SEVERELY DECREASED Missile Performance as of late

[Auditor]

Hello,

 

I don't know when exactly this has started, because this isn't a metric that I've been keeping track of patch-to-patch, but the missiles specific to the Mig-21 have been experiencing severely decreased performance as of late. In some cases, these missiles barely leave gun range before becoming too slow to pursue targets. Just as a few examples:

https://imgur.com/a/IaIeb5l

I'll embed the R-3R image below:

 

Each of these screenshots were taken at the moment of motor burnout, both planes traveling at 400 knots.

 

The R-3R and the R-13 are objectively copies of the AIM-9B; the missile at the very top. I'll embed that image below:

 

That missile (fired from the tiger ii) is able to hit Mach 2. The R-3R and the R-13 can barely cross mach 1.6 before burning out. The RS-2US, since it has no other in-game analog, should easily be able to hit Mach 2.

 

I understand missile performance has been a huge sticking point on this subforum, but this has clearly been a downgrade since the last time I checked. That's why I didn't bother necro'ing any of the previous threads on the subject. I remember before the 1.5 merge having missiles that could hit Mach 2 just like the AIM-9B.

 

This is a serious problem because the only missile that does hit Mach 2 like it should be doing is the R-60:

 

This missile was originally an ED missile seems to be the only one that is functioning anywhere near correctly.

 

Can someone from M3 give a statement as to the design decision that went behind the missile downgrade? Otherwise, this appears 100% to be a bug that has lingered from the upgrade.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Auditor

[Hiromachi]

We're looking into it. Could you be so kind and provide logs of the specific mission and event ?

[Auditor]

Hello, thanks for the prompt response.

 

I started to notice this when I was doing some testing on the weaponry after I started to notice the irregularities. I did a series of nine tests at 2NM, 4NM, and 6NM respectively with three of the Mig-21's weapons. The R-3R, the RS-2US, and the R-13M1. At 4NM, the missile barely has enough energy to impact a non-maneuvering target with no countermeasures with all three weapons when launched well within RMax on the radar screen.

 

The mission I used was a test mission I created in the mission editor. I've included it in this zip file with all of the logs and tacview files of my testing. Both planes are are 100% fuel at 20,000 feet to ensure no radar obstruction and optimum launch windows for all three weapons. The Mig-27K has no countermeasures, and no weapons or guns. It maneuvers when engaged at 6NM range. All three weapons are launched either ASAP when mission starts or when radar shows best launch windows for the weapons. In the R3R and RS-2US case at 6NM, they're launched at indicated rmax.

 

The thing to notice is the maximum missile speed of all three missiles, they appear to be far too slow for missiles of that caliber. Furthermore, RMax for all three weapons doesn't appear to be accurately reflected on the heads down display for the Mig-21, as rmax for these weapons is reported to be far higher than what the energy capability of the in-game missiles appears to be, and lower than what similar or the same missiles in other modules appear to be.

 

It's not letting me upload files directly to the forum, so I've included an off-site link

 

Thanks for looking into this!

[Mortisrose]

I flew level at 1000m and 800 kph tas and these were the results. Apparently the R3S and the R-13M1 perform about the same and the GAR-8 outperforms both. R3R has somewhat less performance than R3S.

 

Reviewing my old Tacview files the decrease in performance occurred sometime in August of 2016, before the R-13M1, R3R could accelerate to ~Mach 2.3

Edited September 5, 2018 by Mortisrose

[Auditor]

Great chart! Makes me wish I had the paid version of Tacview :thumbup:

[Foka1]

So I've just checked R-13M

 

Altitude of check was 6000 meters (roughly 19000 feet)

 

Both target and source are traveling 1000 KPH TAS

 

R-13M reaching mach 2.16

 

I also have real R-13M data, but I will not post it as of now, cuz I need to clear its not "sikrit". Overall so far I think R-13M in DCS certainly is not under-performing according to documentation.

 

[Auditor]

So I've just checked R-13M

 

Altitude of check was 6000 meters (roughly 19000 feet)

 

Both target and source are traveling 1000 KPH TAS

 

R-13M reaching mach 2.16

 

I also have real R-13M data, but I will not post it as of now, cuz I need to clear its not "sikrit". Overall so far I think R-13M in DCS certainly is not under-performing according to documentation.

 

"I also have real R-13M data I'm serious guys!

