Air to Air Missile Flight Physics and Logics, Take two!

[zzzspace]

I said NOTHING about beaming (because beaming is extremely effective for a number of well established reasons).

 

I spoke only in relation to DOPPLER NOTCHING; there is huge difference.

 

What is that difference?

 

-SK

 

 

Go read something on it if you don't know the difference SK, don't waste my time with such dumb questions. You seem to need to go re-evaluate some of your acquired axioms and assumptions.

[SwingKid]

Like I said GGTharos, oh no not this again...

 

All that's missing is for him to ask me now what I do for a living... :roll:

 

-SK

[zzzspace]

Like I said GGTharos, oh no not this again...

 

All that's missing is for him to ask me now what I do for a living... :roll:

 

-SK

 

 

Look SK, I extended to you the common courtesy of crediting you with having thought about things a little and done a bit of digging in your time, and of having something to say on such matters, but if you can't manage to extend that basic courtesy to others in return, then STFU fella! I’ll ignore you.

[SwingKid]

Look SK, I extended to you the common courtesy of crediting you with having thought about things a little and done a bit of digging in your time, and of having something to say on such matters, but if you can't manage to extend that basic courtesy to others in return, then STFU fella! I’ll ignore you.

 

When I ask you for a source, and you decline to provide one, you practically divest yourself of the right to tell me to "go read something". That is not courtesy. A courtesy would be to honour my original request for help, and recommend to me, what to read.

 

I ask again:

 

Source?

 

-SK

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

You won't get any, SK.

 

When are we getting the R-27TE with 130km rangeMAX, like it says at IAF's site? :roll:

 

My challenge is still up. Who's going to prove the R-77 is inferior to the AMRAAM? Funny how the I-will-defend-the-AMRAAM-to-death asked ME to prove the R-77 is NOT inferior whe HE claimed that. zzzspace seems to be doing the same thing :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Alfa]

zzzspace,

 

Calm down please :idea:

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[gherring]

My understanding is beaming is putting the threat at your three or nine oclock position; the threat could be enemy radar or an incoming missile (RH or IR, much of the reasons remain the same). Notching a doppler radar means eliminating the doppler shift or your radar return. This just happens to be done by beaming.

 

In LOMAC, notching seems much more effective if one is lower than the radiating aircraft.

[Kula66]

You won't get any, SK.

 

When are we getting the R-27TE with 130km rangeMAX, like it says at IAF's site? :roll:

 

My challenge is still up. Who's going to prove the R-77 is inferior to the AMRAAM? Funny how the I-will-defend-the-AMRAAM-to-death asked ME to prove the R-77 is NOT inferior whe HE claimed that. zzzspace seems to be doing the same thing :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Nobody can prove it ... the info is classified by both sides. All you can do is look at features/physics etc and draw conclusions ... ie. r77 fins are draggier but probably give better manoueverability, US 1980s micro-electronics is more advance the Sov 1980s, what were the development budgets, what are the motor sizes etc ... and you can never believe the hyp/marketing info/propaganda ...

 

James

[Kula66]

My understanding is beaming is putting the threat at your three or nine oclock position; the threat could be enemy radar or an incoming missile (RH or IR, much of the reasons remain the same). Notching a doppler radar means eliminating the doppler shift or your radar return. This just happens to be done by beaming.

 

In LOMAC, notching seems much more effective if one is lower than the radiating aircraft.

 

Ok, my read ... isn't it turning 90degs to the enemies course? Which isn't necessarily your 3 or 9?

 

James

[Alfa]

Money DOES have something to do with stuff. And I'm sorry, in this respect, the AIM-120 beats the R-77 hands down. Anyone who disputes that is delusional. Some 30 years of R&D by Hughes then Raytheon with millions of taxpayers' dollars spent on making the AIM-120 the missile that it is. You *cannot* say that the R-77 enjoyed the same benefits.

 

Back on topic.

 

 

Oh no you dont....you are not getting off that easy mate... :lol:

 

Please state what you know about the ARH seekers available for "the R-77" and why you think the seeker technology is inferior to that of "the AMRAAM".

 

I have heard this claim one too many times D-Scythe....and every time I ask for data to back it up, it turns out that who ever makes the claim has zero specifications to back it up.....neither for the AMRAAM nor for the R-77.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Sharpshooter]

Nope, completely untrue. Two aircraft can merge, none of their actives ever having found a target.

