RP-22SM + Kh-66 and RS-2US

Hi,

On our Polish forum we've been researching the use of those two missiles on the MiG-21 and pretty much all sources we found suggest that only aircraft with RP-21 family radars could employ them. The RP-21 and RP-22 despite the similar names are very different designs - the first uses conical scanning, while the second is a monopulse radar. This leads to the first radar being compatible only with the older Kh-66 and RS-2US missiles, and the second with the newer R-3R. Since all three missiles are available in your module, I'm guessing you have some sources that prove this is not the case? Could you possibly provide them?

Thanks in advance!

Comment?

I'm also waiting for official statement on that topic.

Maybe its the older Kh-66 and RS-2US missiles that are modelled in game?

The problem is that the RP-22 radar is too new to work with the Kh-66 and RS-2US missiles, there were no beam riders that could work with RP-22 radar. The RS-2US were then modified by adopting the R-3S and R-3R seeker head/guidance unit to form newer R-55 family of missiles that could be used on the MiG-21Bis (one variant being IR, other one semi-active radar).

It would be different story if it wouldn't be MiG-21Bis, but earlier model with RP-21 radar - then you could not use semi-active R-3R and R-55 missiles.

In Poland once the older MiGs were being phased out, the remaining RS-2US missiles were being modified to be used as practice targets. Since they use the same launch rail as S-24 rockets, they could be launched from both MiG-21Bis, and Su-22, but had no warhead or guidance.

It looks like the way it's modeled in the sim, the RP-22 has a narrow beam mode that the Kh-66 uses for guidance.

Is that not a capability of the RP-22?

Yes, I agree that if Leatherneck can't find a document that conclusively proves that this capability existed or it isn't modelled precisely how it should be, then the feature _must_ be pulled or it will _jeopardise_ everything we're paying for. /s

Not to be a smarty-pants, but based on the fact that they have doubtless the most comprehensive set of reference materials ever gathered on the aircraft, they have implemented features appropriate to the capabilities of said aircraft.

There is no requirement for LS to 'prove' that such a feature existed, just as they don't have to show up with their original 3d scan data and use that to 'prove' the shape of Bolt#3123323 holding the #32 Main Strut to the #3 Transverse strut.

Paradox, every radar creates a narrow beam, the thing is, that the beam emitted by conventional conical scanning radar like the old RP-21 was rotating around an axis, along which the beam-rider missile would try to fly toward the locked target. The RP-22 is a newer monopulse radar, it's emitting two pulses in short duration slightly misaligned. If you would engage such radar in conical scan pattern, and flew a beam rider missile into it - it would freak out having two misaligned pulses instead of one and try to correct for both, eventually over-correcting into first or second pulse, and flying off the beam.

Personally I have no problem of that armament being there, as long as we get a clear statement that would say:

a. it wouldn't work, but we're keeping it for the entertainment value (artistic licence);

b. it would work, and here's the documentation to prove it.

;)

Hey dudes,

Sorry for the late reply, we're all very very swamped preparing for launch.

I've made Novak aware of this post and as soon as he gets a moment he will chime in. I personally don't have nearly enough expertise to answer this in a satisfactory manner.

You might be completely correct (as you were with, e.g. the special bomb gear doors).

We do make concessions for entertainment value as sundowner mentioned. One recent item that came up was the TrackIR limitations. We had limited head movement in the cockpit to correspond very realistically to the limitations a real MiG-21 pilot faces, but this was almost universally reported as a bug and detrimental to gameplay. In the end, it's always a balancing act. The same could be said for for example the UPK-23 gunpods, which were added upon request (and while very very fun!), were not really used with the MiG-21.

We'll let you know what the deal is ASAP. :)

I like the idea of the UPK-23s and Kh-66s even though they may not be totally "realistic". I think it's a best case scenario: those who want them can play with them, and those who don't can choose to not load them.

That'd be my vote anyway. :)

I like the idea of the UPK-23s and Kh-66s even though they may not be totally "realistic". I think it's a best case scenario: those who want them can play with them, and those who don't can choose to not load them.

 

That'd be my vote anyway. :)

Agreed. But such design decisions should probably be noted in the manual.

I like the idea of the UPK-23s and Kh-66s even though they may not be totally "realistic". I think it's a best case scenario: those who want them can play with them, and those who don't can choose to not load them.

 

That'd be my vote anyway. :)

Agreed. It is a game, everything doesn't have to be 100% accurate. 98% is close enough.

Thanks Cobra :).

I appreciate the hardcore simmers for their knowledge and dedication, but I totally agree with the posts above. Let them stay and the people fool with it who want to. I play because of interest and feel of flying a challenging and rewarding game, If I want the real deal I should have applied for the air force when I got drafted back then...

I was very interested to see the old beam rider missiles. I would hate to have them removed so I can't play with them single player. Can the online missions can have loadouts restricted.

The old beam rider would give you a disadvantage in online play.

This would be the only air to air beam rider in the sim right?

BTT ??

BTT ??

*cough cough* What are we trying to do here?