 

I'm skeptical.

Two things

1) The top speed of the R-13M has been known for literally 40 years.. In fact, I linked some sources pertaining to this in the OP.

2) You can see that it's not accurate missile data from just looking at the Tacview data. We're looking at sustained performance, and the 'top speed' listed is true for the GAR-8, but not the R-13 or the R-3S. You can see that from the tacview files that Mortisrose posted and even your own that you posted. It drops off way too fast and 2.25 was its sustained maximum speed, you seem to be confusing sustained maximum speed with top possible speed, which is a misunderstanding on your part, and furthermore you don't seem to be acknowledging that the faster you go; the faster the initial missile's launch will be. You can test this yourself, and your picture shows a misunderstanding of the topic (furthermore, you appear to be firing the R-13M in a frontal aspect, which this is a rear-most aspect missile. Try getting a lock first)

 

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I am going to say that you're confusing our real, comparative evidence with other missiles in the game with a misunderstanding of some numbers.

 

These missiles; the R-13, as well as the R-3S, are grossly falling behind the very missiles that these two were based on.

 

If you do indeed have the sensitive R-13 documents. Answer a few questions for us:

 

 

1. How come the R-13M1, a far more advanced missile than the R-3S, has a lower sustained travel distance.
   
2. How come this Vietnam-era missile has worst performance characteristics than the GAR-8
   
3. Despite the fact that the R-3S is based on the GAR-8 and the R-13M/1 is a far upgraded missile from the R-3S.
   
4. AND neither of them, in any instance, match up to the GAR-8 in-game (Try it, fly a Tiger II, accelerate to the same speed you were at in your test, and shoot a GAR-8. You'll see performance curves like what Mortisrose posted)
   

 

Pardon me if I'm extremely skeptical of this claim by someone who just happens to have "sikrit documents". I don't mean to be confrontational, but you come in and demand "Don't change anything" when you're yet to post any proof this is working as intended when we can see from other, similar missiles that this is not working as intended.

 

Frankly, it's unhelpful.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Auditor

[Foka1]

"I also have real R-13M data I'm serious guys!

 

I'm skeptical.

Two things

1) The top speed of the R-13M has been known for literally 40 years.. In fact, I linked some sources pertaining to this in the OP.

2) You can see that it's not accurate missile data from just looking at the Tacview data. We're looking at sustained performance, and the 'top speed' listed is true for the GAR-8, but not the R-13 or the R-3S. You can see that from the tacview files that Mortisrose posted and even your own that you posted. It drops off way too fast and 2.25 was its sustained maximum speed, you seem to be confusing sustained maximum speed with top possible speed, which is a misunderstanding on your part, and furthermore you don't seem to be acknowledging that the faster you go; the faster the initial missile's launch will be. You can test this yourself, and your picture shows a misunderstanding of the topic (furthermore, you appear to be firing the R-13M in a frontal aspect, which this is a rear-most aspect missile. Try getting a lock first)

 

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I am going to say that you're confusing our real, comparative evidence with other missiles in the game with a misunderstanding of some numbers.

 

These missiles; the R-13, as well as the R-3S, are grossly falling behind the very missiles that these two were based on.

 

If you do indeed have the sensitive R-13 documents. Answer a few questions for us:

 

 

1. How come the R-13M1, a far more advanced missile than the R-3S, has a lower sustained travel distance.
   
2. How come this Vietnam-era missile has worst performance characteristics than the GAR-8
   
3. Despite the fact that the R-3S is based on the GAR-8 and the R-13M/1 is a far upgraded missile from the R-3S.
   
4. AND neither of them, in any instance, match up to the GAR-8 in-game (Try it, fly a Tiger II, accelerate to the same speed you were at in your test, and shoot a GAR-8. You'll see performance curves like what Mortisrose posted)
   

 

Pardon me if I'm extremely skeptical of this claim by someone who just happens to have "sikrit documents". I don't mean to be confrontational, but you come in and demand "Don't change anything" when you're yet to post any proof this is working as intended when we can see from other, similar missiles that this is not working as intended.

 

Frankly, it's unhelpful.

 

As I said in other thread rules of this forum FORBID me to post any tech data on aircrafts or weapons.

 

Although I think maybe I can post link, but I didn't find same doc in web yet, which is telling me that this doc is not really spread in web.

