Ракеты в DCS

Community: "the R-27 and R-77 must be bad since they are soviet missiles from the 80's"

Soviet missiles complex and engines from the 80tis: S-300, Tor, R-73, Tunguska, P-270 Moskit, P-700 Granit, RD-170....

Ты ещё забыл добавить про Р-36М (SS-18 Mod.1,2,3 Satan) из за которой очень сильно хотели поскорее развалить СССР. В целом это удалось и заставили эти ракеты распилить, а пусковые шахты уничтожить.

Можно ещё вспомнить про Буран, который в 1988 совершил автономный полёт в космос и посадку. Если такое умел корабль то и ракеты были не глупее.

Community: "the R-27 and R-77 must be bad since they are soviet missiles from the 80's"

Soviet missiles complex and engines from the 80tis: S-300, Tor, R-73, Tunguska, P-270 Moskit, P-700 Granit, RD-170....

You overestimate commies-technology, they only learned to produce toilet paper in 1969 and only thanks to English equipment. What kind of planes, rockets?

You overestimate commies-technology, they only learned to produce toilet paper in 1969 and only thanks to English equipment. What kind of planes, rockets?

I agree, it is not like they got in to space first (:sarcasm: - internet you have to write those things :D)... but we are getting off-topic...

I agree, it is not like they got in to space first (:sarcasm: - internet you have to write those things :D)... but we are getting off-topic...

There is a famous article in Russia about the war with NATO. Google translate

How comes that the DCS Aim-120B fired WITHOUT loft exceeds its estimated straight line performance by 33% (240 m/s shooter + target) and by 50% (500 m/s shooter + target)?

 

I doubt that the soviet rocket scienists made such huge mistakes?

They wouldn't be the only ones. They didn't have CFD back then and we don't know either the quality of the information that they had available or the quality of the analysis (this may be an earlier attempt at analysis for example, which was refined later).

This is simply the best information available to us, which doesn't necessary reflect the best information available to the relevant air forces.

A CFD is far more accurate than any of this stuff- we're 40 years ahead in technology for computing and simulating this stuff.

They wouldn't be the only ones. They didn't have CFD back then and we don't know either the quality of the information that they had available or the quality of the analysis (this may be an earlier attempt at analysis for example, which was refined later).

Ну вообще-то полноразмерную модель они могли продуть в нормальной аэродинамической трубе

Ну вообще-то полноразмерную модель они могли продуть в нормальной аэродинамической трубе

That is a good point. Still, we don't know their goal, method, and how early in the process this was released.

По фотографии ракету анализировать могли бы только Чумак и Кашпировский. Нужна марка топлива, точная масса. Точные размеры ракеты и управляющих поверхностей. Иначе это просто ответ на вопрос "с какими характеристиками они могут создать ракету?" - "ну думаю с такими например".

По фотографии ракету анализировать могли бы только Чумак и Кашпировский. Нужна марка топлива, точная масса. Точные размеры ракеты и управляющих поверхностей. Иначе это просто ответ на вопрос "с какими характеристиками они могут создать ракету?" - "ну думаю с такими например".

Размеры то скоммуниздить могли и при помощи разведки, а вот топливо - тут действительно вопрос. Хотя и его состав могли узнать

Но это все гадания

По фотографии ракету анализировать могли бы только Чумак и Кашпировский. Нужна марка топлива, точная масса. Точные размеры ракеты и управляющих поверхностей. Иначе это просто ответ на вопрос "с какими характеристиками они могут создать ракету?" - "ну думаю с такими например".

Всегда есть старые добрые проверенные методы. :) Актуально для всех сторон, но наша служба самая колоритная. ^-^

*ГРУ

Есть.

 

 

Зато есть Р-77! )

МиГ-31 можно версию БМ дать?

Our F-15C has no datalink at all. Neither singleplayer nor multiplayer.

F-16 and F/A-18 do however and our Flanker faces them all the time in DCS.

Our F-15C has no datalink at all. Neither singleplayer nor multiplayer.

It doesn't matter if other planes have it

It matters if the plane IRL has it, its the only thing the DCS Su-27S should really be compared to.

With the Su-27 being sold and regarded as a Sim, it should clearly have this capability as enough is known with regard to the system and it is possible to implement in DCS as evident with other aircraft.

Не надо мне говорить про баллистические ракеты.

Жидкостные в СССР были хорошие. Но что касается твердотопливных то все уступали ракетам США из-за худших энергетических характеристик.

 

 

Старый советский ПиАр.

Первая автоматическая посадка самолета была еще ЕМНИП в 30-х годах 20-го века и не в СССР.

Буран это не самолет

Snip.

While this type of preliminary threat estimation information can be helpful particularly in regards to things where more accurate info is scarce,

One needs to bear in mind its often times wrong as the guys on the other side typically know a lot less about a new system so early on in its life

Better information has become available to ED.

The Su-27 in a other category, it is a simplified LOCKON-level project, not hi-fidelity.

This I don't understand.

Despite being a survey sim it is still a sim, as ED describes the FC3 planes,

"Standard Systems Modeling (SSM). A DCS module using SSM is characterized as including just the most essential cockpit systems and using keyboard and joystick commands only to interact with the cockpit. Examples of SSM in DCS include all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft."

