SgtPappy
-
Posts
1219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SgtPappy
-
-
I thought about this quite often actually. Best case scenario is having both released at the same time which wont happen. So no matter what's released first, it will be available in small numbers and maybe a bit limited until its counter arrives. Also they wont be both included in all missions. Mostly the missions with bigger battle zones and good separation between the airbases.
We'll see...
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.
-
Server News:
- You guys are killing me with your F-14 requests and I always stood firmly against that due to what I believe to be reasonable arguments.
- I'm not stubborn or some ****head who enjoys the powers of an admin for his own indulgence. Therefore, I'll have to start a vote in favour or against the F-14, I guess.
- Even if things go in favour of the F-14, it will most likely be 2 slots max and only in 1-2 missions max. But these details will have to be determined still.
- I'm still against the F-14! Rather aiming for the F-4 and the MiG-23 which will be added..
- Only if most players (will have to specify "most" too) vote for the F-14 will I add it to the server.
Mission Update:
In the mission Once Upon a Time in Abu Dhabi (which will be online tonight as seen in the rotation's list) Mi-8's and UH-1's need to deliver only 1 ammo box instead of 2 to the specified airbase to activate their MiG-29A's/M-2000C's.
This change is due to the fact that pilots have been having a hard time completing the task or simply loath to fly the same mission twice for delivering 2 ammo boxes, which is understandable.
Once in the mission, read the briefing to know how to activate these airplanes.
Cheers!
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.
-
There was, but that server had nothing to do with me. The F-4 and the miG-23 will be added. Got one mission where you can activate MiG-29A's and M-2000C's (Once Upon a Time in Abu Dhabi) if a certain objective is completed, but that's it.
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.
I think the F-14A would make a better option once it comes out, plus also the Mig-23 ofcourseAgreed - but when is the only question.
Also maybe when Ugra Media releases their Syria map, we could have so many more missions to include a Beeka Valley Turkey shoot scenario ;)1000x yes! Cold war 1970's and 1980's absolutely rule
-
Hey just a thought:
Wouldnt it be fun for one mission(or two) to have some 80's action?
Ie f15's with sparrows, tomcats, MiG29's etc? Ie non datalink fox 1 aircraft. Tomcat is an exception ofcourse.
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.
-
Just resharing this:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/r-23-r-24-r-27-aam.60/page-2#post-3647
Some data looks pretty pretty interesting.
Max G of missile is: 74 :eek:
Max G of launch aircraft: 07
Max G of target aircraft: 08
Engine thrust: 5000kgf
Warhead fuze setting time: from 1.61 to 3.5 seconds
Maximum range at altitude 20m: 16.5km frontal hemisphere, 4km rear hemisphery
Maximum range at altitude 20km: 90km frontal hemisphere, 20km rear hemisphere.
Time of controlled Flight: 60 seconds
Maximum and minimum altitude of use: from 20 meters to 27.000 meters
Engine weight: 95kg
Warjead weight: 39Kg
[ATTACH]229194[/ATTACH]
16.5 km at sea level.
60 km at 10 km.
90 km at 20 km.
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?
-
Stop putting your words to my mouth. Just STOP!
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.
In fact, I explained it to you that I don't deny the math. Read very carefully!Actually this is all you commented on my math so forgive me - but surely you can see how your response confused me:
So your evidence is: "Just launch at 20 nmi range and you always hit the target regardless of anything". No need for any graphics, no need to train the pilots for anything about the missiles, radars or flying, just tell them to get to 20 nmi range with the AIM-7 and launch it.Because your claim is that pilots do not need to know nothing about kinematic capabilities of the missiles or anything about seeker capabilities as only thing they would need to know is "21.5 nmi and you are always good to shoot!". That because you said specifically that it is meant to be simple "no math needed" graph. So you don't even need that graph as you can just state it always "at 21.5 nmi or closer you are free to shoot" kind information.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.
Yes, I said you made it for super simple comparison that I very clearly pointed it out to you. Then you start twisting my words and attack at me because you can't withstand the fact that you made it super simple "Pilots, always know that you need to be at 21.5 nmi or closer and you are good to shoot!".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.