 

HOWEVER. You'll never see me nose-on with an enemy aircraft, being fired on, and not having fired back, so please delete that assumption - it would only happen due to surprise or sleeping on the job, and both are fairly rare.

 

You can ocnsistently have a high survival rate -jsut- by applying the correct techniques at the right time ... to give you an example, I got into a tiff with a fully loaded MiG-29S. I only had a pair of 9's left (he dodged my one remaining amraam) so I fired one head on at farther range than I would have licked, then we proceeded to merge ... he had fired 4 missiles that failed to hit me, I was diving for the sea, backed out. Anyway, I pulled out, didn't know whre he was, checked six (when in doubt, check six) and hey, there he is, RIGHT there ... he fires his last 73 ... I dodge it, roll him, gun kill.

 

That's a circumstantial example though, and obviously things don't always happen this way. Still, point is, you can ensure your survival by doing the right thing at the right time.

 

Anyway ... back to ballistics. ;D

 

(Before we start, all of this assuming you have the missile efficiency slider in the ACE position)

 

Of course two aircraft can merge, but the possibilities are getting slimmer and slimmier with technology and SA.

 

When I said no missile in the air I was assuming your long range shots had failed, and you were planning to fire another as he was pointing at you. Or another assumption, you were fighting another A/C and when you finish with it you realize that there is an F-15 in the neighborhood. Or perhaps the F-15 was flying low and you´ve just found it. There are tons of situations I can think of, of course it doesn´t happen when you´ve been patrolling that area for months (Homeland defense) and that is like the first time you see something out of place.

 

Anyway it doesn´t matter if you fired or not, the point is that head on, the AMRAAM is likely to hit. Especially against the AI, they are just not good at evading missiles, they get lucky sometimes though, and sometimes is just the firing pilots fault. The only AMRAAMs being decoyed by chaff I´ve seen are the ones that barely have energy to follow their target and get a complete picture of the area (because their lead pursuit is not that, well, leading), and thus there is more possibility the missile will see the chaff, attempt to follow it for half a sec. and get the A/C out of the seeker view.

 

What the heck is 'ACE' position? I keep mine in 'realistic' position, right at 50%. REAL missiles have significant seeker settling time, more so than the 50% position even simulates. Regardless, this setting doesn't affect the techniques mentioned since defeating the missiles is kinematic, and this option doesn't change the kinematics, only the vector errors (which SHOULD BE THERE ANYWAY!)

 

Yes I meant half way the slider, realistic position. I thought that if you changed the difficulty to ACE it also chagned the missile slider to the medium position, but it doesn´t my mistake.

[Alfa]

You won't get any, SK.

 

When are we getting the R-27TE with 130km rangeMAX, like it says at IAF's site? :roll:

 

My challenge is still up. Who's going to prove the R-77 is inferior to the AMRAAM? Funny how the I-will-defend-the-AMRAAM-to-death asked ME to prove the R-77 is NOT inferior whe HE claimed that. zzzspace seems to be doing the same thing :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Nobody can prove it ... the info is classified by both sides. All you can do is look at features/physics etc and draw conclusions ... ie. r77 fins are draggier but probably give better manoueverability, US 1980s micro-electronics is more advance the Sov 1980s, what were the development budgets, what are the motor sizes etc ... and you can never believe the hyp/marketing info/propaganda ...

 

James

 

James....if you look in the right places you can actually find quite alot of information on Russian (AGAT) ARH seeker technology. It is not enough to make comparisons with US counterparts, but enough to figure out that a whole lot of people dont know what they are talking about ;)

 

Besides, the R-77 is not "Sov 1980´ies" technology - and believe it or not, Russian ARH seekers have evolved quite alot since the 90´ies....when the R-77 9B-1348E seeker was developed ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Kula66]

JJ,

I assume you mean unclass stuff - I'm sure there is info out there ... but how well does this reflect actual performance? How many 120//77s have been fired against REAL targets? With pilots fighting for there lives? Real jamming etc? Marketing info is often grossly over optimistic ... data often reflects ealy versions ...

 

Thats why I think you can only make broad assumptions ... I would love to have 1 100% accurate model of an AAM ... but its never going to happen :(

 

>> the R-77 is not "Sov 1980´ies" technology -<< I assumed it was released in the mid-90s ... AMRAAM took 20years to develop!!! So maybe I should have said 70s technology!

 

James

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

You won't get any, SK.

