Ironhand

From the DCS User Manual: Have you selected “Load”?

Yes, I know. Some of the above was hyperbole, though I have had it happen. Very disconcerting when it does.

I’ve never used it but DCS has its own voice chat system. There’s also SRS which, again, I’ve never used. And Discord which I have used.

Susceptibility to chaff has always been this missile’s weakness in the sim. Doesn’t seem any worse than previously, though. Much more often than not, in a BVR dual, it’ll be a missile with an IR seeker that will make the kill. The R-27R/ERs just give you something to do, while you wait to make the R-73 kill.

That seems a bit strange. If the missile seeker is pointing at the target in identical situations, I wouldn’t expect to see a difference. Concerning the two sensors, I have no idea which would be more sensitive. Does this include Boresight?

Unfortunately I won’t have access to my computer for another week or so. I’d love to take a closer look at some of the assumptions that we’re making. OTOH, it certainly seems that the missile interacts differently with the two platforms.

That’s interesting. I was only going by the data you presented and hadn’t watched the videos. You used active pause. So there’s a variable not account for. Either the target aircraft were flying at different speeds within the first two test groups or the “own” aircraft speeds are not identical as assumed. I suppose both could be true, though. The 11,800 m test is the one where they were identical. EDIT: Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill. And this isn’t a criticism of your test procedure. It just seems that something is amiss and it might not be the missile.

What I find interesting is how, at 12000 m altitude, the distance travelled between launch authorization and the actual launch is nearly identical (0.01 km difference). OTHOH, the difference at 1100 m is 0.1 km and 0.2 km at 8000 m. Why is that? Differences in closure rate?

If the R-27 R/ER was the Cookie Monster, most of the cookies would be eaten. Anytime I test without chaff available, the hit rate goes way up. That even applies to long-range shots toward the outer limits. Using Dipirona4100’s R-27 track, I went from something like 12 out of 20 hits with the first missile to 19 out of 20 after removing the target’s chaff in the ME. Admittedly, that’s not a lot of trials but…

I see your point. I must be doing something wrong, then. I’ll try to figure it out, when I get back.

What were the conditions that have you convinced that it absolutely should have hit the target?

Ummm...they're not random. The stars are the Spring star field. Unfortunately, they don't follow the seasons. It's always the same star field visible. So Orion and the adjacent constellations are always setting in the west (you need to set the date/time to late December just after sunset, for example, on the Caucasus map). Set the time to just before dawn and you'll have Pegasus, Pisces, Perseus, etc rising in the east. And the various constellations as they would be in the Spring traveling through the night sky. The planets are there, too, though too far off the ecliptic and not showing as they would at the ME set date/time. EDIT: Something that I started working on but never finished, using Arttu’s Night Sky mod:

@Dipirona4100,FWIW, taking control of your TRK, I get first missile hit roughly 50-60% of the time. Take chaff out of the equation and it jumps to roughly 90% for the first missile. Admittedly I run the attack differently than you do (lower airspeed, stay below him, and, given the short range, use Med or ILV). I've attached a representative TRK file. At lower altitudes, especially, I find it best to stay below your target. At high altitude (10km or higher), you can get away with letting him get a few hundred meters below you. But don't do that at the altitude you're flying in your TRK. Dipirona4100_R27-Ironhand.trk

Is this, perhaps, a Mig21-bis issue? They work fine with the FF MiG-29 and FC3 aircraft that can carry them?

Excellent idea.