SgtPappy

I think he's trying to help you here Pepin... but oh well

I have never been able to make a supersonic launch on any fighter at less than 18 nm head-on at 22 kft or lower. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but the same data shown as posted by OP (full source here) shows the AIM-7F locking on a 2 m^2 target at 20 nm, both at Mach 0.9 at SL so it's pretty close. Testing also shows that at 42 kft, I could hit a hot, passive, non-defending, Mach 0.9 co-alt F-15 with the AIM-7F/M/MH launched at Mach ~1.25 at 22 nm or so, which means that matches the data closely... Except the detection range is a actually a bit underpowered because I doubt a head-on F-15 with no jamming would show up as something tiny like 2 m^2. Was this long launch that you saw done by an AI F-15, Fri13? But it doesn't matter right now because you can dodge an AIM-7 while rolling hot at 5 G at short range and at ranges where it runs out of fuel, you can lazily pull 4 G (don't even need to roll) while hot on the launching aircraft and the AIM-7 will just miss. Hoping this gets fixed soon.

He's literally asking a question on where you found the data because he can't find it... The source you gave us said the lock-on is achieved while being carried under the plane.

Awesome thank you!

Nice graphs! Do you also have the straight line flyout performance for the R-27R and T as well? I have the curved plots but those are confusing because they say the T and R have the same range.

The AIM-7M H-build which, to my knowledge, came into service in the same year as the R-27R (1987 also according to the FC3 Flanker manual) and had inertial guidance as well so it could be launched beyond seeker range. Don't know about LOAL capability though.

I think the R-27 entered full series production in 1987, not 1983: "In 1983 conducted another 39 launches of K-27 and 66 K-27E. In addition, according to a special program on MiG-29 No. 921, the stability of engine operation during missile launches was investigated. State tests were completed in 1984. Both variants of the K-27 rocket were adopted in 1987. under the designation R-27R and R-27T." - source: https://en.missilery.info/missile/p27 (not sure how good this source is, but it's the most detailed one I've found) By this time the AIM-7M H-build and AIM-7P with with their own datalink was in service as well which also helped launch the missile beyond seeker detection range. At any rate, it's hard to find sources on the R-27 and the fly-off envelopes we saw in the other huge R-27 thread seemed to underestimate the R-27 kinetic ranges. I've been trying to find a better one to no avail. I trust ED has better sources available than me, and we'll see that when the R-27's are updated soon.

I noticed as well that this has not been reported yet. However, I do know the close range lofting (where an AIM-7 will fly over the bandit) has been reported and maybe they are related bugs. Can someone from the dev team confirm this? I had only realized yesterday after looking through one of the few MP tracks that more or less reflected my aircraft inputs correctly that my opponent neither dropped chaff nor broke into the beam and trashed both my AIM-7's which should have easily connected which lead to me getting shot down instead. Tracks attached from SP testing since MP track is hours long. During the testing, I even managed to keep the steering dot for my own missile in the ASE the whole time. These missiles are currently a non-threat. In addition, I do not know if the AIM-7F has loft logic but it is currently lofting like the AIM-7M and MH. EDIT: I just tried and easily dodged an AIM-7 while it was still burning. It still pulls 12+ G but something is off with its navigation because it is comically easy to trash. It appears I pulled a 5 G turn left (with drop tanks on) and it completely missed when launched at 5 nm. By comparison the, R-27R hit me everytime even when I was faster and I had dropped bags. Tracks attached. AIM-7F low G bug.trk AIM-7MH low G bug.trk AIM-7MH close shot - wrong maneuvering.trk R-27R close shot.trk

If you mean that they're making the target go defensive right away you're right! not sure how close an AWG-9 would have to be to pick up a fighter-sized target in the notch because right now, you can hide from an F-14 all the way to 5 nm if you notch juuust right. You'd probably have much more knowledge being an SME, would you happen to know if that's realistic? However even in this game, the hard part of course is for the target to stay hidden! Does anyone know if E-2 datalink could be fed to the Tomcat and then to the AIM-54?

That's the ideal case. Far away enough, it seems that right now you can simply beam and split-S because that way you're in the maneuvering plane of the beam. You've changed direction completely and the AWG-9 is none the wiser by sticking with a track in the complete opposite direction. I'm no expert, but I think this is realistic behaviour.

From STT to TWS should be impossible, that makes sense to me. But for TWS to STT, consider this scenario: 1) Target knows there is an F-14 tracking it and decides to notch, coincidentally, as the F-14 launches an AIM-54A (let's say that because Heatblur said they have this data while the C guidance is still not all unclassified) at > say, 20 nm 2) The AWG-9 goes into 2 min track hold mode (putting an "X" over the track because it lost the notching contact) 3) The target ends up being detected again but at this point it is a different track (the "true" track) because it moved away from the assumed track hold "X" track. So the RIO decides to use the likelier track by correlating the new, true track to the DDD and STT's the DDD. I have heard in this case the AIM-54A falls back to STT/datalink. To me, this means that it could forget about the track hold target and any launched AIM-54 will default to the STT launch if there is no "true" track. Is this a correct understanding? Also as suggested above, you could turn away from the target at any time because the "track hold" function will still allow the AIM-54 to guide to the best guess target. Is this true? Does track hold not still need the AWG-9 cone around the track hold target? As i understand, the AWG-9 turning completely away from a track hold track would make that track disappear.

