SU27 R27ER missile guidance VS F15C

[karambiatos]

All i know with the R/ER is if it's pointing down, you aren't hitting anything, the ground clutter is crazy.

Any IR missile can be spoofed while maintaining your current heading even if you have after burner on, provided that it's not point blank.

 

At night though the ET becomes really deadly since you can't see the smoke trail well at all.

That wouldn't be an issue if missiles hit at respectable ranges, that's not true anymore you need to be almost WVR for missiles to stand a chance of hitting, at those ranges you don't want to be high. Being high and having a late active warning is the worst place to be. Starting engagements high goes without saying but it doesn't produce the desired results.

the ranges are so bad, that the range markers on the Russian aircraft are basically eye candy.

[ShuRugal]

I don't see this as a reliable approach myself. Obviously your perspective on the matter is different because you're the other guy. Basically from a kinematical standpoint in the situation you described there's absolutely nothing I can do that would normally kill you before you can finish planting ERs on my nose. Anyone who does that is just throwing a dice that the missiles will go full retard. It might work 8 or 9 times out of 10 even if executed flawless' date=' but that other time you're dead.[/quote']

 

in a MP game where I can respawn, those are betting odds for me.

 

 

and if you keep looking at radar instead of trying to get visual, and he sees you, you are pretty much dead.

 

This is one of the things that tweaks my nose about the current state of the sim. Unless I have radar lock going into the merge, I find it nearly impossible to visually acquire my bandit, unless he passes within 1km of me.

 

Sadly in sim this is not the case as there is no particular goal set, other than take off and get as many kills as you can.

 

and this is another. In most of the online servers i can find (that actually have other pilots) the mission is set up so that my CAP points are all defending targets that are behind enemy lines, for some odd reason.

 

All i know with the R/ER is if it's pointing down, you aren't hitting anything, the ground clutter is crazy.

 

 

I have recently had several occasions where I have been denied launch authority when I was looking UP at a target that had me beamed. Never knew you could clutter notch against the sky, but apparently it works.

[Svend_Dellepude]

Would removal of the 120 online even things up or make no difference?

[TAW_Blaze]

in a MP game where I can respawn, those are betting odds for me.

 

And this is where you fail. I play DCS for 2 main reasons: 1) because I love flying 2) because I love challenge. Banking on luck to win (or survive) is the path of inconsistency, or failure in other words.

 

Now if you just play it for fun and you aren't bothered about professionalism then obviously this doesn't matter to you. I'm just adding the realistic point of view.

 

Would removal of the 120 online even things up or make no difference?

 

Removing 120 alone would swing it the other way. ER/ET vs 7s in an equal fight is an automatic loss to the Sparrow. If you restrict payloads to R/T and 7s then that would be pretty balanced, every now and then we have those type of 80s missions on our server.

[blkspade]

Any IR missile can be spoofed while maintaining your current heading even if you have after burner on, provided that it's not point blank.

 

At night though the ET becomes really deadly since you can't see the smoke trail well at all.

 

the ranges are so bad, that the range markers on the Russian aircraft are basically eye candy.

 

That is far from true in my experience. The ET is effective when launched with speed at medium altitude out to about 13nm, if the target is in AB. It'll be visible head-on, but if they're offset preparing to turn-in, they probably aren't looking at your patch of sky yet. There has been no situation for me where staying in AB vs an ET would work. Other than knowing it was fired too early, I still wouldn't fly in a straight line. I've gotten aim-9 kills out to around 8-9nm high aspect, if the target is in AB. Generally with them at low-medium altitude. You can thank crappy TN panels (or calibration) for poor night visibility of smoke. That alone might keep me on my slightly slower IPS for some time to come.

[GGTharos]

Rage can complain about 27ERs all day long, and I can complain about 120's all day long. And datalinks and other fun things.

 

At the end of the day, the fact is not that one missile or the other is broken, but that missile guidance modelling (and guidance is a huge subject) is flat out inadequate in-game to achieve realistic BVR results.

[karambiatos]

That is far from true in my experience. The ET is effective when launched with speed at medium altitude out to about 13nm, if the target is in AB. It'll be visible head-on, but if they're offset preparing to turn-in, they probably aren't looking at your patch of sky yet. There has been no situation for me where staying in AB vs an ET would work. Other than knowing it was fired too early, I still wouldn't fly in a straight line. I've gotten aim-9 kills out to around 8-9nm high aspect, if the target is in AB. Generally with them at low-medium altitude. You can thank crappy TN panels (or calibration) for poor night visibility of smoke. That alone might keep me on my slightly slower IPS for some time to come.

Too complicated just roll

[Svend_Dellepude]

Removing 120 alone would swing it the other way. ER/ET vs 7s in an equal fight is an automatic loss to the Sparrow. If you restrict payloads to R/T and 7s then that would be pretty balanced' date=' every now and then we have those type of 80s missions on our server.[/quote']

 

Stick to the 80's then! :) love those 80's versions. Less complaints, more flying!

