Jump to content

Preferred missle online R-27ER or the R27EM


ScEBlack1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello guys, when i fly online i fly the su27 or the 33 and i was wondering what is the prefered missle for online between the er and the em. They both (online) have the same distance and lock up the same but i heard the EM has a faster motor which helps speed up to the enemy, can anyone elaborate on these missles and which one they prefer to fire and why. Also i tend to use the snake manuever over the F-pole to throw off the aim 120s direction which does alright, does any one want to share how they shake the enemys missle or i understand if you wish not to comment on this. Take care all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only difference between those two SHOULD be the seeker head - optimised on the -EM for tracking cruise missiles.

 

There is some question as to whether this is in fact the case in Lomac - I've always seen the two as pretty much interchangable when going up against aircraft.

 

 

Ironhand has an excellent tutorial on going up against F15s (including missile dodging) . . . find it on his website, here:

 

http://flankertraining.com/ironhand/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the EM has a more boost booster in LOMAC, and BGP is correct - the only real difference should be the seeker head. In fact you probably wouldn't want to use an EM against aircraft simply because you have a limited numebr of them (realistically) compared to the ER, and they're (again,r ealistically) much ebtter at intercepting low-flying cruise missiles, OVER THE SEA. They don't work quite as well over the ground.

 

I think the difference between the ER and EM will go away in 1.2.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the EM has a more boost booster in LOMAC, and BGP is correct - the only real difference should be the seeker head. In fact you probably wouldn't want to use an EM against aircraft simply because you have a limited numebr of them (realistically) compared to the ER, and they're (again,r ealistically) much ebtter at intercepting low-flying cruise missiles, OVER THE SEA. They don't work quite as well over the ground.

 

I think the difference between the ER and EM will go away in 1.2.

 

You think... In lomac the acceleration and top speed are the same, so is the deceleration when flying in a straight line.

As far as seekers go, well, I haven't found a difference, both missiles seem to behave the same.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, the only difference I was ever aware of was the speed. It may have already been dealt with - it's important to check how long each missile maintains top speed for.

And yes, as far as seekers go, there's no difference. That's something for the future ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, the only difference I was ever aware of was the speed. It may have already been dealt with - it's important to check how long each missile maintains top speed for.

And yes, as far as seekers go, there's no difference. That's something for the future ;)

 

As I said, in FC 1.11 everything, except the name, is the same.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the difference between the ER and EM will go away in 1.2.

 

Why on earth would they do that? The ER and EM will be the same in your dreams maybe.

Anyway in 1.11 the EM is a better killer (online and offline single player)

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, from my stats counts the EM is really lagging behind in kills ;)

 

And they would do it because the only difference between the EM and the ER is the fuze which is optimized for low-altitude interception. Unless this fuze difference is modelled, there is no difference between the two missiles.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, from my stats counts the EM is really lagging behind in kills ;)

 

And they would do it because the only difference between the EM and the ER is the fuze which is optimized for low-altitude interception. Unless this fuze difference is modelled, there is no difference between the two missiles.

 

 

The encyclopedia from FC 1.11 shows why the EM is the better missile.

ER length = 4.70 m

EM length = 4.78m

ER G limit = 18G

EM G limit = 20G

ER max mach number = 3.0

EM max mach number = 3.4

Of course the Su-27 (with only ER) is the better platform (faster with better radar) and this explains maybe the better kill ratio of the ER missile.

BTW it is strange that both missiles have the same weight (350kg in the encyclopedia)

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW it is strange that both missiles have the same weight (350kg in the encyclopedia)

 

The encyclopedia is full of plot-holes :p, ingame performance for both missiles is identical, as far as rocket burn time speed and impulse goes. I haven't checked out the max G turnrate, but I suspect that it's exactly the same as that of a R-27ER.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the in-game encyclopeaedia :D

 

What Force Feedback said.

 

Look up the real stats of those missiles somewhere else. They're the same missile, same rocket motor, same body, different fuze, and potentially optimized seeker for sea-clutter for the EM and -maybe- different intercept programming against low-flying targets. That's it.

 

G-loading won't be different for the aforementioned reasons (it is a function of the body, and wings which remain the same. Sorry, no magic here)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did a little practical test in lomac:

 

Unl. fuel off (may be important for a/c+ AP handling)

 

Su-33, 100% fuel, loadout: (all missiles on launchers without catapult devices)

** |R-27ER| |R-27EM| **** |R-27EM| |R-27ER| ** (*= empty pylon)

 

Altitude=4001m, speed=800 km/h

 

After mission start, time acceleration set to 0.02, ALT hold on, SPD hold on.

F2 view check that altitude=4001m and speed=800 km/h

 

Results: (time measured with in-game timer)

 

LEFT WING

 

[R-27ER] Launch time= 01:42 Motor burnout time= 01:48 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.6 km, speed=3386km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 02:26 Distance= 15.3km

 

[R-27EM] Launch time= 02:26 Motor burnout time= 02:31 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.6 km, speed=3386km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 03:10 Distance= 15.5km

 

RIGHT WING

 

[R-27ER] Launch time= 03:11 Motor burnout time= 03:16 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.4 km, speed=3386 km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 03:54 Distance= 15.3km

 

[R-27EM] Launch time= 03:54 Motor burnout time= 04:00 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.4 km, speed=3386 km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 04:38 Distance= 15.4km

 

 

Conclusion: The R-27ER and EM are identical when comes to range and powered flight duration, and launching from the right rails makes your missiles fly further :p

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here we we go again. In this realism-is-my-credo game everything appears to be fake in the end. We first got the AE-missile, now banned and leading to totally amusing cheating accusations, now we learn that the EM is in fact equal to the ER, and oh yes, we where tricked into believing that the Su-25 could fire ARM misseles and happened to use the MAV from to far distances.