 

Russian sources says that Max speed for R-13M is 550 meters per second (http://www.aveaprom.ru/oruzie-urvv-r13.php), which is even less that we can see in our tacview tests.

 

Chart I have is only about R-13 so don't ask me about GAR-8 yet, also that chart is about target position and distance and target speed and missile limits for hitting that target. Comparison with GAR-8 can be made but we need to make some rules for that comparison.

 

Even without "sikrit dokumints" your claim that "R-13 can barely cross mach 1.6 before burning out" is not checking out here.. Or I understood something wrong? Cuz in my test R-13M crossed MACH 2 alright. And frankly that is my main point here, sikrit sokumints is secondary.

 

"It drops off way too fast and 2.25 was its sustained maximum speed, you seem to be confusing sustained maximum speed with top possible speed"

 

We can elaborate on that... So russian sources says missile max speed is 550 m/s = 1980 KPH. On my tacview you can see that test gave top achieved speed of R-13M as 2457 KPH (TAS). Where is discrepancy here? Why you think speed is low? What it should be in your opinion? What speed it should sustain and why?

 

 

PS we can switch to other missiles after we deal with R-13M, I think I may have something on R-3S as well.

[Foka1]

I also realize that I don't understand your term, "Sustained maximum speed" used for such missiles.

 

Missile top speed dictated by its airframe and its engine burn time + power. To sustain its max speed missile would need to burn that long to reach its maximum possible speed (dictated by things above) and then stay at it. Now to do that missile would need its engine to keep running and providing same power even after missile reached top speed. I think we can find how many seconds R-13M engine gives its burn, I don't think its able to achieve any sustained speed at ANY point actually...

[Auditor]

I also realize that I don't understand your term, "Sustained maximum speed" used for such missiles.

 

Missile top speed dictated by its airframe and its engine burn time + power. To sustain its max speed missile would need to burn that long to reach its maximum possible speed (dictated by things above) and then stay at it.

 

 

 

Chart I have is only about R-13 so don't ask me about GAR-8 yet, also that chart is about target position and distance and target speed and missile limits for hitting that target. Comparison with GAR-8 can be made but we need to make some rules for that comparison.

 

Even without "sikrit dokumints" your claim that "R-13 can barely cross mach 1.6 before burning out" is not checking out here.. Or I understood something wrong? Cuz in my test R-13M crossed MACH 2 alright. And frankly that is my main point here, sikrit sokumints is secondary.

 

I think you're understanding this wrong. We're both looking at the same information, but I think your interpretation of it is incorrect.

 

Sustained maximum speed is the max speed it should be able to reach on its own power. The number you provided was including the airframe's speed.

For instance, in your test, you accelerated to over mach 1 to fire the missile, and then reported that the missile successfully reached mach 2. However, this doesn't account for the fact that you fired it at mach 1, and therefore imparted most of its energy to it.

 

Compare this to the GAR-8, which has no problem whatsoever accelerating to Mach 2 even when the aircraft is below Mach 1. The GAR-8 is functioning exactly as it should and within the parameters we know. As per this article:

 

The AIM-9B Sidewinder was the first production version of the Raytheon Sidewinder 1A. It was 9 feet, 3.5 inches (2.832 meters) long with a diameter of 5 inches (12.7 centimeters). The span of the fins was 1 foot, 10 inches (55.9 centimeters). The AIM-9B weighed 155 pounds (70.3 kilograms). The missile was powered by a Thiokol Mk. 17 rocket engine which produced 4,000 pounds of thrust for 2.2 seconds. It could achieve a speed of Mach 1.7 over its launch speed, or about Mach 2.5. The maximum range was 2.9 miles (4.82 kilometers). It carried a 10 pound (4.54 kilogram) blast fragmentation warhead with an infrared detonator. The lethal range was approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters).

And as we can see from the test data that it's easily reaching that velocity over its launch speed. As the missile loses fuel, it speeds up accordingly as it becomes lighter until it eventually burns out. That point at burn-out is the maximum speed. (It's actually a tad bit slower in-game than it should be if these numbers are accurate).

 

Hence, the R-3R, R-3S, and R-13M. None of these missiles have this kind of energy to them in-game. Two of them are copies of the AIM-9B (and I've been arguing with someone who claims to have information that they aren't straight copies but instead increased range variants. This person also hasn't posted any new information pertaining to it) and the other is a modified variant. And the information I can look up on it shows that all three should be matching the AIM-9B at least in energy expenditure.

