GGTharos

It shouldn't be difficult to do the math to see if the tail-aspect range makes sense. The head-on range must be reached within a certain amount of time In this case, if we take the 10km figure at 60km, we have 60 seconds to reach this range, we can assume we reach it in say 55, giving us some margin of error. One can calculate the amount of distance the target aircraft flies in this time, and therefore the amount of distance that the missile flies as well. The same time and distance is available for a tail-on intercept, although if the 150m/s overtake is desired, then the flight time should be reduced. This will give you an idea of how well the rear aspect part of the graph fits, though it's really a ball-park calculation. At low altitudes it gets trickier because we can no longer assume that we have the use of the full 60 seconds before the missile slows down to a useless speed.

The R-27ER has a diameter change in the middle of its body. I don't know what the full effect would look like, but 'more drag' is the correct answer. I just couldn't tell you how much more.

@Chizh is this time-speed chart considered to be accurate, reliable information by you/ED?

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you ran this test at 15000m, then the missile is over-performing. Unless the red marks are not yours, but, 1150m/s at 40 sec ... is over-performing. That graph has somewhat suspiciously neat peaks coinciding with nice round numbers as well. Empirical graphs that I have seen aren't quite that neat, although it really is only the peaks. In any case, even if you don't know the 'maximum fighter speed' you don't need it: Use any given speed, check the missile's peak speed and then adjust launch speed up/down until the missile matches the desired peak speed. Then collect data after motor burn-out.

It's very relevant. It's a computed DLZ that doesn't match the physics of the missile. And everyone here is adamant that the DLZs must be perfect and correct. We have no data on the actual flight characteristics of the missile itself. There's only one missile that we have this for, and that's the AIM-9L. Further, this is the TACMAN for the F-4 - these kinds of graphs for modern weapons, with this kind of detail are nowhere to be found. The graphs we have from the Su-27 and MiG-29 manuals are great, but not invulnerable to further scrutiny - they're not 'vault' material.

But if you do the basic math on that range you find that it immediately makes no sense. But you should also say what the dashed line is as well ... this is very important wrt this graph, and shows how DLZs can also be inaccurate.

If I get time I'll try to do the test from the HuD shot.

AS-4 would show a closure at mach 5.5+ (as much as M7 depending on the shooter's speed) when it gets moving, if the speed number pans out. There are claims that even AEGIS would have had problems dealing with it.

So is the HUD showing the target travelling at 600kph or so?

Maybe the 1800 limit was quickly updated to deal with it. There are possible limitations for measuring that large a shift but I guess all of this stuff is for the 'them' to know and 'us' to wonder about

If a loft is involved I could see this happening - so you're saying the gorka is in action here.

There are some things that you will get on radar like the nails from the RWR in the F-18, but AFAIK they're not correlated to a target beyond the NCTR determination. IFF will be correlated etc, but most of that won't be a factor for shooting at things, or for putting them in the target queue (obviously user's choice here). The radar's purpose is to surveil and attack, anything that gets in the way of doing this ... is in the way.

No, it's working alone.

Ok, I'll put this another way: A missile is an aircraft. It's only distinguishing characteristic is that its RCS is smaller than the average fighter/bomber, and it goes faster. There's literally nothing else that the radar can differentiate, and it's a poor choice of parameters to use to exclude something from the target cycle.

How would the radar distinguish between an aircraft and a missile?

This is the correct result from what I could gather - these missiles were designed to go so high and fast that you can't reach them with any weapons unless you get them as they're launching or pretty much when they're terminal and forced to slow down.

Range and doppler gates would prevent the target switch.

I agree with you, just stating some numbers I have read about other similar missiles. For canard controlled missiles you get higher AoA available, and even more for tail-controlled. I doubt that in any case they can exceed 30 (although the R-77 is rumored to be controllable at 150 which is weird)

Just a quick comment @tavarish palkovnik, I'm reasonably certain that you're good up to 17 degrees of AoA for mid-body wing controlled missiles of this era

@KlarSnow and @draconus have given you very good answers. I'll only say this to make it really short: There's no aerodynamic damage model implemented for the F-15. The flight model is good, but there's no DM for g/aero forces.

Using TWS is one reasonable technique if the targets are being at least somewhat cooperative. The AACQ/ACM modes are always there to help you with acquisition as well and should be the primary method, and with the F-16 you also have the helmet to help with this.

We have flyout graphs for the AIM-9. No amount of mentioning 'wobbly movements' or anything else like that makes any sense. Compare to those graphs and see if its different.

It's really not that surprising. The sidewinder's rocket motor is all-boost and at a higher acceleration than even the AIM-7s own boost stage. As a projectile, the AIM-9M has the ability to gain a lot of speed (well over M3) and is limited by available power. At high altitude the AIM-7's sustain stage plays a role, but not quite as large ... think of it this way. 10g for ~ 3.5 sec + 2g for ~ 11 sec vs 14g for ~5sec. The sustain motor won't get you quite to the same peak as a boost motor for the simple reason that it's going to get a bigger acceleration fraction eaten up by air resistance. You would certainly get the lines to cross on a graph at some point, but not with these two missiles at high altitude.

The radio menu, 'attack my target'. Then switch to the other one right away. I'm not even going to discuss 2v10 at 10nm apart or any situation like that, it's utterly silly. Unless you made a typo. The missile literally tells you when you can shoot, and you have a DLZ on the HUD as well. Flares are used for IR missiles. No idea, and not important at such short ranges, your eyes should outside of the pit at all times, not inside.

And how are they going to do this? Magic? ED hasn't dealt with the desync in a robust manner for anything (missiles, tracks) and ED are the only ones who can make this right. Not anyone else.