Su-27 Weapon Systems and Missiles

[Raven434th]

what I mean is...he says the missile gets target info based on data either from the data link...or radar. And in the case of data link (described as mathematical targets)...the missile is capable of flying towards the target based on that data alone , therefore can be locked onto target AFTER launch. Which makes sense IF the aircraft utilizes the data link data for targeting...which you say it doesn't ...is what I'm getting at, and that makes me wonder why it doesn't.It would make sense as a silent launch or surprise attack for BVR.

[GGTharos]

The Su-27S weapon system will generate the missile data-link when:

 

The radar has a lock on target

AND an RF missile has been launched

 

This data is used by the missile to steer to target until its own seeker takes over, and it uses the same navigation method for both target inputs.

 

What's the problem?

 

what I mean is...he says the missile gets target info based on data either from the data link...or radar. And in the case of data link (described as mathematical targets)...the missile is capable of flying towards the target based on that data alone , therefore can be locked onto target AFTER launch. Which makes sense IF the aircraft utilizes the data link data for targeting...which you say it doesn't ...is what I'm getting at, and that makes me wonder why it doesn't.It would make sense as a silent launch or surprise attack for BVR.

[Raven434th]

Theres no problem...except that this guys says different...and makes sense given that the launch aircraft has SA on the target via data link and hands it over to the guidance system onboard the missile for loal launch...so who's right?? You or him. Cause your both on different tracks in a big way. I simply don't know who to believe.

[GGTharos]

Oh, you're talking fighter-to-fighter data-link now?

 

The launching aircraft must still generate the missile data-link, and the requirements for doing so still apply.

[Raven434th]

well I was thinking more AWACS really....but any data should apply as far as the launch aircraft KNOWING where the target is ,and then sending that data to the missile. Which is what I believe this guy is saying...I think.

 

And even if he is wrong I still wonder why the Russian systems don't take advantage of this data for a "pre intercept" track to gain advantage on said intercept. I mean doesn't the blackshark do something similar??

Edited November 20, 2014 by Raven434th

[GGTharos]

well I was thinking more AWACS really....but any data should apply as far as the launch aircraft KNOWING where the target is ,and then sending that data to the missile. Which is what I believe this guy is saying...I think.

 

That isn't what he's saying. He's talking about missile datalink for mid-course correction only.

 

The stuff you're talking about was wishy-washy tales until relatively recently (AIM-120D, METEOR).

 

And even if he is wrong I still wonder why the Russian systems don't take advantage of this data for a "pre intercept" track to gain advantage on said intercept. I mean doesn't the blackshark do something similar??

 

... What? What does this have to do with the Ka-50?

As to why the missiles don't do that, I agree, that's an interesting question. And if I ever catch the designers of those missiles I'll ask them. Basically though AAMs of that era just used PN all the way. More interesting path-shaping came in with the 120/R-77 on the AAM front. There might be some notable exceptions with the AIM-54 and R-33, but those were large missiles and could fit more electronics inside.

Edited November 20, 2014 by GGTharos

[Raven434th]

That isn't what he's saying. He's talking about missile datalink for mid-course correction only.

 

The stuff you're talking about was wishy-washy tales until the 2010's pretty much.

 

This on wiki:

 

 

R-27R and ER variants can be used in any meteorological conditions. Launch can made at less than 5 g overload and less 50 deg/s roll rate.[3] It is allowed to redesignate targets during flight, or sharing target illumination with other aircraft.

 

Regarding the ka50 ,the context was target info sharing and designation

Edited November 20, 2014 by Raven434th

[GGTharos]

That's not saying what you said. Regardless, there's no hint of the procedures used for sharing illumination, and re-designating targets can only be done in a very narrow case of circumstances.

 

Generally neither is desirable in straight-up combat.

[Raven434th]

HOW would it NOT be desirable to be able to launch a missile to a target WITHOUT radar lock in combat???? Are you nuts?? Hehe...no offence.

Also I think its pretty clear what he's saying...LOCK ON AFTER LAUNCH IS POSSIBLE with a R-27 ER due to command inertial guidance. I don't think thats a misinterpretation. The straight up question here is ... is he right or not. You say he's wrong. I don't know but there seems to be other sources that I picked up right away that support his statement. Unless... its ONLY after an initial radar lock...which isn't really clear ...so that leaves some doubt.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Raven434th

[GGTharos]

No, I'm not nuts, you just don't know what you're talking about - no offense.

 

SOMEONE has to have a lock on that target, so what you've accomplished is turning your two weapon systems into one.

 

Further, they might end up having trouble with EMI since they must tune the radars to the same channels etc. to this work.

[Raven434th]

No, I'm not nuts, you just don't know what you're talking about - no offense.

