Su-27 Weapon Systems and Missiles

[Svend_Dellepude]

Point is the real life Pk is poor. The bulk of the numbers that make up the semi-reliable stats from which that Pk is derived are from assymetrical conflicts where one side had much better planes (F4 vs Mig21, F14/15 vs Mig23, etc), much better training and flight hours (USAF/USN/RAF/IDF vs 3rd world countries), and much better support (multinational coalition, blanket AWACS, numerical superiority, blanket ECM, other supporting flights, etc).

 

What happens in DCS MP is that most of the above points are evened out. Hence DCS Pk is even less than real life Pk. Because DCS warfare is not assymetrical.

 

IRL pilots are fighting for their lives. That might create different situations than what we see online given the lesser consequences of taking a hit.

[TAW_Blaze]

Yep. Which is why if K/D ratio is your main concern then the F15 should be your vehicle of choice. This is quite an abstract concept though since most squads prefer a battle scenario such as RF, GI, SATAC, Op summer rain, Op JW etc were, as in real life, controlling the airspace is much more important than a few kills.

 

Also have to note that the usual approach with no long shots against a good opponent can often result in a run if your only shots miss. Something else I've also missed to add, that when you do take those shots, the other guy will quite often just immediately run, or simply by the time you would be in your kill shot range you have to worry about other threats so you simply can't finish the fight you started.

 

And then on the other hand we have these more serious events where you don't even bother to fire missiles because there's absolutely no point in most cases, and also because holding on to your resources is more important. :D

 

IRL pilots are fighting for their lives. That might create different situations than what we see online given the lesser consequences of taking a hit.

 

Not just that, they usually have a better defined objective which is preplanned far better.

[GGTharos]

Lol. Would you rather they just cancelled out multiplayer? In a hypothetical cold war gone hot scenario the sides would have been fairly well balanced.

 

Yes, because of nuclear weapons. In terms of air power, nothing would have been balanced - contemporary fighters on each side would see the west with a significant technological advantage, depending on when exactly the bruhaha happened - and that has more to do with F-16 BVR capability than training.

 

Therefore on the whole, the Pk is probably about right.

Judging by what? :) The Pk is actually quite wrong. SARH Pk = ARH Pk by the same stats you liked to refer to. Very wrong :)

 

Most dedicated online pilots will accrue thousands of simulated flight hours. Will dodge hundreds of missiles and then will analyse that performance with Tacview over coffee and biscuits. Thats an entirely different performance to the 3rd world air forces and their limited hours, faulty equipment and shattered economies.

Online play can't be used to judge real life A2A in DCS. There's barely any hint of mutual support, the equipment doesn't work like it ought to, there's no real mission tasking and generally it doesn't resemble anything that happens in RL.

 

If you only wanna fight an unfair fight then you have a problem. Most people dont wanna do that. Only fly against new players? Insist they dont use their Radars or RWRs to simulate the above asymmetries?

If you're not in a Su-35, you're fighting 'asymmetrically' against an F-15. But then you'd end up facing Raptors, and you're back to square one. RL isn't fair.

 

I guess it depends on what your idea of realism is. If its about the fidelity of the plane modeled and learning to exploit its performance to the limit than DCS is great for that. If your idea of realism is about pummeling lone, disadvantaged, under-equipped flights with your uber strike force then you will find MP DCS very frustrating.

There's no air-to-air equipment realism from DCS. If there was, you'd not be getting a shot out of the flanker or MiG until you were right at 120 Rtr. And there's your 'asymmetry' - that's when everything's working right. That's just a straight-up fight without considering ambushes.

[*Rage*]

Yes, because of nuclear weapons. In terms of air power, nothing would have been balanced - contemporary fighters on each side would see the west with a significant technological advantage, depending on when exactly the bruhaha happened - and that has more to do with F-16 BVR capability than training.

 

Depends on the time and place and context of the war. Aggression vs defensive stand-off etc.

 

Judging by what? :) The Pk is actually quite wrong. SARH Pk = ARH Pk by the same stats you liked to refer to. Very wrong :)

The real life Pk is poor compared to drones. You can't argue that. Its poor against even poor opposition. The point is it stands to reason that, for those same missiles, a poor Pk will be even poorer against better trained and equipped opposition. Sure, missiles get alot better but so do the missile counters. Why else do fighters even still exist? Why make them maneuverable? Why give them TVC? Why give them a gun? Why train BFM? Why have the germans gone to the effort of developing and equipping their typhoons with iris-t instead of asraam or aim9?

 

Online play can't be used to judge real life A2A in DCS. There's barely any hint of mutual support, the equipment doesn't work like it ought to, there's no real mission tasking and generally it doesn't resemble anything that happens in RL.

No not in an average weekday server. But for events there is a modicum of real life A2A there. Its what many squads are striving for and its getting better. Have you even tried flying any of the events I mentioned above? (GI/SATAC/JW) Why dismiss them out of hand?