Things such ass accurate radar detection ranges for the Eagle, correct armament available for Russian 4th gens and the F-15/A-10 (R-73 RDM-2, AIM-9M-9) and correct Avionics such as Lazur datalink and Peer to Peer and Fighter to fighter modes fall under essential cockpit systems as they would be crucial features in combat.

Its not like we're asking for Pitot heat or canopy anti icing controls...

Seems inconsistent to not try and also have the FC3 planes modeled to same capabilities of their real life counterparts in a sim

There is a famous article in Russia about the war with NATO. Google translate

 

 

 

It's time to recall how the military conflict between Russia and NATO will unfold. It all starts with a raid with a B2 Spirit air defense, invisible to the fagot, with its subsequent sawing out. For all these C200 / 300s with beeches, TOPs and other shit can only detect and shoot at Rashkin's flying coffins. Next comes the bombing of airfields with the Su-24/25/27 and MiG-29/31 blackened from time. The fleas in a panic immediately raise their coffins into the air. Some of them disintegrate on takeoff, for their last overhaul was carried out under Brezhnev. Others fire up their engines right in the air, since cunning officers diluted aviation kerosene with donkey urine.

Still others cannot take off at all, for their parts have long been scrapped and sold to banana republics. But despite all the hardships, half of the fighter aircraft are in the air. It is here that the F-22, so unloved by the fagots and local sovkodrochers, intervene, who, thanks to their ultra-modern ballistic missiles, ultra-precise AMRAAM missiles and ultra-low visibility, are able to fight them in proportions of 1 to 9 and even more. Raptors are beginning to dominate the Russian rotten scam. Within a few days, the Roissi Air Force did not exist. And this is the start of fuскing.

Then comes the turn of the old proven F-15, F-16, Thunderbald, Apache. Those with their rockets rip open the armor of the T-72 and T-80 like cans. I generally keep quiet about the T-62. American Marines run up to them and rip open their armor with standard army knives, take out frightened 18-year-old tankers from there, give them offensive podrachniki and cuffs. American tanks with thick uranium armor, the US Marines on strikers and deliriums stuffed with electronics to the very top, and self-propelled artillery are being massively introduced into the Rashka. Fleas are trying to fight the M-1 with their ancient RPG-7/16/18 of the 60-70s, but they only spoil their paint a little. Along the way, untrained recruits are cutting off their comrades with jet jets, who stand half a meter behind the grenade launchers with their mouths open. Huge pumped up US Marine Corps fighters, seeing this, run up to untrained Porashkin soldiers, punish the fuск and take these rusty hoes. This is done primarily for the safety of the untrained year-old soldiers themselves.

Exactly one month later, the Roissi army ceases to exist. American rangers enter Moscow, surround the Kremlin, give Putin a pussy, take him to Strasbourg, where, after a short trial and amid general applause, they hang him.

 

 

Этот B-52 уже не помещается в тред.

Алик, отводи ребят в /vg/

Тут своих спецолимпийцев хватает

Chizh said that the stupid R-27 does not have variable PN guidance.

 

This is not entirely true.

 

It appears to have fixed PN coefficients during the stage where the seeker is in semi active homing mode, which starts when the missile is 25 km from the target when a typical fighter jet is engaged. The required overload of the missile calculates as follows:

 

 

If the missile is launched at the target between 25 km and 1.5 * 25 km (37.5), then the initial flight of the missile will be done using inertial navigation. During this stage, the overload calculation is done differently:

 

 

Note how the navigation factor of 4 gets divided by the term T*. T* is a time that is depending on the speed of approach between missile and to the target, the estimated range between missile and target and the seeker lock on range (25 km).

For a fighter sized target, this term will basically calculate the estimated time that the missile still has left until it gets within 0.8*seeker range = 20 km to the target.

The division by the term results in the missile gets commanded to pull less and less g, the further it is away from the target.

 

 

For launch ranges beyond 37.5 km for a fighter sized target, the weapon system of the launch aicraft will support the missile with radio correction updates until the missile is estimated to have reached the range of 25 km to the target.

 

The formula (4.3) is used again. (Note that it looks as if the top left of the first term would say "4 D". It is actually 4 times the derivative of D, the dot is just overlapping with the text above).

 

 

Note how the text is basically saying:

 

"The first term should be interpreted as a navigation constant for the proportional guidance method depending on the range D."

 

We have a range (and rate of change of range = speed of approach) dependent term that will cause the missile to pull less g the further away it is from the target.

The amount of g that the missile will be asked to pull increases the closer it gets to the target.

When it is 20-25 km to the target, it will switch back to the larger, fixed navigation constant of 4 that is seen in formula (4.2).

 

 

Conclusion:

 

For long range shots, the missile will effectively use variable PN coefficients, which will result in less speed loss due to the missile doing smoother turns with less g-loadings.

So in contrast to what we hear from Chizh, the R-27 does have variable PN.

I think thread is going off-topic a bit, so how about on-topic question. Can we get maybe get dual calculations for R-27 guidance? One for Datalink phase and other for SARH phase?

P.S. Thank you so much for the drag changes, it is a great stopgap measure till CFD

Not correct. For the LOKON level we make simplified systems and, of course, not everything that is in a real prototype.

 

If we'll do high fidelity, then everything will be there.

Wouldn't that mean a simplified depiction of its capabilities it has in service?

Ie without the control panel for it, but always working automatically.

I am pretty sure it isn't something off a prototype.