 

SOMEONE has to have a lock on that target, so what you've accomplished is turning your two weapon systems into one.

 

Further, they might end up having trouble with EMI since they must tune the radars to the same channels etc. to this work.

 

Meaning what ...that its a disadvantage to do so???...I beg to differ...the Ka50 reference to make my point.One targets at distance...other engages at shorter range with stealth. Advantage.

[Raven434th]

I don't think the ET is in question here...but then again....hmmm

[combatace]

Yes but I'm referring to the Russian 27's. In any event, with those birds the R-77 will in all probability be replaced by the new RVV family of missiles, which is really besides the point when discussing the DCS Flanker :)

 

But why would Russian Air Force be using SK version anyway.

[combatace]

Meaning what ...that its a disadvantage to do so???...I beg to differ...the Ka50 reference to make my point.One targets at distance...other engages at shorter range with stealth. Advantage.

 

I would take GG's word on anything because although he seems to know a lot he has been proved wrong a lot of times.

I wouldn't take his word because he used to say that as missile physics improve Aim-120 will become more effective and R-27's will have difficult time, and as missile physics has improve I see the opposite of that happening. Recently he was talking about wheel brakes of R-27 and was proved wrong. So i would say look for other sources GG isn't a source.

 

I have read that somewhere that R-27(E)R can be launched before lock, but I think there is very less time to lock the target or else the missile will be lost. Again there are videos that show that ER has a lofted trajectory but ED hasn't implemented it.

I have read somewhere that its trajectory depends on the interception situation. If the shot is long range then it has lofted trajectory and if its chose in it will fly straight to the target. And this even makes sense because the missile has inertial navigation. The reason given for taking off lofted trajectory was that its a SARH missile and so because it is constantly guided from the launch platform it has a straight trajectory.

[GGTharos]

Glad to see you're quoting from the weapons employment manual instead of taking my word for it :)

[PFunk]

I kinda hope that we stick with 80s-90s-era avionics for DCS. Those are hard enough as it is.

[SFJackBauer]

Meaning what ...that its a disadvantage to do so???...I beg to differ...the Ka50 reference to make my point.One targets at distance...other engages at shorter range with stealth. Advantage.

 

Meaning that, in the midst of combat, it is more advantageous to maximize Pk (even if it involves the target knowing where and who you are) than trying some esotheric way of guiding the missile to the target silently that has almost nil chance to work, given your hardware.

 

Its almost like you are asking "why fighters have to lock a target to guide a missile, thereby making the target RWR scream?" Its because the missile could not be guided otherwise.

 

Now if you excuse me I won't write the 20-page wall of text that describes in detail the whys of this (including explaining why this can be done in the F-15 TWS mode, or even why this can be done on AESA radars), but I'm sure that there is a lot of material on this forum, and even on the internet that you can find if you know how to search.

[ShuRugal]

Remember: The In-SIM SU-27S is time-locked to 1985 (give or take a year). Any subsequent development/advancement to the SU-27 and it's armament is irrelevant/not modelled for the purposes of the SIM.

 

and why is that? The F-15C is not time-locked: Cs were built between 1979 and 1985, but in the simulator, they carry missiles which did not exist until 1991 (120A), 1994 (120B) and 1997 (120C).1010

[Esac_mirmidon]

You can load Sparrows on the Eagle.

[GGTharos]

Because no manuals are available for more modern versions, and besides, the Su-27S was a mainstay into the 2000's.

 

and why is that? The F-15C is not time-locked: Cs were built between 1979 and 1985, but in the simulator, they carry missiles which did not exist until 1991 (120A), 1994 (120B) and 1997 (120C).1010

[GGTharos]

The newer they get, the easier they get.

 

I kinda hope that we stick with 80s-90s-era avionics for DCS. Those are hard enough as it is.

[ShuRugal]

You can load Sparrows on the Eagle.

 

oh, good, i'll just ask eagle pilots to only use AIM-7s and -9s....

 

Because no manuals are available for more modern versions,

 

why is availability of manuals relevant? I'm not asking why ED hasn't made a fully kitted out simulation of it...

 

and besides, the Su-27S was a mainstay into the 2000's.

 

What's that got to do with anything? The KA-50 was very nearly never more than a prototype, but we have a fully tricked-out simulation for it. Russia currently fields a respectible number of 27SMs, and a growing number of SM3s....

[GGTharos]

Then get cracking to make yourself a Su-27SM or whatever else you want :)

[ShuRugal]

Then get cracking to make yourself a Su-27SM or whatever else you want :)

 

why? I'd much rather pay ED to do it, they're better at it than i am.

[GGTharos]

ED is into creating DCS modules. If there's no manual, there's no module. That includes the old FC3 aircraft conversions - and that's the path they're taking for the forseeable future, insofar as I can tell.