Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

e.g.: If a squadron of 16 Su27 can`t kill one target that goes on AWACS or "president Putin" plane then they better deal with aerobatics only. This is dreadfully as for the SU27 in DCS. This target was to be shot down without problems.

Select any missile in tacview and follow from Cockpit view option - simply just not going to target!

Will have a look when I get home. If true these tests are even more damning than my tracking/chaff effectiveness tests.

Knew they were bad, but that is just...

 

I'm sure there is a perfect and logical explanation for this behaviour? Let's see what the 'experts' have to say.

obviously they are Russian missiles, they should do this, that one war where they were used obviously shows that they should all miss all of the time, obviously.

Missiles hit, if Im chaffing none of the missiles coming from the side or rear hit, same with the aim-7.

Here is track. DCS 1.2.8

FC3 R-27ER test.rar

...

 

I set to central red Su-27 excellent AI skill. He was shot down quickly by 4 or 5 missile.

Thats right but AI is "easy target".

... ER can kill only sitting target.

 

...

I like to see the R77 with this test. Can you do it for us pls?

Many thanks

Impressively broken.

Falcon, you are The 'One'.

Who cares for ER's anyhow, fix the god damn AIM-120s they are the only ones broken. :P

Gentlemens, this is unacceptable. :(

 

 

 

This is really sad. Explains all doubts about the ideal conditions for the launch - there are no ideal conditions for R-27ER. Nothing else I can not say. Had at least one hit - but no. Something is definitely wrong. I know that the developers take some data from reality but is the R-27ER bad in reality like as in DCS?

 

WE have every day many situation when we see how our ER dont go on the target, second too, thrid too... - and now i know if i have 24 ER`s too 99% no Kill. ER can kill only sitting target.

 

Ok, you will told me is not easy to kill, but you have kill`s, and happens ... but this Is not enough reason to missiles thoroughly analyze and adapt their capabilities?

 

I do not want to start a any war here, but to determine errors if they are errors.

 

Posted Track file here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2073853&postcount=14

FC3 is not a Simulator. It is only a game to get money. Fun for F-15 and kills and died for the Migs and Su.

R-27ER from ED = A Missile without comprehensive physics calculation

there are a lot of thread about that after FC3 release. Try now with the Mig-29 and his R-77.

After all that you will get all the idea

Who cares for ER's anyhow, fix the god damn AIM-120s they are the only ones broken. :P

Dont belittle their cause comrade. My heart bleeds every time I read a "WTF, why aren't 120s instakill at 30km" thread:P:P

FC3 is not a Simulator. It is only a game to get money. Fun for F-15 and kills and died for the Migs and Su.

 

R-27ER from ED = A Missile without comprehensive physics calculation

 

there are a lot of thread about that after FC3 release. Try now with the Mig-29 and his R-77.

 

After all that you will get all the idea

Let's not start with that, the FC3 missiles are the DCS World missiles and there have been patches where the R-27 was at least dynamically superior to everything.

If nothing has changed since my last test, the R-27 is still the best maneuvering missile. Tracking is broken everywhere.

I'm surprised at the test results, but this test doesn't indicate that the R-27 is useless (we all know it's not optimized). If anything what we need is the 51st server's missile statics data in DCS World.

Here i`m say about all missiles: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2069798&postcount=6

And please let`s talk in a constructive atmosphere and without heavy words. All these things can be repaired.

MiG`s and R-77 ... see attachment, R-77 are much better but... and wanna stay on R-27ER discusion because they are catastrophic - stones.

FC3 R-77 test.trk

R-77 missile test.miz

FC3 R-77 test.rar

Let's not start with that, the FC3 missiles are the DCS World missiles and there have been patches where the R-27 was at least dynamically superior to everything.

 

If nothing has changed since my last test, the R-27 is still the best maneuvering missile. Tracking is broken everywhere.

 

I'm surprised at the test results, but this test doesn't indicate that the R-27 is useless (we all know it's not optimized). If anything what we need is the 51st server's missile statics data in DCS World.

51st server stats, are they still being collated? Not sure if I read somewhere that it was no longer viable, can't remember why though?

I don't think the data is taken anymore, I don't remember why.

If we could get it up and running again, it would be nice if we could pull range/speed/alt data with the hit rate, but that might be difficult.

Thats right but AI is "easy target".

I can't look at the track right now... Can you tell me what you did and what you observed? There has been a lot of funny business with missiles lately, could be due to the change in notch and countermeasure rejection logic.

Okay, normally I'm sarcastic as ****. Now I'll drop some real talk on this conversation. We ready to pull some g? Hold it, hold it, hold it, PULLLLLL!