Yes you do.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?
Good, now you are getting it. WE CAN NOT COMPARE THEM!...
As I have explained, it is mixing multiple variables to one graphic that doesn't make sense as is, but lack of context of the all pages that is explaining all the parameters etc is missing.
Agreed, and i always agreed - i just wish we had more R-27 data.
If you look my graph, I specifically already included all that....
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4230207&postcount=329
So please be more carefully what you are claiming.
Sorry, I didn't see that image - it was very small. But honestly, we are both yelling at each other saying the same thing!
-
This makes zero sense, because there are cases where the side to side distance is bigger than the range. But the range to the target will always be equal or larger than the side to side range.
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.
To me this graph works exactly the same way as the R-27 chart. It just uses very confusing axis labels. Look how similar the overall shape of the top right chart is to the R-27 chart.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.
The top left chart obviously has an error, because the launch range for a head on engagement co altitude at 500ft is 16nm in the bottom left chart not 20nm as in the top left chart.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.
The increase in side range could easily be due to RCS:Note how at the ~50° degree's left and right from the nose the RCS is rather quite large. Now we don't know the exact aircraft and RCS used so we can't say for certain exactly how the RCS varied, but the difference in range in the sides is not a lot over the head on range.
Where did you find these? I could not find these images in all my 5 minutes of googling! :P
-
I scanned ahead and don’t think anyone has given you an explanation yet.
In the top two AIM-7 charts, range is distance between the two aircraft. Distance, on the other hand, is how far to the right or left of a nose-to-nose encounter you are. So in the top left chart, if you are 6 nm to the right or left of the target, you can launch when the range closes to 18 nm etc. That’s the only way the top 2 charts make any sense.
Thank you!! This is one of the things I was trying to mention.
Now we just need something similar for the R-27's.
-
Exactly, and we do not have manual....
You can laugh yourself. What you put as evidence is "Launch at 20 nmi and all is fine" as there is no reason to tell anything else in the manual as one graphic explains it all so.
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.
Exactly, the problem here is that the graphic is out of the context and it is not explaining things. It only shows some nmi values and oddly drawn graphics about something. But your linked PDF actually says that aerodynamic range for AIM-7D is 24 nmi (44 km) and for AIM-7F 53 nmi (98 km) at 40kft. So that tells well then that the graphic is not about its aerodynamic capabilities but exactly something else, like the seeker head performance (as otherwise you wouldn't put even the 2 square meter target as definition for it).
So shortly put, the two charts of R-27 and AIM-7 can't be compared, as the context is different.
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).
-
You can either give the pilot all the variables that are changing everything, or you give them nothing else than simple term. Like "launch at 20 nmi and you are always good!".
Pilot needs to know the all factors so they can train for them. So they can get creative and apply their knowledge in practice.
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).
So your evidence is: "Just launch at 20 nmi range and you always hit the target regardless of anything". No need for any graphics, no need to train the pilots for anything about the missiles, radars or flying, just tell them to get to 20 nmi range with the AIM-7 and launch it.There is reason why you have "distance" and "range" for two different axis, and why you have BOTH sides, left and right angle of the target.
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.
I am requesting that someone gives the few pages before and after that graphic that are explaining everything in detail that how that graphic should exactly be readed.
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.
-
As anyone can see. Based to that graph the AIM-7 still has far better range when the target is about 30-60 degree angle, and it has shorter direct head-on distance.
Now if that would be just the kinematic range, it could be understandable that 0 degree is always better.
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".
-
Something else to keep in mind the AIM-7's charts Rmax is limited due to seeker performance not kinematic performance to 22Nmi. That is why you see all the max ranges limited to this number. The chart is for a relatively weak CW signal not a PD signal which the 7F and up could home in on or even just a more powerfull CW signal.
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?
-
This AIM-7 graph does not make alot of sense.
Why is the head on co-altitude launch range on the ground with mach 0.9 almost the same as the launch range at 40,000ft with mach 2.0?