 

When are we getting the R-27TE with 130km rangeMAX, like it says at IAF's site? :roll:

 

My challenge is still up. Who's going to prove the R-77 is inferior to the AMRAAM? Funny how the I-will-defend-the-AMRAAM-to-death asked ME to prove the R-77 is NOT inferior whe HE claimed that. zzzspace seems to be doing the same thing :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Nobody can prove it ... the info is classified by both sides. All you can do is look at features/physics etc and draw conclusions ... ie. r77 fins are draggier but probably give better manoueverability, US 1980s micro-electronics is more advance the Sov 1980s, what were the development budgets, what are the motor sizes etc ... and you can never believe the hyp/marketing info/propaganda ...

 

James

 

I'll take what the Indian Air Force site says over the absolutely non sense moronic opinions from merrikans that just want their stuff to be better than the russians because THEY SAY IT IS.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

JJ,

I assume you mean unclass stuff - I'm sure there is info out there ... but how well does this reflect actual performance? How many 120//77s have been fired against REAL targets? With pilots fighting for there lives? Real jamming etc? Marketing info is often grossly over optimistic ... data often reflects ealy versions ...

 

Thats why I think you can only make broad assumptions ... I would love to have 1 100% accurate model of an AAM ... but its never going to happen :(

 

>> the R-77 is not "Sov 1980´ies" technology -<< I assumed it was released in the mid-90s ... AMRAAM took 20years to develop!!! So maybe I should have said 70s technology!

 

James

 

IIRC the R-77 development began in early 80's. Interesting how soviets, "without money" like the merrikans love to say, made something - far - superior and in less time. :lol:

[Kula66]

Yes ... remember the F-15 v Mig-25??? Look how that turned out - any valves in those R-77s .... quickly ducks for cover :)

 

James

[SwingKid]

Ok, my read ... isn't it turning 90degs to the enemies course? Which isn't necessarily your 3 or 9?

 

Again, no. A beaming target turns 90 degrees to the illuminating radar beam - which is always a straight line between the target and the illuminating fighter - NOT the illuminating fighter's course or aspect.

 

-SK

[Sharpshooter]

The 120's have some improvements in 1.1 but they aren't significant enough for you to classify them as unspoofable, undodgeable or a definitive advantage for the 15 pilots. It's all about the employment and tactics of the player(s), especially online. I flew 1.02 last nite, where the 120's are significant but even at high altitudes I got fired upon first by a 27/33. Granted, I had time to get w/in range, fire a 120 then split S and drag the ER out that was launched on me. Still, the 120's aren't perfect and I still find the same amount of misses w/the 1.1 versions.

 

Cali (169th) is fantastic about dodging 120's. He dodged more than he ate last nite.................And as good as the R77's are I put more of them into the ground or spoofed them than I got smoked by. In fact, the damn ET's were my downfall last nite. :shock:

 

I agree with you, the 120 can be defeated. But how would you make the 120 better, tell us that, not that the 120 doesn´t hit enough times or that it isn´t invincible. Tell us you identified the problem with the missile and are asking for it to be fixed. Do a track or something. At least tell us the parameters, because telling that you just pulled the trigger doesn´t help. You could tell us what did you say to your pilot buddy that made him state that the 120 modeled in the game isn´t even a match for the A version. Just, don´t get mad.

[Guest ruggbutt]

Having played w/the 120's extensively today, the good news is that we have more range now. Bad news is that the AI is dodging them by a jink one way then the next at over 10miles. No chaff, no flare just pull hard one way then the other. I played the same mission over and over again and watched the behavior of the 120's. They appear to be more "stupid" than they were in 1.02.

 

I guess it's time to look at the R-77's now. Anyone wanna hazard a guess on the outcome of that?

[SwingKid]

Regarding AIM-120 vs. R-77:

 

I don't think seeker technology is really the issue. It doesn't take a supercomputer to perform such simple tasks. Although the Russians have opted to use Texas Instruments electronics instead of their own for an RVV-AE seeker, to reduce weight.

 

The AIM-120 advantage, I believe, is all about loft. The twist-Cassegrain radars of Russian fighters have downward gimbal limits that prevent the fighter from pitching up 45 degrees at the moment of launch.

 

The R-77 also uses a boost-only motor, whereas AIM-120 uses boost-sustain.

 

The Chinese claim to be making an indigenous variant of RVV-AE to give it loft capability.

