BlackPixxel

MiG-29B description states the following minimum detection and tracking ranges for a 3 m² RCS target: And here some ranges with less clear conditions from a MiG-29 manual. In DCS the >3000m tests with a JF-17 as target (exactly 3 m³ RCS in the config) gives the following maximum ranges for the MiG-29: PPS lookup: detection max 65 (real: min 65-75) - a little low tracking max 56 (real: min 50-55) - ok PPS lookdown: detection max 43 (real: min 60-70) - way to low! tracking max 38 (real: min 45-50) - way to low! ZPS lookup: detection max 22 (real: min 30) - way to low! tracking max 19 (real: min 21) - ok ZPS lookdown detection max 15 (real: min 18 ) - a little low tracking max 13 (real: min 12) - ok Especially the PPS lookdown ranges and the ZPS lookup detection range are way to low and should be adjusted to the realistic values. It is clear that the >3000m altitude radar ranges are far below their real values. This is bad, because when flying higher is exactly when sufficient radar range is necessary. On top of that, those ranges are for the earlier MiGs. MiG-29C should have an additional range improvement. Tracks for the detection and tracking ranges are attached. I really hope (but doubt) that the radar range of the DCS MiG-29 will be fixed. N019_PPS_lookup.trk N019_PPS_lookdown.trk N019_ZPS_lookup.trk N019_ZPS_lookdown.trk

Is there any difference between the sizes of chaff and flare cartridges in DCS? In DCS F-16 and F-15 use the small MJU-7 flare, while F-18 uses the larger MJU-10. So flares deployed by F-16 and F-15 should have a smaller effectiveness (if heat signature of the aircraft was the same) than flares from the F-18, or flares from a Su-27. Same with chaff. US planes appear to use very small chaff cartridges, while the Flanker has the same 50mm size as for the flare. Is the difference in chaff effectiveness modelled in DCS?

[100☭] BlackPixxel - Mi-8

[100☭] BlackPixxel - BMP-2

Here is a short trackfile showing the issue. A R-27ET and then a R-27T get fired on a target to the right of the aircraft. In the trackfile you can see that the R-27ET takes much longer before it starts maneuvering after launch than the R-27T. This is incorrect. Both missiles should have the same 0.4 seconds delay before maneuvering. The R-27ET in DCS has the longer safety maneuver time of a missile launched from a catapult launcher, which is wrong. A fix would be very appreciated! R-27TvsET.trk

Why is one of the most powerfull features of the Flanker not implemented? The P2P datalink is a huge situational awareness boost, it would allow for new levels of teamplay within a 4 ship to compensate for the lack of active missiles. It would make combat more realistic AND more equal. It would be so nice if DCS would not constantly neglect the red fighters, turning DCS more and more into a phantasy world where a Flanker is nothing but a target drone :(

Does this mean it will be added to multiplayer now? This would be such a great addition to the Flanker family!

It was said to work in multiplayer once the ability to add planes to flights was added. So it is a bug, because it does not work as it should.

When launching a R-27 it will perform a "safety maneuver", which is not maneuvering for a certain time that depends on the type of launcher: R-27ET can only be launched from the APU-470 rail launcher. So the missile should have a low safety time of 0.4 seconds. But in DCS the missile has a long delay of 1 to 1.5 seconds before it starts maneuvering. R-27T on the other hand has the correct short safety maneuver time. The limitation of the old missile system does not apply for the R-27ET, because it can not be launched from APU and AKU launchers, only from APU launchers. So the long safety maneuver for the R-27ET is wrong. It should be corrected to 0.4 second (the same value that the R-27T already has in DCS). This should be a rather simple fix. Thank you!

R-27ET can only be launched from the APU launcher. Still they have the same long safety maneuver time as the R-27ER in DCS. Could the R-27ET safety time be corrected to the rail launcher time? That would be nice! About Su-33: In DCS the inner wing stations have a catapult launcher model, but the missile launches like from a rail launcher. I wonder which of the behaviours is correct? Should it be a catapult or a rail launcher? Su-35 for example can carry R-27T/ET on its inner wing station, which in this case would be a rail launcher.

Are you locking friendly targets? You will not get launch permission when locking them with radar.

If I understood it correclty the R-27R/ER receives quantized datalink corrections with changes in 3D space (position offsets + speed vector offsets). From its own position and this "virtual target" it can then of course calculate the angular offset/rate, which can be used for PN guidance.

