythe]

concerning another missile, i think the new stingers dont even have a warhead, they just slam into the aircraft (preferably helicopters!)..

 

Flip

 

Think you are mixing up some names. The missile you are really looking for is called Starstreak.

[TucksonSonny]

 

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r73.asp

 

 

 

Your link is confirming the 30km range for the R-73M2 :D

Range: 20km (R-73M1), or 30km (R-73M2)

[RvEYoda]

Sidewinders head-on in lockon are completely useless.. 2-3 G turn into the missile and it wont do shit.

On the other hand a high G bandit with 40-140 deg aspect within 1-2 nm .....thats a kill, assuming the missile is fired from the same plane of motion as the target. Otherwise its about as useful as guns.

 

Very VERY small launch window compared to r73, but ofc both are under modeled like crazy ^^

 

If you're chasing a bandit at max air speed at low alt, you can expect that you need to be within 0,5 nm to hit, dont even know if thats enough. Kind of silly.....we need WAFM :)

[p_o_d_2_2]

You can hit incoming missiles with AIM-9's when they are coming straight at you, so they aren't completely useless.

[RvEYoda]

You can hit incoming missiles with AIM-9's when they are coming straight at you, so they aren't completely useless.

 

True :D