 

-SK

[Alfa]

JJ,

I assume you mean unclass stuff - I'm sure there is info out there ... but how well does this reflect actual performance? How many 120//77s have been fired against REAL targets? With pilots fighting for there lives? Real jamming etc? Marketing info is often grossly over optimistic ... data often reflects ealy versions ...

 

James - I am not talking about performance claims :) .

 

You can find very good articles by highly authoritative sources describing the technology in question(early and latest).....tech solutions, components etc.

 

Something tells me that when D-Scythe and GGTharos resort to the kind of......well lets say questionable :lol: - argumentation they do in regards to Russian seeker technology, it is because they dont have any actual information about it. :)

 

Thats why I think you can only make broad assumptions ...

 

Thats why I think you shouldnt make "assumptions" at all.....especially not based on BS argumentation like "tax $" and "the Soviet micro-electronics" ;)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Sharpshooter]

JJ,

I assume you mean unclass stuff - I'm sure there is info out there ... but how well does this reflect actual performance? How many 120//77s have been fired against REAL targets? With pilots fighting for there lives? Real jamming etc? Marketing info is often grossly over optimistic ... data often reflects ealy versions ...

 

Thats why I think you can only make broad assumptions ... I would love to have 1 100% accurate model of an AAM ... but its never going to happen :(

 

>> the R-77 is not "Sov 1980´ies" technology -<< I assumed it was released in the mid-90s ... AMRAAM took 20years to develop!!! So maybe I should have said 70s technology!

 

James

 

a hundred percent agree. Marketing stuff is always optimistic, otherwise it wouldn´t sell, and that´s the whole purpose of marketing anyway.

 

I was considering the opinion of the pilot buddy of ruggbut and I thought: How many 120s would a real pilot have seen fired in it´s career ?, probably against drones. Maybe he saw like 5 120s fired and they all hit (assuming he didn´t fire against a real life maneuvering target that are on extinction nowadays). So he said this "real life" hits plus all the papers from the Airforce that say it´s a killer missile, then it must really be a killer missile.

 

But then how many virtual 120s fired we have seen ? I´m thinking of hundreds, and I have seen a lot hit, and I have seen a lot that have been fired when they shouldn´t have, and I ´ve seen some impressive maneuvers trash the missile.

 

But then maybe I am wrong, and a few minutes from now someone comes very angry and proves all I´ve said is BS.

[Sharpshooter]

Having played w/the 120's extensively today, the good news is that we have more range now. Bad news is that the AI is dodging them by a jink one way then the next at over 10miles. No chaff, no flare just pull hard one way then the other. I played the same mission over and over again and watched the behavior of the 120's. They appear to be more "stupid" than they were in 1.02.

 

I guess it's time to look at the R-77's now. Anyone wanna hazard a guess on the outcome of that?

 

Let´s wait for the final version of 1.1, MAYBE that performance is caused by somekind of other problem that has already been fixed. If the final turns out to be that way, then ED will hear some complaints.

[Alfa]

Regarding AIM-120 vs. R-77:

 

I don't think seeker technology is really the issue. It doesn't take a supercomputer to perform such simple tasks. Although the Russians have opted to use Texas Instruments electronics instead of their own for an RVV-AE seeker, to reduce weight.

 

I am not sure that it is either, but I am questioning the basis on which people are evaluating the technology in question ;) . Apart from the 9B-1348E seeker, there are two generations of the 9B-1103M available for it....the latest of which is "light years" ahead of the former :)

 

The AIM-120 advantage, I believe, is all about loft. The twist-Cassegrain radars of Russian fighters have downward gimbal limits that prevent the fighter from pitching up 45 degrees at the moment of launch.

 

Yes but that is not a limitation with the R-77, but with the twist-Cassegrain radars - which, as you know, werent the intended "launchers" of the R-77 anyway :)

 

The R-77 also uses a boost-only motor, whereas AIM-120 uses boost-sustain.

 

Subject to change Andrew :) . There is an ongoing development for a new two-stage propulsion system - solid propellant booster + RAM-jet sustainer :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SwingKid]

Yes but that is not a limitation with the R-77, but with the twist-Cassegrain radars - which, as you know, werent the intended "launchers" of the R-77 anyway :)

 

If you are saying the RVV-AE does use loft, there are those that would agree with you, but that makes the Chinese claim very confusing...

 

The R-77 also uses a boost-only motor, whereas AIM-120 uses boost-sustain.

 

Subject to change Andrew :) .

 

As is the subject being discussed. :wink:

 

-SK