 

If I understand it right, 1.12 will again demistify all our illusions. In my view, they will drop the Flanker, Mig-29 and F-15 alltogether because anyway the SFM isn't realistic at all.

 

All this of course a clever trick of the Russians who want to hide the fact that the real Su-25T pulls 9 G's like breeze, supercruises in no time and in end it will be revealed that its rather clumsy humpback looks are a kind of stealth cover hiding a superb aerodynamic design! After all of us learned how to fly a brick they will correct this error in 1.1234923492349 or so.

 

Man, am I happy that I just *play* this game!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just a dedicated "fanboi", who likes to prove things.

 

BTW, the Tunguskas are moddled all wrong when it comes to missiles.

 

Og, GG, yes it was the realtive distance to the launcher, measure by zooming in on the missile and, with labels on, reading the distance with the, in my case, quite crappy but due to contacts quite bearable, Eyeballs Mk.1 :p

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, I was just curious :)

 

As for the tunguskas, I think the WAFM may necessitate a change in SAM tactics, but I don't know when we'll see that happens.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

 

Is it normal that (against AI) the ER have a very, veeeeeeeery low PK?

 

 

I rarely (indeed) hit an AI with the R27ER... and usually end up forced to use the R73 to do the job... To me, the ER seems to very inefective, i don't know if it's way I fight, but I'm very disappointed with it...

=FN= Six o'Clock

Member of Falcões da Noite Squadron

Florianopolis :: Brazil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just a dedicated "fanboi", who likes to prove things.

 

BTW, the Tunguskas are moddled all wrong when it comes to missiles.

 

Og, GG, yes it was the realtive distance to the launcher, measure by zooming in on the missile and, with labels on, reading the distance with the, in my case, quite crappy but due to contacts quite bearable, Eyeballs Mk.1 :p

 

You're right in doing so, I was just joking. I think it is relevant info that the EM and ER have similar performance in the game.

 

What I wonder about is if the R-27R has still an added value over the longer range R-27ER, or is it just an older and less capable missile? Maybe the fact that it is shorter and hes less weight makes it more manoevrable?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right in doing so, I was just joking. I think it is relevant info that the EM and ER have similar performance in the game.

 

What I wonder about is if the R-27R has still an added value over the longer range R-27ER, or is it just an older and less capable missile? Maybe the fact that it is shorter and hes less weight makes it more manoevrable?

 

Mostly that it's a missile you've got a lot of and don't want to throw away, I think :p

 

 

In a dynamic campaign scenario, it'd probably be likely that you'd only have a limited number of -ERs . . . . there are scenarios in which you might not need the -ER, but I'd probably use it as the preferred missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did a little practical test in lomac:

 

Unl. fuel off (may be important for a/c+ AP handling)

 

Su-33, 100% fuel, loadout: (all missiles on launchers without catapult devices)

** |R-27ER| |R-27EM| **** |R-27EM| |R-27ER| ** (*= empty pylon)

 

Altitude=4001m, speed=800 km/h

 

After mission start, time acceleration set to 0.02, ALT hold on, SPD hold on.

F2 view check that altitude=4001m and speed=800 km/h

 

Results: (time measured with in-game timer)

 

LEFT WING

 

[R-27ER] Launch time= 01:42 Motor burnout time= 01:48 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.6 km, speed=3386km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 02:26 Distance= 15.3km

 

[R-27EM] Launch time= 02:26 Motor burnout time= 02:31 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.6 km, speed=3386km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 03:10 Distance= 15.5km

 

RIGHT WING

 

[R-27ER] Launch time= 03:11 Motor burnout time= 03:16 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.4 km, speed=3386 km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 03:54 Distance= 15.3km

 

[R-27EM] Launch time= 03:54 Motor burnout time= 04:00 Range from launcher at terminal powered speed= 1.4 km, speed=3386 km/h

Time and distance from launcher at which missile speed is 1000 km/h, or slightly less +- 4 km/h: Time= 04:38 Distance= 15.4km

 

 

Conclusion: The R-27ER and EM are identical when comes to range and powered flight duration, and launching from the right rails makes your missiles fly further :p

 

 

I just did a quick test with the minizap (missile simulation program) and the ER (not the export version) was going over 18 km.

I was using your parameters:

Launch speed: 800km/h and alt 4001m (target speed= 0km/h and target alt=4001m)

It looks like the ER was downgraded once again for the balance of the game.

DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3

| 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't downgraded. 'Everything' is downgraded compared to minizap, so watch the sweeping statements please.

 

Also minizap offers a very optimistic flight profile which doesn't jive with reality past the first 30 sec of flight at least.

 

In addition FF is counting distance from the launcher, not distance from the launch -point-, which if you actually take into account, you'll see that minizap and the straight flight of the R27ER in LO give about the same range without loft ;)

 

And while you're at it, why not try AMRAAM, R77 and AIM-7 under the exact same conditions and check the ranges ... how about saying that the AMRAAM is downgraded compared to everything else in the game? ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right in doing so, I was just joking. I think it is relevant info that the EM and ER have similar performance in the game.

 

What I wonder about is if the R-27R has still an added value over the longer range R-27ER, or is it just an older and less capable missile? Maybe the fact that it is shorter and hes less weight makes it more manoevrable?

 

Yeah, it's 'just an older missile'. It is lighter and smaller, so it may be of better use close in, but in a limited number of cases. IIRC it doesn't even have HOJ capability in reality.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...