[karambiatos]

Stick to the 80's then! :) love those 80's versions. Less complaints, more flying!

R-27R has about the range of the R-73, it's horribru.

[TAW_Blaze]

Stick to the 80's then! love those 80's versions. Less complaints, more flying!

 

This would be hard to sell on a day to day basis and I don't think this is the correct way to go anyway.

 

R-27R has about the range of the R-73, it's horribru.

 

It's comparable to the Sparrow. Sparrow has a bit more legs, R can turn a bit tighter.

[Svend_Dellepude]

This would be hard to sell on a day to day basis and I don't think this is the correct way to go anyway.

 

Maybe not, but seriously, you could set the server up for 80's only for a week as a trial like when you removed the MiG-21.

Could be interesting to see what the result would be.

Everybody would have to adapt and change tactics.

Just a thought!:)

[*Rage*]

And this is where you fail. I play DCS for 2 main reasons: 1) because I love flying 2) because I love challenge. Banking on luck to win (or survive) is the path of inconsistency, or failure in other words.

 

Now if you just play it for fun and you aren't bothered about professionalism then obviously this doesn't matter to you. I'm just adding the realistic point of view.

 

People bank and profit out of the fact that they know an ER launch for the most part is non-threatening due to game mechanics. Its not banking on luck. Its demonstrable consistency that it will fail (and I have been testing it alot). You may not do so, but others do.

 

This takes away from the fun. I love a challenge too. But if its a near futile challenge, especially if I try and employ realistic tactics, than its no fun.

[*Rage*]

Rage can complain about 27ERs all day long, and I can complain about 120's all day long. And datalinks and other fun things.

 

At the end of the day, the fact is not that one missile or the other is broken, but that missile guidance modelling (and guidance is a huge subject) is flat out inadequate in-game to achieve realistic BVR results.

 

And so what? We should go play something else? Everyone posting here is heavily invested in this sim. We are trying to make it better. Sure, ED may want to re-do the guidance logic at some point in the future. But until then an interim measure would be good for everyone involved and restore some semblance of reality. Being negative about it doesn't help anyone.

 

And by the way its not just me complaining about the R/ERs. Others are complaining too. Some just crawl in the mountains. Some leave altogether. It is a problem and I hope ED will listen.

[TAW_Blaze]

People bank and profit out of the fact that they know an ER launch for the most part is non-threatening due to game mechanics. Its not banking on luck. Its demonstrable consistency that it will fail (and I have been testing it alot). You may not do so, but others do.

 

This takes away from the fun. I love a challenge too. But if its a near futile challenge, especially if I try and employ realistic tactics, than its no fun.

 

I've killed people with ERs despite their best effort to spam chaff and outmaneuver the missile. I don't see how this is reliable, at all. It might have a VERY high chance to miss, but as long as there's a chance to hit, it's no good. If you fly head straight into a radar missile spamming chaff while doing little to kinematically defeat it you're suicidal and bank on your luck, period.

[karambiatos]

I've killed people with ERs despite their best effort to spam chaff and outmaneuver the missile. I don't see how this is reliable' date=' at all. It might have a VERY high chance to miss, but as long as there's a chance to hit, it's no good. If you fly head straight into a radar missile spamming chaff while doing little to kinematically defeat it you're suicidal and bank on your luck, period.[/quote']

 

I've killed people by using HOJ, but it hardly proves it's not bad.

[TAW_Blaze]

I've killed people by using HOJ, but it hardly proves it's not bad.

 

Being bad or not isn't the point. The point is that it isn't reliable, because it's based on something you can't control.

[karambiatos]

Being bad or not isn't the point. The point is that it isn't reliable' date=' because it's based on something you can't control.[/quote']

I'd say it's bad because the NEZ means absolutely nothing.

[*Rage*]

It might have a VERY high chance to miss' date=' but as long as there's a chance to hit, it's no good. If you fly head straight into a radar missile spamming chaff while doing little to kinematically defeat it you're suicidal and bank on your luck, period.[/quote']

 

And yet people still do exactly that. Because the chance of surviving that encounter is very high. And its not suicidal. Its merely risky at most. Hence unrealistic flying, behavior and tactics. Hence my beef.

[TAW_Blaze]

I'd say it's bad because the NEZ means absolutely nothing.

 

Now I just feel like I'm talking to a wall. Did you not read what I said?

 

And yet people still do exactly that. Because the chance of surviving that encounter is very high. And its not suicidal. Its merely risky at most. Hence unrealistic flying, behavior and tactics. Hence my beef.

 

People don't even care about surviving in general. We don't call server flying airquake by accident.

[*Rage*]

Its exactly the same as the old barrel roll exploit which meant you could evade a 120 shot head on by barrel rolling at the last minute. Missile after missile.

 

Well guess what? It meant everyone was flying rambo tactics going head on facing 120 after 120 with a very high chance, if timed correctly, of evading almost all of them till you got your kill. Sure, sometimes you got hit. But it didn't stop anyone from doing it.