I do not quite understand. If the homing head gimbal is used for INS, then there must be some kind of rotating mass attached to it to keep its orientation steady. What do you mean with nothing about the seeker here? The seeker is the yellow part on the most right on the gimbal in Ironhands image, with its 4 antennas for monopulse direction finding. This is the part that is under the radome of the missile. On the table behind the seeker was in the image I posted: Left: the complete homing head, (with radome + the section with the destabilizers) middle: the middle section, including the canards (this section can be identified by having more screw holes) and propably the autopilot section with the proximity fuzes right: the seeker of a completely different missile.

What do you mean? The homing head gives angular rates and acceleration values of the missile during inertial/radio corrected phase (during which the homing head is not locked onto the target)?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/145783/ The ranges differ alot and are less under most conditions, but in a high altitude BVR engagement the IR seeker can definetly have a very far lock on range.

This is impossible, because the complete seeker section is already standing on the left position in the background. It would mean that the complete RF section of the R-27R seeker behind the antenna is used for "aerodynamic control". It would also mean that the most rear part of the R-27R seeker is the homing head of the 5V27D missile. Where the text says "Inertially semiactive radio location head" there is a complete seeker head (the complete head that can be seen open in the picture, but with the case+radome). Where the text says "Block of aerodynamic control" there is the middle section of the missile with the canard controlls. Where the text shows the next semiactive homing head you see a seeker of a different missile. The open seeker head is just placed in front of the arrangement, with the mounts being exactly in the middle. The text is not describing what is laying in front.

The seeker range varies alot depending on the target and other conditions. Even the R-24T gives a head on lock range of 30km for a F-15 flying at high altitude and high speed without afterburner. With afterburner the range is twice about as much. R-27T/ET very likely has a better seeker, with even higher ranges. So in a head on BVR engagement a long range R-27ET shot is indeed possible. To me it is very likely that the INS is in the autopilot part of the missile, which appears to be the same for all R-27 variants.

No, the text in my photo is refering to the missile components that are standing behind the text, not for the open seeker in the front. You can see on the left the bottom of the case for the complete seeker, in the middle you can see the bottom of the middle section. And on the most right there is a grey seeker RGS-04R for a different missile (5V27D). Here is another angle that shows that the description is for the components that are standing behind the text, not for the seeker that is in front of the whole arrangement:

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. 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. 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. When the R-27T/ET does not have INS, then the INS (gyroscope, accelerometer) must be in the seeker head of the R-27R/ER, as the middle section of the missile is more or less the same (except for datalink antennas, but their signal goes directly through the external wire housing at the bottom of the missile to the seeker section). So where is the INS unit? It cannot be in the rear of the seeker section, because it is filled with circuit boards. And the front is filled with RF components. To me it makes much more sense that the sensors are in the part with the proximity fuze, which is the autopilot section.

I am not talking about radio corrections (which it does not have), just inertial systems for flight stabilisation etc. The missile still needs inertial sensors because it adjusts its outputs based on speed and altitude. MiG-29 manual says that the R-27T/ET only differs from the R-27R/ER by the seeker and the absence of the radio correction line.

R-27T/ET have INS but no datalink (no datalink antennas visible at least compared to R-27R/ER). So they can be fired at a head on target from long range using lock on after launch as long as the target does not maneuver to much. This procedure is explained in the manuals.

Yes, I think those should be swapped. The solid line should be the one with more range, as in the lower speed one.

It is 60 seconds not 55.

I doubt the middle half circle has any meaning. Could just be a mistake that was not discovered. The graph still looks hand drawn. Maybe the drawer took the wrong pen to draw the thin circles and then wanted to remove the circle later and forgot. Such mistakes can happen, look for example here on the R-24 graph: The lines on the bottom right for the different speed ratios (1.0 and 0.8 ) are swapped for the maximum speed head on engagement. The solid line should be dashed and the dashed one should be solid, like with the low speed engagement.

Do not read too much into that 60 vs 62,5km from that one website. For a rough idea of the kinematic difference just compare the DLZ chart for R-27R and R-27ER. There is a massive difference. The seeker range does not matter in the R-27 launch chart because the R-27R/ER uses INS + radio corrections until it is in range to use its own seeker (it will use its own seeker when 25km to a fighter sized target). Still the chart is not the aerodynamic range either, it is just the allowed launch range for a shot with a decent kill propability.