SgtPappy

Absolutely no pressure! You do so much already for us with little in return. If you do one day have that kind of server, awesome! If not, then that's cool too because we have your already excellent server up and running. Keep up the great work! :thumbup:

The MiG-23 is in a funny place because it would rip apart the 1970s planes we have now and be a bit better than even a slatted F-4E. Yet it's worse than its historical opponents, the F-14A, F-15A/C and F-16A/C. If you limit the weapons and add in a MiG-29 with R-27R/T, you can get a very balanced set against 1980's F-15 (AIM-7F/M), F-16 (only AIM-9s!) and F-14A (only 2x AIM-54A's and limited in number). One thing I have always dreamed of was something like 1982 Lebanon or Desert Storm - lots of MiG-21's MiG-23's and MiG-25's (if only that were a DCS module) against the F-15C, F-16C, F-14A and F-4E. For Desert Storm, you'd add the MiG-29A/S and F/A-18. These would be fun historical counterparts especially if you limit the Blues to few or no AIM-54s. But this kind of thing is a long way off since we are waiting for quite a few planes/features. Just thinking out loud.

Honestly these are your missions, it's up to you. If you really don't want it I think people should understand why. But a vote is very kind of you. Apologies, I did not notice it was even brought up before. There are real world scenarios where the F-14 did not get air to air kills, including the Gulf War - F-14's were present but only shot down an Mi-8. Here there are plenty of other aircraft that could fight it out.

Ah that sounds pretty awesome. My soul still yearns for an F-4 that I feel won't be added in my life time but I'd still love to see that server once the MiG-23 comes. Agreed - but when is the only question. 1000x yes! Cold war 1970's and 1980's absolutely rule

I would absolutely love this. Alpenwolf, wasn't there an 80's server? Do you think you could bring that back up if possible? Once the MiG-23ML comes out, this could be quite a popular setup. Actually a realistically-loaded F-14 could still be in this scenario - just limit its payload to 2xAIM-54A mk 47's as was often done in real life. They're easy enough to spoof for the time being anyway.

It makes sense that the chaff should not be treated quite like a flare as it is now - however as I understand (especially for 70's and maybe 80's missiles), if the target is beaming a radar perfectly, near the ground and dropping chaff, it should give no return different from the ground. This would have the effect of putting the defender in that noise band on the AWG-9 that you see when you turn off the Doppler filter. Did radars at this time (especially in the early AIM-54A) have the ability to track the leading edge of targets dropping chaff? Is this technique applicable to targets beaming near the ground? Correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

This seems pretty in line with the R-27 plot we have - around 16.5 km at sea level. If only the published information said "speed at impact" instead of "Pk at impact = 0.7" so we could get a better idea of the energy in context with this launch range. Is that defined anywhere?

If we both feel this way can we both just apologize and be done with it? It's clear that we are misinterpreting each other. Actually this is all you commented on my math so forgive me - but surely you can see how your response confused me: I can see how that might have been picked up from what I wrote. I apologize, this was not my intention. I only meant to show that this high level diagram - designed for pilots most likely - was to be a quick high-level guide. It was made to be easy to interpret and that was all the pilot needed to understand when looking at those plots. I did not mean that is all the pilot needed to know about flying a plane, fighting in it and firing weapons. I am not attacking you. I was telling you that you made a conclusion that was never there. That is not attacking, it is a disagreement. Dude, I just want all of us to be friends and discuss this in a civil manner. I apologize for my "lol" but you have to admit that if someone makes a random conclusion as you did, it might feel a little awkward - almost funny? Let's both be civil from now on, yeah? Agreed, and i always agreed - i just wish we had more R-27 data. Sorry, I didn't see that image - it was very small. But honestly, we are both yelling at each other saying the same thing!