 

So what gives?

 

I think we can find how many seconds R-13M engine gives its burn, I don't think its able to achieve any sustained speed at ANY point actually...

That would be an excellent start. Not to mention fixing the AoA problems that it has.

 

Russian sources says that Max speed for R-13M is 550 meters per second (http://www.aveaprom.ru/oruzie-urvv-r13.php), which is even less that we can see in our tacview tests.

Also: I would very much like to know if the R-13's max speed is really 1.6 mach, because many of my sources conflict with this number. According to them; R-13M speeds are about the same as the GAR-8 (http://www.astronautix.com/k/k-13r-13m.html) (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/aa-2.htm) (https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041942/http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-2.htm)

 

Are we reading it wrong and 550 m/s is its total speed? That might explain why the numbers are different.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Auditor

[Foka1]

Frankly all sources you provided are has not more credibility than my claim I have R-13M document data. These are just sites which are not even state where they did take this information from, or even wikipedia. These are not academic documents but some articles.

 

Description you cited about AIM-9B specifically says about what speed is what. But no source specify what R-13M max speed means..

 

I never saw any missile documents where they wouldn't take into account speed of platform. If you don't like platform speed in my test being 1000 KPH, well in test from Mortisrose his MiG-21 going 0.7M so not ZERO as well. And you can just subtract speed difference if you want.

 

I didn't find R-13M data publicly available. BUT I found R-3S full doc which you can use to update yourself on how missile docs looks like and what they post in them. It is study manual from one of the Russian universities which I bet have more credibility than any source which was posted in this thread so far. It is not R-13M but it is full data on R-3S. The doc is available in public access on at least three different websites.

 

This doc is obviously on russian but formulas and charts are understandable.

 

Also I believe missiles like that never considered to be launched from something with speed of zero, in some books it is usually at least 700-900 KPH.

 

You can use book to start from doing checks on R-3S, and it will be actually based on credible document.

Edited November 7, 2018 by P61

[Foka1]

Search for " Л.Н.Бызов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. "

Edited November 7, 2018 by P61
book name, I won't give link to documents, forum rules... dunno

[2RGT Oberst]

but we want to talk about the damage of the R-60? To knock down an F-5, I have to launch 3 missiles ... here is the video test.

 

The R60 of the Albatros, does more damage, seems to be different from the one mounted by the MiG-21.

 

minute 2:13

 

[Zweistein000]

but we want to talk about the damage of the R-60? To knock down an F-5, I have to launch 3 missiles ... here is the video test.

 

The R60 of the Albatros, does more damage, seems to be different from the one mounted by the MiG-21.

 

minute 2:13

 

R-60 is a pretty small missile. From my experience it's ability to kill is a lot more susceptible to how and where it hits the target. I've taken down F-15s with one missile, but I've also seen what you are showing in the video.

[2RGT Oberst]

R-60 is a pretty small missile. From my experience it's ability to kill is a lot more susceptible to how and where it hits the target. I've taken down F-15s with one missile, but I've also seen what you are showing in the video.

I know, but from some updates, the situation seems to get worse .. But I can not explain why with a r60 albatross, I never have to shoot 2 for a single target.

 

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

[Foka1]

but we want to talk about the damage of the R-60? To knock down an F-5, I have to launch 3 missiles ... here is the video test.

 

The R60 of the Albatros, does more damage, seems to be different from the one mounted by the MiG-21.

 

minute 2:13

 

 

Not really want until one particular thing.

 

This is easy one actually, DCS has no FRAGMENTATION damage modeled YET, but fuzing is modeled. All these shots are just lacking fragmentation damage. Also add some network lag in some cases.

 

You can see it more plainly in KA-50, if you switch Vikhr to A-A mode it is actually changing its fuzing, so try to hit Gazelle in that mode. In most experiments you will need more than one Vikhr to kill Gazelle on spot. BUT if you change mode to A2G moving vehicle for instance, it will change fuzing to actual penetration. in that mode you will see that in most experiments you will splash Gazelle dead on sight with first shot.

 

Now ED stated not so long ago that they are working on fragmentation damage. So when they will do it, we would need to return to that question.