***EDIT: y AXIS ON ALL GRAPHS IS Cd***

This is the AIM-9M Cd curve in the game. It has something close to what we'd expect to see from a missile as it goes up through Mach. This curve matches very closely to AIM-9L performance charts and can be considered relatively realistic. The biggest problem with this curve is Cd should be more draggy at Super Sonic that Sub Sonic in almost all conditions. Common sense says this shouldn't be the case. (I wont go further.)

http://i.imgur.com/hGC6VLh.png

This is the AIM-120B curve in the game. Again you'll notice that the Cd at sub sonic is greater than super sonic. You see how it picks up in Cd as the speed decreases through the Mach slightly faster. The other thing is the trans-sonic spike being significantly greater than the AIM-9 as well as the Super Sonic being lower. (I wont go further.)

http://i.imgur.com/ugRewk5.png

This is the curve for the R27-ER in the game. Granted, the missile is much larger than anything else shot by players. However you'll notice that the super sonic drag is much lower than the sub sonic drag which makes no sense at all. You can see how fast that super sonic drag rises into the trans-sonic peek, as soon as she gets to around Mach 2 she decelerates like she has a parachute, this shouldn't really be the case. Finally, the missile being in size and with it's fore-fins being so large, the trans-spike should be larger than the AIM-120. This is seen in the subsonic region but not the trans-sonic region.

http://i.imgur.com/9WJh8TU.png

This is an AIM-9L variant Cd curve. The variants were modifications made to simulated a scaled down AIM-120A. Data generated from Flyout performance charts. This curve is what we'd expect to see. A higher Super Sonic than Sub Sonic drag. A much smoother climb up to a much more reasonable trans-sonic spike. Note the massive difference in the trans-sonic Cd in this curve to any of the previous curves.

http://i.imgur.com/SO8C2fc.png

IF I AM WRONG ANYWHERE PLEASE CRITIQUE AND I'M HAPPY TO EDIT AS REQUIRED.

I can't look at the track right now... Can you tell me what you did and what you observed?

Knowing that missiles quickly lose energy I wanted to see how ER bites because it is very difficult to hit anything on the server with it. Every time when target make a small change in the direction R-27ER wont follow it. Why? I dont know? Because of this I was surrounded with SU27 and thus simulating aspects of the target ... I expected that I can not get out alive, however - a disaster. Logicaly, for me, I should have been shot down with a few missiles like as Chizh confirm AI shot down in this mission.

My bad english language barier won`t let me to explain better. But you will understand after see ACMI.

The biggest problem with this curve is Cd at sub sonic being more draggy than at supersonic. Common sense says this shouldn't be the case. (I wont go further.)

 

 

 

 

IF I AM WRONG ANYWHERE PLEASE CRITIQUE AND I'M HAPPY TO EDIT AS REQUIRED.

Cd is not drag force but drag coefficient. Drag force, as you can see below on the equation, depends of velocity squared. Going further: drag force at supersonic speeds is always (or almost always) bigger than at subsonic speeds because velocity is squared.

Depending on Cd and area, yes. I know the difference between Drag Force and Drag Co-efficient. You have to remember though that super sonic drag is different than sub sonic drag due to the transient super sonic shockwave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd_with_mach_number.png

Cd is not drag force but drag coefficient. Drag force, as you can see below on the equation, depends of velocity squared. Going further: drag force at supersonic speeds is always (or almost always) bigger than at subsonic speeds because velocity is squared.

You can represent Drag with CD, this is actually standard in my line of work. If you fix A, rho, and V to a constant values, CD becomes proportional to drag.

You do have to make it clear what's being shown though, and it wasn't immediately clear to me what the charts were actually supposed to be showing. It looks like they are drag force and IASGATG doesn't like that subsonic drag is so high.

You're right, I should make it clear, it's Cd on the y axis. The graphs were made in about ten minutes so I was being pretty simple with my graph production, my apologies.

You can represent Drag with CD, this is actually standard in my line of work. If you fix A, rho, and V to a constant values, CD becomes proportional to drag.

Just out of my curiosity what is your line of work?

Cd (or Cx) is proportional to drag if you fix all other values but then what is the point of using it ? Its like saying that AMRAAM max range is 15 km - it says not much about missile kinematics performance but is truth in certain launch parameters. Kinda like Cd~=Fd

And yes, in aerodynamics you use Cd but only because if you have it you are good to calculate Fd at any given parameters - you have one chart instead of tens or hundrets dhowing Fd

I work with automotive aerodynamics currently. We fix the area when it comes to reporting out results because we often morph vehicle shapes when doing studies. Working with CD means we don't have to worry about units so there's no confusion over Newtons to pounds, etc. It also helps when it comes to doing quick mental math because there is only one scale to remember (ie .2 CD is very good, always, I don't have to worry about what is a good range in dimensional units, of which there can be many).

The only issue that might come up is comparing data across completely separate projects, but I've had to do this yet.