I think we are saying the same thing but interpreting each others' words differently - nowhere in the chart is the magnitude of the y-value greater than the 0 deg. aspect x-value range (i.e. head-on), and even if it was, per nighthawk's post (quoted below), the RCS might be big enough to the side that the seeker can pick it up and the missile kinematic range is long enough to reach it. Just take any point on the plots - standard x and y - and calculate the resulting vector length. The longest length I got was 22.6 nm at 40kft (x = ~15nm and y ~ 17nm), about 45 deg. aspect. This is almost the same as the HO range of 22 nm - a difference small enough that can be attributed to my error in reading. Also easily explained by nighthawk's RCS post. Agreed - this is indeed what I mean. I think the axes on the AIM-7 plot plus the fact that the launch envelope takes RCS AND kinematic range (whatever is smaller of the two) into account already combine to make it confusing. Why can't the bottom chart be wrong? Although I do agree they are inconsistent. The way I was interpreting the bottom two plots is essentially the xz plane while the top two are the xy plane envelopes but maybe someone can correct me. Where did you find these? I could not find these images in all my 5 minutes of googling! :P

Thank you!! This is one of the things I was trying to mention. Now we just need something similar for the R-27's.

I would like to request you to read more carefully and please stop making assumptions from my words. I am trying to have a proper conversation with you and everyone else here but for some reason you put words into my mouth and then continue to do so. Once again, all I said is that the range on the graph matches at 60 deg. aspect compared to the 0 deg aspect range that is also on that graph. That is literally it. In fact, I'll break it down further: 8^2 + 20^2 = 21.5 and 21.5 nm is close to 22 nm. Take just that sentence and tell me where in that equation it says "Launch at 20 nmi and all is fine". Nothing about real life Pk, nothing about true range... I never once said anything at all about whether the missile would hit. It was a super simple comparison. Now you're berating me for whatever reason. I do not appreciate it. I agree. The graphs show two different contexts so we can't compare the AIM-7 to the R-27 here. The PDF I linked appears to take into account both RCS and aerodynamic range as stated before. If it was just RCS, the plot would be larger in range at the rear aspect because the RCS would increase. But that isn't the case so then aerodynamic range starts to become the limit. See my graphic below. The envelope is only where the solid lines are. The dashed lines are too far for either the seeker or the missile itself. This is what I believe the graph is telling us (and yes this is a best guess so please don't start concluding that I'm saying this is 100% correct or anything).

That is what the manual is for. This is meant to be a high-level, intuitive, illustrative image to give an idea of what the range is like. The pilot will get the general idea here, but of course they still need to read the weapons manual for the F-15 to learn how to properly employ the weapon for every situation that is not a sea level or 40,000 ft co-alt, Mach 0.9 co-speed engagement against a 2m^2, non-maneuvering target at ISA day (or whatever they tested these at). lol what? My evidence is the Pythagorean formula to find the length of vectors to prove that the ranges shown on the graph align at 0 deg. aspect and 60 deg. aspect which can only mean that the RCS is the limit at these aspects on THIS particular graph. "Launch at this range and you will hit the target for sure in real life" was not a conclusion there. Don't put words into my mouth. This is the link, but I don't think it helps much: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf It does however on the very last page say that "the missile may be launched with this envelope". Note it says "may be launched" with no indication of Pk. This implies that the envelope in the page above really does just show a launch envelope and not a "range" vs "missile travel distance". I'm fairly convinced it's got to just be a graph showing 2D space with the x and y axes.

This is incorrect, I believe. I believe the reason why these graphs are shown as such (at least the AIM-7 one, I am still very unsure about what the R-27 one means) is because this is what the pilots are told to launch at. That is, the pilot just needs to know - what is the max range they can launch the missile at a target in the given conditions? It therefore is not just an RCS or kinematic envelope shown - it appears to be the envelope shown with both involved. Where the seeker pickup range is the limiting factor, we see this since the range at 40k feet is only a bit longer than the sea level range. But tail-on, perhaps the RCS is still quite visible at over 15 nm but now the kinematic performance of the missile limits the range. The pilot needs to know only the limiting of the two factors. Evidence: If we look at the 40k launch graph roughly, at ~60 deg. aspect, the x-component is ~8 nm and the y-component is ~20 nm. R = (x^2 + y^2)^0.5 and you get R ~ 21.5 nm. Bang-on with the max seeker range which is therefore the limiting factor (or maybe kinematic range and RCS range intersect here). EDIT: I'm starting the think it may just be semantics between "distance" and "range" on this particular AIM-7 graph because as mentioned earlier, a launch range of ~4.8 nm behind the co-alt co-speed target at SL does not give a 0 "missile total distance". If I were a pilot just reading this high-level information, I would just see that "distance" is used simply as the "distance from the target" in the y-axis. It would certainly be less confusing if they just called both "range" or both "distance".