 

So in case of R-60M count it as if you want kill from first shot you need to shot to not really lagging guy and best case scenario will be where aspect will allow closest fuzing because only explosion damage will count and R-60M doesn't pack much explosives..

 

2 years ago I compared R-60M from LN and R-60M from ED (the one you have on Albatros), they were behaving differently, so I asked which one was wrong, in the end as I recall LN copied data from ED R-60M to their own R-60, so now they should be same, ALTHOUGH that can be said maybe only about seeker data, maybe they didnt change fuzing and explosive amount..

 

In this case "The R60 of the Albatros, does more damage, seems to be different from the one mounted by the MiG-21." not really gonna work. Do some work, take mission editor make simple scenario where you place MiG-21 behind F-5 and make AI F-5 to not react on threats, then do at least 10 experiments where you just shoot as soon as you load in plane. Then do 10 more experiments but instead of MiG-21 take Albatros with its R-60s. Then we will see at least something slightly representative for comparison. And it would be best if after it you complete same experiments but with human F-5 instead of AI. Then it would be interesting to see those results. Also I think tacview not gonna really help here cuz even when in tacview something splashed it sometime stay intact inside DCS, so you would need videos from your cockpit.

 

PS also about your video and that F-5... I presume you don't know what happened in F-5 cockpit at that time.. When I was testing F-5 in considerable number of cases F-5 didn't explode from first R-60M shot, BUT it was damaged and after couple minutes its engines were out and it was turning into glider. So you can see, nothing here is that simple...;)

[Foka1]

I know, but from some updates, the situation seems to get worse ..

 

These were most likely updates for damage model, F-5 included. They introduced new damage model for planes, about year ago we could see fuel leaks introduced for instance. And it will be updated even further, and missile would have to be adapted after that. It is continuous process

 

 

One detail also, why you think MiG-21 has mode for launching two missiles simultaneously? I'm joking :D It was actually for bombers mostly I think, also PK of missiles IRL counted and they were launching at least two at target cuz a lot more factors were playing against missiles seekers compared to DCS environment..

Edited November 3, 2018 by P61

[2RGT Oberst]

 

 

One detail also, why you think MiG-21 has mode for launching two missiles simultaneously? ..

 

ahahaahah :megalol: exact! should instead put that 2 (for F5 and F15)

 

for me the mig21 remains one of the best modules, if not the best

[Auditor]

Frankly all sources you provided are has not more credibility than my claim I have R-13M document data. These are just sites which are not even state where they did take this information from, or even wikipedia. These are not academic documents but some articles.

 

Description you cited about AIM-9B specifically says about what speed is what. But no source specify what R-13M max speed means..

 

I never saw any missile documents where they wouldn't take into account speed of platform. If you don't like platform speed in my test being 1000 KPH, well in test from Mortisrose his MiG-21 going 0.7M so not ZERO as well. And you can just subtract speed difference if you want.

 

I didn't find R-13M data publicly available. BUT I found R-3S full doc which you can use to update yourself on how missile docs looks like and what they post in them. It is study manual from one of the Russian universities which I bet have more credibility than any source which was posted in this thread so far. It is not R-13M but it is full data on R-3S. I can give you a link, but let's not use this forum, send me your preferred way where I can give you link, basically it is a link for other forum where this document was uploaded and its available at the moment publicly.

 

This doc is obviously on russian but formulas and charts are understandable.

 

Hint for you: Vц means speed of target, Vн means speed of platform from which missile is launched.

 

Also I believe missiles like that never considered to be launched from something with speed of zero, in some books it is usually at least 700-900 KPH.

 

You can use book to start from doing checks on R-3S, and it will be actually based on credible document.

 

Well my sources have one piece of credibility which I think puts them above the documents: We can see them. I can actually link and show them to other people as well as the information contained within.

 

Also I dispute your claim that these are just random websites. The one that has the Mach 2.5 number is the Federation of American Scientists. Which is a literal academic organization. I suppose it's easily missed if you don't know who that group is.

 

I never saw any missile documents where they wouldn't take into account speed of platform. If you don't like platform speed in my test being 1000 KPH, well in test from Mortisrose his MiG-21 going 0.7M so not ZERO as well. And you can just subtract speed difference if you want.