For the R-27 chart:
It is unlikely that those are the aerodynamic ranges for two reasons:
ET, ER and EP all have different weight and nose shapes. They will have different aerodynamic ranges before they stall. But on the chart the ranges are identical.
I noticed these things as well - yet it appears that they are both "official" documentation. My brain needs an explanation! :D
-
R-27ER, R-27ET, R-27EP
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.
-
In German, but almost the same:
I think you forgot to post the images, Frischi
-
That's all I have really. There is also a description of combat employment of the missiles which basically boils down to this:
Maximum load of the maneuvering target for seeker to be able to track – 8 G
Maximum load allowed during the launch – 7 G
Maximum load allowed during the launch with a sideslip not exceeding 1.5 diameter of the ball on the turn and bank indicator – 5 G
Maximum launching range of the missile when speed of the MiG-21 aircraft and target is even – 1.5 - 2 km (near the ground)
Minimum launching range – 0.2 – 0.3 km
Acquisition range of the seeker of a target similar to MiG-21 aircraft with silhouette 0/4 :
at the altitudes of 4.000 m to 6.000 m – 4.5 km
at the altitudes of 8.000 m to 10.000 m – 46 km
Time of operation of the missile engine – 3 – 5 s
Time of tracking flight – 17 – 23 s
Time of auto destruction – 26 - 29 s
Combat capabilities of the MiG-21bis aircraft in regard to ability to destroy targets in direct maneuvering combat due to employment of R-60 missile are greatly increased. It is due to high tactical and technical properties of the missiles, allowing to achieve following combat possibilities:
practically there are no restrictions regarding acceleration and speed of the attacking fighter (MiG-21bis), happening when launching missiles of other type; it is possible to destroy target maneuvering with acceleration up to 7 – 8 G; requirements regarding accuracy of aiming are reduced.
Zone of possible launch of R-60 missile to a target maneuvering with acceleration of 7 – 8 G practically does not change, meaning that it is possible to enter it without additional maneuvers. R-60 missiles can be launched one by one or in pairs. In order to increase probability of kill, it is recommended to launch them in pairs.
I think the above graphs really give all the necessary information, not sure what else you need ?
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.
-
I have this from Polish manual
I'm not a missile specialist, so maybe you can read more from that than I can. One thing that I know however, is that R-60s are supposed to produce less smoke and flash during launch so in result their launch should be harder to spot. I somewhere have a picture showing comparison of R-3S and R-60.
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).
However the second you broke into it I highly doubt it would have been able to keep track of you, especially if you pulled out of burner.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.
You also need to remember that missile lock in DCS depends on the module.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!
-
The R-60 should have limited all-aspect capability. You can get a lock head-on but at a much shorter range than R-60M. Even the M variant should really be limited all-aspect. At release in 2014 Leatherneck had their own R-60M and it could only hit targets from the sides and rear, but not head-on. However this was changed as ED R-60M is all-aspect in DCS.
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!
-
Yeh, technically the cold war lasted till the end of the 80s, but the cool cold war (excuse the pun) was in the 50s and 60s :)
I limited my selection based on technology since I am not very interested in “modern” fighters. Radar and BVR missiles ruined A2A combat for me. Out of the list above I would only consider buying the Mirage2K, but that is just because it is a Mirage and I will pretend that it is a Mirage IIIc gone mad...
Anyway, I went with the Mig21 since the classic cold war era’s future looks a bit more promising with the F-8 coming to the Western side, A-6 is rumored, the F-4 just has to be in DCS at some point in the future as well. The community A-4E mod is magnificent and I hope it becomes “common” enough to be included in more online servers. The soviet side is missing the Mig17.
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
-
I have found the chart through google in an old post on this forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2679146&postcount=7
However you can also find it in other languages, but never the full document it belongs to.
What I find interesting is, that your chart is again different than the one from the English MiG-21bis manual, which I had used for my chart. Your German chart is showing higher g in full AB, than the English does for emergency AB.
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.
Cold War 1947 - 1991
in Multiplayer
Posted
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: