Max1mus

And what about jamming, in combination with chaff? Red flag pilots talk about jammers that "get him to the merge" against AIM-120Cs. None of us here have any clue how effective which jammer with how much chaff at which speeds and angles is against which modern missile. But we know its a thing, its in one of the first sentences in the wikipedia article on chaff. To add to that: A Serbian MiG-29A (no jammer, and very little chaff on board!) defeated a 5 mile AIM-120 launched head on from 20.000ft, fully supported. The F-15 pilot in the interview mentions how he was trained to expect this, should have launched more missiles, and should have maneuvered in anticipation of the missiles missing, to prepare for a merge. He overshot and the MiG got away.

Be careful what you wish for. When ED last made AMRAAMs nearly unchaffable, they added a different mechanic that allowed people to just barrel roll it head on with ECM on. It is more effective now. Something worth adding is that AIM-120C, despite uninformed complaints here, is the missile in DCS with the by far best tracking and countermeasure resistance. Within the no-run-zone, no other missile more likely to take down the target than AIM-120C. To add to the whole "uninformed" point. As usual with these rage threats, most posters dont understand the changes ED makes and how that changes the effect of missiles on the fight, perhabs with the exception of posters like Noctrach, who fly in groups that spend a lot of time testing said missiles. In the latest changelog, a thing called "low altitude tracking errors" was introduced. This allows specificly the AIM-7 and AIM-120 to be defeated in different ways compared to the previous patch. The R-27 was affected by this for a long time, but arguably to a lesser extent. Of course im not surprised that this wasnt mentioned in here. Same as that whole ECM dodging thing. It does not seem like most of the posters in here have spent a lot of time doing Air to Air in DCS. ED surely understands that with how many new players have entered DCS recently, the forums and platforms like hoggit will be filled with this sort of stuff. Its not any different in other sims or games.

An AIM-120 will now outspeed it at 8-10km (or, up to 6km flyout), meaning that when this distance is reached, you have 0 options left assuming equal positioning. That is quite a significant nerf. As i said, test with a jamming target where EOS does not turn on. ER-27 will still loose track. Its the countermeasure coefficient of the missile, not the radar mechanic, that is at fault. For the most part.

Is there a specific reason why DCS AIM-7F/M reaches 4.7km in a tailchase scenario, when it should be able to go over 6km at sea level (according to both the american and russian source)? AIM-120 outperforms the only known source. By as much as 23% which i like to remind of.

Youre overestimating the importance of the EOS bug. Test with a jamming target, your radar will not loose the lock. The ER will still be chaffed 98/100 times. SARH missiles in DCS do their own thing, you dont chaff the radar (and if missile/radar are at different angles, trying it will get you killed!), but you chaff the missile. And that missile happens to have a horrible countermeasure coefficient. ER with the new update is almost exactly the same as before down low, has a marginal increase up high, and got severely nerfed in terms of acceleration, which really hurts it at ranges close to the no-escape-zone. So really it got nerfed down low, buffed up high. Nowhere close to the kind of rework AIM-120 got. I assume the full research is still on the way.

Здесь минимум 9сек. The AIM-7 in DCS is not able to reach the range stated in both russian and american documents. They both say it should catch a cold target at 6.1km at sea level, thats very similar to AIM-120A/B. In DCS, it cant go beyond 4.6-4.7km.

MKI has a more capable radar. MKK has better missiles. What info do you have, and what is still missing? If you give a detailed list, maybe the community can crowdsource some of it for you.

Its weird how when it comes to russian stuff, the correct interpretation is always the one with lower numbers. Im no rocket scientist, but a missile as massive as the ER burning for 1.5s less than an AIM-120 makes absolutely no sense. How is this possible? Did they fill half of the missile with vodka? PS: How detailed is the newer document? Does it also state (the same) total amount of thrust? If it just mentions the 6.6s on the side, maybe thats your different ER that was photographed in Syria. Maybe one with a different, larger seekerhead and thus less room for fuel? 2 seconds is an eternity for the boost phase of a missile, such a mistake seems very unlikely.

8 seconds is almost the same as the AIM-120C burn time, despite the much larger rocket motor. That seems weird. All other missiles follow the logic "if rocket motor bigger=burn time longer". I hope this post was not forgotten.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf Sea level launch: 3.3 miles possible launch (6.2km) DCS: 4.6-4.7km maximum (and this is 1.000m, not sea level) AIM-7 underperform.trk The russian document shows the range exactly like the american one, they did not get it wrong by 23% like they did with AIM-120A according to ED. This indicates to me that there is some problem with DCS missile modelling that favors slick designs like AIM-120 and R77 too much, while making missiles like AIM-7 and R-27 underperform.

Has nothing to do with G limits and they dont affect the AIM-54 up high in any meaningful way, in DCS. Test AIM-54C (heatblur) against AIM-120C down low and up high. Check difference. You will see that im right. It comes down to the lofting AIM-120C practically not loosing much energy at all up high in DCS, as such it will still maintain mach 2.5-3 even after 100 miles of flight. The DCS AIM-54 will continue to loose energy, especially on a target diving into thicker air.

Except that the AIM-54 achieves much more acceleration and flyoff despite a much larger diameter and higher speed. More thrust will mean better range at low altitude, but that advantage will diminish up high. You can see this right now in DCS, where AIM-54C (Mk47) severely outranges the AIM-120C down low, but is in kinematic terms (battery life gives 54C a bigger advantage) almost matched at altitude. With the even bigger MK60 motor, it continues to have a large advantage even up high, though the gap still decreases with higher altitude. PS: Can someone test any AIM-7 graphs from IRL in DCS? There is a russian estimation, similar to the AIM-120A/B one posted by Chizh a while ago. If the russians underestimate american missiles in general (as suggested by EDs missile rework/research), the DCS AIM-7 should perform better by similar margin (11% at 5.000m, 23% at 10.000m). If no, then given the similar shape of AIM-7 and R-27, that would indicate a potential problem with software/game engine, favoring slicker missiles with a smaller rocket motor (AIM-120/R77), or not favoring missiles shaped like AIM-7/R-27, with a better rocket motor. It would be interesting to know how heatblur modelled their long burning, not so slick AIM-54, since that one has easily 3-4x as much flyout as any of the missiles mentioned above.

Not surprising, when they (really just he) go into it with the perception that it should be worse (posting it on the forums long before any work started). I bet i could bias the data enough, that when i put a bunch of nonsense into the software, i get 30% or 50% less range. Maybe DCS atmosphere is at fault, maybe something else engine related that favors non draggy, short burn missiles. But thats up to ED to fix. It took a forum user to show ED after 7 years, that they screwed up the testing on R-27R. If something that is so obvious and easy to check (start mission, fire missile, f10 map and measure distance to missile) stays undetected (or intentionally ignored?), anything is in question.

This nomogramm doesnt work when you use 100m/s.

I must say, i am very shocked and disappointed. This official document shows 13km of range, in a situation where the DCS missile only achieves 9. When i messaged ED about this, i got the answer "This chart is very inaccurate and does not make any sense" and that they believe it should only have 8km. I can not find a logical reason for this, i can not find an economical one. I have not a single clue why ED approaches it this way. Reminder: The DCS AIM-120 does not just match the official documents, it overshoots the estimates on them by 11% at 5000m, 23% at 10.000m. In contrast to this, ED believes the R-27ER to undershoot the official estimates not by 10%, not by 20%, but by over 63%... (8km + 63% = 13km) Lets see how the playerbase reacts to this. (Ignore the red drawings on the picture below, they are not part of the document)

Under which conditions should you get 13km then?

The red line is not part of the document, thats the DCS missile. It indicates that the DCS R-27ER should be 30-35% longer ranged in that situation.

According to this drawing, R-27ER should have 13km+ of flyoff at 1000m of altitude. So if drag is the same, then clearly something is horribly wrong with the rocket motor in DCS. In DCS, you get 9-10km.

Make sure you get the info for the heatblur AIM-54. These values are just for code then and not 1:1 translations from IRL. The AIM-54 surely has more acceleration than an ER.

Depends how its implemented in DCS. The tiny difference in top speed (and low altitude flyout) between AIM-120 and R-27ER is weird, given the insanely higher amount of fuel in the R-27. How many total kN does the AIM-54 have? Both MK47 and MK60. They are even more heavy, yet achieve 3-4x as much flyout on the deck as AIM-120. R-27ER barely even exceeds it, despite being lighter.

First of all, i think the 120B in DCS does not have these 2 stages modelled. I see no difference in acceleration between the first 2.1s and the last 5s. Secondly, the ERs 73kN boost may then just be too weak in DCS. How many kN does the AIM-120C motor have in total? Because just these initial 73kN are much more than that, and that difference just is not showing. On the AIM-54 on the other hand, it is, and that one is really just an extreme version of the R-27ER. 120C_ER_Difference.trk Just look at this. The AIM-120 almost outspeeds the ER (only ~M 0.1-0.15 slower). And this is under the best conditions. - on the deck (where missiles with the biggest motors benefit most compared to gliders like AIM-120) - with no maneuvering (where lower AIM-120 lift drag and better AIM-120 guidance help it) - Fast target assumed (i stop the track when missiles are under mach 1.36), AIM-120 glides forever at slower speeds. 120C_bigER_difference.trk Look at the difference between the phoenix and 120C under the same conditions. Here, the differences between the 2 rocket motors are clearly visible in both top speed and flyout range. Of course, as mentioned, this difference gets smaller at high altitude (though even with the MK47 variant, it never disappears completely) due to the AIM-120s better aerodynamics AFTER the booster runs out.

AIM120B_sustain.trk AIM-120B happily accelerates at very high rate (i dont even think lower than the initial boost rate) despite "sustain" boost. Why not R-27ER? If the R-27ER rocket motor was modelled even remotely like AIM-120B one here, where it does not just hit a stopgap after 3 seconds, we would see way different results. I assume R-27R/T is not getting the 10-20% range increase this update, or is even getting a 10% decrease. Anything else would be a double standard, since the missile bodies of 27R/27ER are very similar.

Why is the R-27R getting a 10-20% of additional range then? Shouldnt both the ER and 27R be nerfed then? For the current R-27R this would mean less range than R-73, but if your research shows this @Chizh ...

It would still be better than now. The ER does not benefit from this 7-8 second sustain motor at all, it gains practically no new speed... Compare this to the AMRAAM or AIM-7 - it keeps happily accelerating to mach 4-5. This seems like some 10 year old trick ED used to control maximum speed of missiles. If i remember right, the old AIM-120 would behave like this too, hitting a top speed and keeping it until the motor burned out.

Then i dont understand what you mean here