This is exactly the problem with your test, do you not understand? You place the speed of the missile at 2.5M, but you're going at Mach 1 when you launch it. What's the total energy expended on the missile? You can't just subtract one from the other, because if you're going different speeds: The missile dynamics change. You can see that in Mortisrose's tacview track as it crosses the sound barrier.

I think you're misinterpreting it and then assuming other people are misinterpreting it because of that.

 

Any luck on seeing if those R-13 documents can be posted? I'm very interested, now.

 

Description you cited about AIM-9B specifically says about what speed is what. But no source specify what R-13M max speed means..

We can assume that it's at least AIM-9B speed. Why? Because the missile is based on the AIM-9B, objectively so, even. That's not even a question on 'if' its based on it. That's actual historical fact.

So if it doesn't expend the same energy as the Aim-9B, what gives? Same with the R-3S and R-3R. These missiles should match the AIM-9B in the game, and the AIM-9B specifications, but they don't.

 

We can also do a COMPARATIVE look at the three missiles. The R-13M is an extended range version of the R-3S, but in-game it has the same performance characteristics than the R-3S. Ideally, it should have about three times the range.

 

Which is why I'm very skeptical of your claims. You claim the missiles are behaving *correctly*, but they don't behave like the missile they were copied from and don't show the same performance values of the R-3S. Is that not cause for concern that maybe the missile is not behaving as intended?

 

We could solve this very quickly if we could get performance values on this rocket motor:

All R-3 variants are powered by the DWP-80A, a single-stage, solid fuel rocket motor. Given how faithfully the guidance system of the R-3S was copied from the AIM-9B, it is probable that the DWP-80A is a direct copy of the Thiokol Mk.17, with the same performance figures (see the AIM-9 page for further details). The R-13 series, however, use the much more powerful DWP-240; another single-stage, solid fuel rocket motor, this system produces much more thrust, and has a longer burn time, giving the R-13s much better flight performance. As with the Sidewinder, all R-3s are rail-launched only.

Every site I can find on this motor, including the ones I posted earlier, claims excess of Mach 2.

 

You can use book to start from doing checks on R-3S, and it will be actually based on credible document

I did, I used the federation of american scientists and their academic research papers. Why don't you disprove this number?

 

EDIT: I see you linked Л.Н.Белов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. ". Okay, that's a good start, and I found This page

I can't read this, however. Can you find where said relevant information would be in this document?

Edited November 4, 2018 by Auditor

[Auditor]

but we want to talk about the damage of the R-60? To knock down an F-5, I have to launch 3 missiles ... here is the video test.

 

The R60 of the Albatros, does more damage, seems to be different from the one mounted by the MiG-21.

 

minute 2:13

 

 

The R-60 is a toss-up when you fire it because it has a 3KG warhead. So different hits will damage things very unevenly. However, I have gotten F-15C kills with just one R-60 in the past.

[Hiromachi]

EDIT: I see you linked Л.Н.Белов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. ". Okay, that's a good start, and I found This page

I can't read this, however. Can you find where said relevant information would be in this document?

I think you got a wrong link, document you've linked comes from 2018 while document quoted comes from 2005. That should be the one.

[Hiromachi]

I know, but from some updates, the situation seems to get worse .. But I can not explain why with a r60 albatross, I never have to shoot 2 for a single target.

 

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

I checked it today, there is no difference in our and ED R-60M since we are using ED one.

[2RGT Oberst]

I checked it today, there is no difference in our and ED R-60M since we are using ED one.

Ok, thanks

 

 

Inviato dal mio Redmi Note 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

[Foka1]

Well my sources have one piece of credibility which I think puts them above the documents: We can see them. I can actually link and show them to other people as well as the information contained within.

 

Also I dispute your claim that these are just random websites. The one that has the Mach 2.5 number is the Federation of American Scientists. Which is a literal academic organization. I suppose it's easily missed if you don't know who that group is.

 

This is exactly the problem with your test, do you not understand? You place the speed of the missile at 2.5M, but you're going at Mach 1 when you launch it. What's the total energy expended on the missile? You can't just subtract one from the other, because if you're going different speeds: The missile dynamics change. You can see that in Mortisrose's tacview track as it crosses the sound barrier.

I think you're misinterpreting it and then assuming other people are misinterpreting it because of that.

 

Any luck on seeing if those R-13 documents can be posted? I'm very interested, now.