Oh right, that makes a lot more sense... hence the 2m^2 target indication. As I understand, the R-27R has a datalink so it can be launched beyond the SARH seeker's ability to "see" the reflected signal. However, I would expect a greater range then. Does the Russian chart only show range for the distance at which the seeker can pick up the reflection? Even if so, where is the R-27T chart?

I noticed these things as well - yet it appears that they are both "official" documentation. My brain needs an explanation! :D

I read through this whole thread in a couple days, and I'm finding it very interesting but I am a little confused here. Someone correct my interpretation. It says the R-27ER max launch range at 1 km altitude against a head on target where both launch and target aircraft are at Mach 0.9 is only just under 30 km but the AIM-7F datasheet gives 20 nm (37 km) at sea level? I always thought the R-27ER and ET have much better flyout performance than any AIM-7.

I think you forgot to post the images, Frischi

Thanks, Hiromachi. I'm good with your data, I was just wondering if there was anything else for more context. But does this mean the R-60 will be fixed on the MiG-21 or is this not up to you? I expect it's a ED thing.

Yea, it isn't hard to believe, but it seems obvious that the one in-game is far outperforming that. I think we will need more quantitative information. Hiromachi, any chance you can share some of that sweet sweet R-60 manual information? Does any one have more of that kind of data? I had no luck last night trying to find any.

Wow these are awesome, Hiromachi! Thank you. I will have to get some of my Polish friends to decipher this info. EDIT: My friend and I analyzed the plots, and the captions are just saying something along the lines of "range when firing rocket weapon". Hiromachi's first and second plots imply that the R-60 is rear-aspect only unless there are other plots that show a front aspect shot. These plots appear to be for ratios of Vc (launch aircraft speed) over Vm (missile's target speed; i.e. the enemy plane). The other R-60 plot appears to show only the rear-aspect shot missile envelope while the target is maneuvering where 180 degrees again is the tail aspect and the target is maneuvering to the right if viewed from top down (i.e. a clockwise turn on the plot, notation shown as omega_c). I have more and more video evidence of the R-60 keeping perfect track on the very very good Cold War 1945-1991 server. No matter what I do (even cutting burner but will have to confirm if it cut in time while I was flying), if the MiG pilot launches close enough right at Rmin, I get hit. I will see if I can do more testing to see if facing the missile directly helps. That seems concerning - but I don't know enough about how the modules are built to comment. So do we agree that the R-60 should NOT track well head-on? :) I think I'm convinced enough to start a petition!

Understood. Do any articles or firing envelopes show that the vanilla R-60 has all-aspect capability? I have been told that there isn't really a discrete change from rear-aspect to all-aspect as missiles just see heat, but that implies an AIM-9P might have a similar capability unless there's some kind of quantitative analysis that shows otherwise.

Hopped back on the cold war servers and am still seeing this issue. Is the R-60 (not R-60M) all-aspect by design? I have videos and tracks as I have those recording systems working now.

You guys are tempting me to start my mud-moving career in the F-5!

I would even argue that before the advent of all-aspect IR missiles in combat (IIRC 1979), the Cold War saw much more mature and reliable tech but combat was not yet dependent on missiles. The 1960's saw a bunch of planes without guns, armed with terrible missiles try to fight each other. All aspect IR's changed everything. Before then, you could fight like in WW2 albeit with longer ranged weapons. Enter the early 1970's and you've got the best balance! The F-4E (which Belsimtek/ED announced forever ago and hopefully comes back after the Mosquito which I also will be buying) had much more reliable, albeit very short-legged AIM-9J missiles, the USN had the AIM-9H. Both are fast and maneuverable rear-aspect only IR's. The AIM-7 was around, yes but would have been little problem trashing in ground clutter, chaff or notching for early PD radars. This was when all the Vietnam War aircraft were mature, but new tech that we know so well from the 1980's had not come out into combat yet. Can you tell I'm yearning for the F-4E?? :D

Very strange indeed - the one the Hiromachi provided is another one that I have. Intuitively, I it seems more realistic given the other planes' performance figures at the time. What do you guys think about all these plots? Which ones should we trust? I had not realized there was so much conflicting data.