The 80's is my preferred time for air combat so I'm on there often but unfortunately, the red players always outnumber the blue players and they kill AWACs right at the start. No AWACs spawns and anyone joining Blue is left without eyes because there arent enough of us to have a chance or a dedicated SRS controller. Is there anyway to have the mission spawn another AWACs every, I dont know, 5 mins after one is downed? I realize this should be a very realistic scenario, but we need to account for an unrealistic gamer thing: being completely outnumbered from the start and no friendly GCI. The reds are such high in numbers and almost always have a dedicated guy doing GCI for them.

I was the host, and there were only three of us playing in total on my private server. I'm not sure if they had recorded anything. I was almost certain I was losing my mind!

No idea if this helps, but when I played one of my missions online with friends, they saw my AIM-7MH's track (this was on supercarrier launch day) but I could not see them track at all. The Sparrows splashed the Tu-22's on their screen but on my screen, they did not do anything but rocket forward.

So i did some testing and it appears that it only happens to player-controlled birds with AIM-7M and the AIM-7MH for me. AIM-7F's still guide. AIM-54A (both types) and AIM-54C seem to be working fine.

Did we ever get a confirmation that the R-27 will be updated? My 1980's scenarios need accurate Redfor missiles! :) Someone also mentioned the flyout, non-maneuvering range and speed will probably not change but the range against maneuvering targets will be updated based on CFD. Is that true? Hard to summarize this through all these pages

I don't know if the F-14A or F-4E will ever come to fruition even though I badly hope they do. The MiG-23MLA seems to be developing still and possibly the Mirage F1 and F-8 are still being worked on as well. I have a feeling once these are out, they can probably shift the combat to late 70s, early 80s allowing the planes like Mirage 2K, MiG-29A, F-15 and F-14A to be in the missions as well. Although I agree, the F/A-18C (and possibly the F-16C too) even with limited weapons would be too modern simply due to its other capabilities that are modeled unlike the F-15 and MiG-29A FC3 models.

Oh I had no idea that was the case. Thanks for the update. In that case I see what you mean. Something tells me all the FC3 radar detection ranges are off, but we'll see.

Where did you get the 3 m^2 value from? I cannot find true values of RCS anywhere from any website. I have only ever found some guy's forum post on aircraft RCS with no academic source. Furthermore, RCS is a messy thing that relies on aspect (i.e. even if you are looking down at a perfectly "hot" target, they may not be facing you directly since you are looking somewhat down on them and the RCS might not be exactly the value you found). Although I agree that the FC3 radars in general are nothing like the F/A-18 and F-16 radars and hope one day - probably just a dream - that they will be updated along with the RWRs and such.

Thanks Blaze, I figured that the -45 versions should be better than the Vietnam-era 25/27. Although I guess the issue was the high false alarm rate due to its high sensitivity which meant it was often put in a filter mode, hence the installation of fuzz-busters. It makes me wonder how the Air Force's ALR-56 compared. IronMike - thank you very much for all this good information, and I learned a lot! I very much enjoy the more realistic setup of your F-14 RWR as it is very immersive and makes me much more careful when flying around.

Just wondering, I noticed that padlock view was working yesterday despite it saying "disabled" in the MP menu. Every server I flew in had it working. Is this a problem on my end or has this been noticed as a bug before?

Understood, I must have missed that post. That's a bummer, hope it gets fixed soon.

I didn't want to create a new thread, so I'm just going to reply to this one as it doesn't seem there has been a confirmed resolution. I tried the triggers per the video as well but changed the target to a MiG-25 and me, the shooter, was an F-15. The trigger was also a sound and a message, neither which appeared whether I hit the MiG-25 with a gun round or any kind of missile. Has anyone had this issue and has any one resolved it?

Great find! Thanks!

I hear you but I do not think it applies to setting up a server with these scenarios. If the records of real-life planes accurately predicted their capability in game, we would be seeing totally different results. The MiG-21's in Vietnam only ever had the worst rear-aspect AA-2 (R-3S) missiles at their disposal yet they did pretty well against US aircrews than what the US had expected primarily because of pilot skill or lack thereof on the US side - at least initially before Top Gun. Can you imagine if we put the best F-4 and F-8 with the best Vietnam-era tech in-game against MiG-21's with no special afterburner or missiles other than the R-3S? I bet you'd see the MiG's getting demolished which means there's something going on that's different: For the Lebanon war, the MiGs had no chaff, flare or all aspect heaters. I am not even sure if the MiG-23MF's had BVR missiles. Then again, the Israeli's had no jammers and had to rely on chaff and flare launchers that were inferior to what we have in-game. We can easily slap on the right weapons to balance the server. But most importantly, per Moscow's Lessons from the 1982 Lebanon Air War by B. Lambeth: "... anonymous senior IAF officer: 'The problem was that [syrian] pilots didn't do things at the right time or in the right place. They flew in a way very difficult to understand.... The pilots behaved as if they were going to be shot down and waited to see when it was going to happen and not how to prevent it or how to shoot us down.' Reflecting on this lack of aggressiveness and initiative (and apparent unfamiliarity with air combat) displayed by the Syrians, he added:. 'They could have flown the best fighter in the world, but if they flew it the way they were flying we would have shot them down in exactly the same way. It wasn't the equipment at fault, but their tactics.' " This is where the DCS pilots shine because we have the luxury of respawns, and lots and lots of practise to even out the score. Just because these planes got whacked in real life doesn't mean they will in these servers. Otherwise F-15's would never get shot down, MiG-29's would never score any kills but we see the opposite. Bottom line: There's much more to consider than just the planeset.