 

We can assume that it's at least AIM-9B speed. Why? Because the missile is based on the AIM-9B, objectively so, even. That's not even a question on 'if' its based on it. That's actual historical fact.

So if it doesn't expend the same energy as the Aim-9B, what gives? Same with the R-3S and R-3R. These missiles should match the AIM-9B in the game, and the AIM-9B specifications, but they don't.

 

We can also do a COMPARATIVE look at the three missiles. The R-13M is an extended range version of the R-3S, but in-game it has the same performance characteristics than the R-3S. Ideally, it should have about three times the range.

 

Which is why I'm very skeptical of your claims. You claim the missiles are behaving *correctly*, but they don't behave like the missile they were copied from and don't show the same performance values of the R-3S. Is that not cause for concern that maybe the missile is not behaving as intended?

 

We could solve this very quickly if we could get performance values on this rocket motor:

Every site I can find on this motor, including the ones I posted earlier, claims excess of Mach 2.

 

I did, I used the federation of american scientists and their academic research papers. Why don't you disprove this number?

 

EDIT: I see you linked Л.Н.Белов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. ". Okay, that's a good start, and I found This page

I can't read this, however. Can you find where said relevant information would be in this document?

 

"This is exactly the problem with your test, do you not understand? You place the speed of the missile at 2.5M, but you're going at Mach 1" this is not what I mean.. substract my speed and make it like Mortirose Mach 0.7, missile still will be faster than stated in russian sources 550 meters per second. Problem here is that none of sources says in which conditions this speed is achieved, it is just number 550 meters per second or how you claim your web sources say 2.5 M, but without conditions provided for that speed we can debate forever. Although 550 m/s is looking more achievable at low altitudes..

 

"Given how faithfully the guidance system of the R-3S was copied from the AIM-9B, it is probable that the DWP-80A is a direct copy of the Thiokol Mk.17" the word probable here is not enough because I think we can find specs for this russian engine, will you be able to find good doc on AIM-9B engine? Cuz at this point it is consuming somewhat of my free time I can't search for everything at this point, or can but it will be slow.

"Every site I can find on this motor, including the ones I posted earlier, claims excess of Mach 2." we would need more parameters for good comparison, you keep using easy ways..

 

I never debated that R-3S was reverse engineered.

 

What I want to do is to go step by step and not mix things. I want to start from credible source and study one missile at a time.

 

Sory I don't agree that whatever website by Federation of American Scientists is there has more credibility than russian study level university document about RUSSIAN missile R-3S (reverse engineered or not). Hiromachi found it right. For me search gives it as first result in Google.

 

After checking R-3S and how accurate it is you can use it as ground for comparison. And it is actually really good find and I thought you will be more happy that we have it now. pages 12 and 13 in it would be interesting for you to test in DCS.

 

What I said about R-13M was based on charts about maximum missile ranges for hitting targets with different range or altitudes distances and speeds. By that chart check available for what is max operational distance on which you can hit non maneuver target. It wasn't stating what speed missile itself should have. And frankly DCS can have limitations for simulating exactly same speed, devs can face choice actually to model max speed or to model actual maximum "kill" ranges from documents.

 

I understood already that you don't believe me having R-13M data, there is no need in further toxic remarks. I won't post it until I will be sure that forum rules allow it and that person who provided it to me is ok with that. If its not good enough explanation for you, I don't have a better one. So deal with it. And frankly your claim that websites are credible not really that much better. Especially wikipedia.

 

So from this point please let's move with R-3S only for now, do some work with charts in document I found, and it will be ground for comparison.

 

"EDIT: I see you linked Л.Н.Белов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. ". Okay, that's a good start, and I found This page

I can't read this, however. Can you find where said relevant information would be in this document?"

Yes that is book I mean, and I won't agree that whatever american source you have is more credible for R-3S. Sorry I would agree if you would talk about AIM-9B.

 

The russian doc you found is not about missile at all, you can see it by charts and pics in that doc actually. Hiromachi linked the correct book.

 

Just please understand that I want to look at one missile at the time, until I know good solid info about it. I don't care if book I found will support modeling in DCS or not. I just think that comparing two variables is not really constructive, at least when we have information for one of them which needs to be studied.

[Auditor]

I think you got a wrong link, document you've linked comes from 2018 while document quoted comes from 2005. That should be the one.

Oh, thank you.

Any opinions on the conversation we're having?