 

It ruined MP till that exploit was patched by ED. This is exactly the same.

Edited May 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[TAW_Blaze]

Its exactly the same as the old barrel roll exploit which meant you could evade a 120 shot head on by barrel rolling at the last minute. Missile after missile.

 

Well guess what? It meant everyone was flying rambo tactics going head on facing 120 after 120 with a very high chance, if timed correctly, of evading almost all of them till you got your kill.

 

It ruined MP till that exploit was patched by ED. This is exactly the same.

 

Agree. I'm just trying to explain that people who are actually playing the sim and not a game wouldn't bother with this because it makes no sense. But since the majority of the community plays a game..

[karambiatos]

Now I just feel like I'm talking to a wall. Did you not read what I said?

Sorry, i guess i didn't quite understand what you wrote.

 

It ruined MP till that exploit was patched by ED. This is exactly the same.

*cough*

[blkspade]

I'd say it's bad because the NEZ means absolutely nothing.

 

NEZ doesn't even mean what you'd expect it to either. A missile being spoofed by counter-measures/notching doesn't violate what the NEZ is supposed to be.

[Weta43]

Sorry the conversation's moved on, but I just saw the post, so skip if you're not Dudikoff

 

]The radar system is more than just a dish design. I'd expect the N001 (once cleared of its initial bugs and problems) to have much more processing power compared to the rather underperforming N019 (I guess N019M corrected some of the limitations).

I don't get how the fact that the radar antennas share a common design means that the Su-27 was bound to the same operating limitations as the MiG-29. It has a much more powerful radar system as a whole, tactical display, much bigger BVR load and range, etc. so it was capable of conducting autonomous CAP operations and was not tied to the GCI as point defense fighters (such as e.g. MiG-29) were which had no radar range, enough BVR missiles for more than engaging of basically one target only or even enough fuel to fly around and search for targets.

 

The N001 radar for the Su-27 was designed by Viktor Grishin. Pushing the state of the art for the USSR, the original design, known as Myech, was supposed to draw heavily on technologies developed for the experimental Soyuz radar program led by NPO Istok. It was intended to have a great deal of commonality with the MiG-29's N019 Rubin radar.

 

Development was difficult. Originally intended to significantly outperform the AN/APG-63 of the F-15, with a 200km detection range, in reality this goal proved impossible for NIIP to achieve. It was intended to use an all new design antenna, featuring electronic scanning in elevation and mechanical scanning in azimuth. This would give excellent multitarget engagement capability, and use of the MiG-31's R-33 was envisaged. This design proved overly ambitious, and was simply unachievable for a mass production radar given the state of the Soviet electronics industry in the early eighties. In May 1982, it was decided that the NIIP designed digital computer and antenna were simply not up to scratch, nor likely to become so in the near future.

 

Phazotron's N019 had already reverted back to an improved version of the Sapfir-23ML's twist-cassegrain antenna to replace its problematic flat-plate antenna. It was decided therefore to use major components from the N019 radar, including a scaled-up copy of its twist-cassegrain antenna and the TS100 processor. By March 1983, the redesign was complete, though the resulting radar was nowhere near as good was intended. Instead of 200km, detection range barely reached 140km even against a large bomber.

 

So it's not that it shared an antenna designm, it started off as just a scaled up version of that radar, & the N019 is designed for use under GCI - the MiG-29 has no tactical display (& this has been removed in the SIM)

[Dudikoff]

antenna designm, it started off as just a scaled up version of that radar, & the N019 is designed for use under GCI - the MiG-29 has no tactical display (& this has been removed in the SIM)

 

Yes, but for the MiG-29 with its limited BVR load, fuel and limited radar range, the GCI dependency was pretty much a must (especially with large numbers of targets and jamming environment) hence why Lazur system was installed. It was a simple point defense fighter and on its basic intercept mission it would most likely intercept a single target only with both BVR missiles (as it had maneuvering limitations with asymmetric BVR loadout) and then return to base and hence why it needed no tactical display. Thus, when exported, it was somewhat of a fluke operating on its own and brought little over the later MiG-23 variants, except being more maneuverable and probably more costly to operate.

 

Again, I don't see how this provides any facts on the Su-27 design being strictly GCI limited given the fact that it didn't have the MiG-29 limitations in regards to limited radar range, BVR load, flight range, tactical display, etc. Again, the Su-27S variant was intended to operate in Frontal Aviation on offensive missions, too, hence the intra-flight tactical datalink, etc. Why would you install such a thing if you were limited to the GCI guidance to the target and locking?

 

The only certain commonality is that, being based on the same design and processing tech, the radar apparently also had many issues in service, but, since the Su-27 wasn't exported and is still in active service, the data on pilot experience with it is obviously more limited than on the exported MiG-29. US did buy a few from Ukraine so it would be interesting to read their findings once unclassified.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Dudikoff