 

If you're not in a Su-35, you're fighting 'asymmetrically' against an F-15. But then you'd end up facing Raptors, and you're back to square one. RL isn't fair.

Who's talking about 35s and F22s?

 

 

There's no air-to-air equipment realism from DCS.

No A2A equipment realism in DCS? So why are you even here? Ive spoken to you before about P2P datalink capability in the Flanker. You dismissed it as a fallacy. Now ED have implemented it in SP and hopefully will be shortly in MP. What are your thoughts on that?

 

If there was, you'd not be getting a shot out of the flanker or MiG until you were right at 120 Rtr. And there's your 'asymmetry' - that's when everything's working right. That's just a straight-up fight without considering ambushes.

Evidence? Is it impossible for you to suspend your disbelief that we are not about to fight a real war? In a real east vs west scenario we would all be nuclear ash. In the absence of nuclear weapons, yes, the west would win. The USAF has more F22s than Russians have serviceable flankers or Brits have typhoons. They could defeat Russia and punish the British crown for trying to keep the 13 colonies:)

 

Now that we have that out of the way is it possible for you to consider an engagement between equal foes? Will you only fly if you have a carrier battle group to your back?

Edited November 24, 2014 by ///Rage

[GGTharos]

The real life Pk is poor compared to drones. You can't argue that. Its poor against even poor opposition

 

I can argue that you don't know how testing is done. There's also a difference between testing 'back then' and 'now'. Not only that, the purpose of the missiles changed.

 

Why else do fighters even still exist? Why make them maneuverable? Why give them TVC? Why give them a gun? Why train BFM? Why have the germans gone to the effort of developing and equipping their typhoons with iris-t instead of asraam or aim9?

 

TVC: Eliminate trim drag in super-cruise. Otherwise, it appears to be a bit of a gimmick. It's only useful in an actual dogfight (not just WVR) and then in a limited number of circumstances.

 

Why train BFM? EVERYTHING in air to air is BFM. EVERYTHING. Including BVR. As for Iris-T vs. AIM-9X, maybe because it would be operational earlier? Maybe they wanted different parameters for that missile? Maybe they have a more advanced weapon casing? Maybe the development tempo was more ambitious/shorter? Who knows. The seekers are quite equivalent.

 

No not in an average weekday server. But for events there is a modicum of real life A2A there.

 

That's not what I hear from people who do this for real. And keep in mind that this isn't a slight. RL is very different. Yes, we always try to do it 'more like the pros', but the fact is, we're not even close. Just closer than someone who doesn't.

 

Have you even tried flying any of the events I mentioned above? (GI/SATAC/JW) Why dismiss them out of hand?

 

I've run them before you ever showed up on the scene :)

 

No A2A equipment realism in DCS? So why are you even here?

 

Falcon makes my eyes bleed (besides, I see more potential in DCS :) )

 

Ive spoken to you before about P2P datalink capability in the Flanker. You dismissed it as a fallacy. Now ED have implemented it in SP and hopefully will be shortly in MP. What are your thoughts on that?

 

When? What was the context? It couldn't have been after I got my hands on the manual :)

I'm fine with it being implemented.

 

Now that we have that out of the way is it possible for you to consider an engagement between equal foes? Will you only fly if you have a carrier battle group to your back?

 

Are they flying the same plane? What does 'equal' mean? If you want equal, give the same stuff to everyone - then it becomes about the tacticians and the pilots without the 'my missile doesn't work as well as it should' whining.

[*Rage*]

I can argue that you don't know how testing is done. There's also a difference between testing 'back then' and 'now'. Not only that, the purpose of the missiles changed.

 

Im less bothered about how historical testing is done if I have real life Pks to hand.

 

Why train BFM? EVERYTHING in air to air is BFM. EVERYTHING. Including BVR. As for Iris-T vs. AIM-9X, maybe because it would be operational earlier? Maybe they wanted different parameters for that missile? Maybe they have a more advanced weapon casing? Maybe the development tempo was more ambitious/shorter? Who knows. The seekers are quite equivalent.

As far as I know it was because they felt the missile needed to be more maneuverable and better off bore site capability. Especially compared to aim132.

 

 

That's not what I hear from people who do this for real. And keep in mind that this isn't a slight. RL is very different. Yes, we always try to do it 'more like the pros', but the fact is, we're not even close. Just closer than someone who doesn't.

You described it as akin to a pointless endeavor before. I see it on these forums sometimes. FC3 doesnt have fully clickable pits like my A10 or Ka50 or whatever. Therefore flying the F15 or 27 is like hawx bla bla bla. Hence my defense. Sign up for the next JW or SATAC and see for yourself.

 

 

 

I've run them before you ever showed up on the scene :)

Ive been around since F4 and Flanker 2.0. I'm genuinely interested to know what events you ran. You've been a little shy since the hyperlobby days (at least with your screen name). Why no longer participate in the public squad events?

 

Falcon makes my eyes bleed (besides, I see more potential in DCS :) )

I can at least agree to that;)

 

 

When? What was the context? It couldn't have been after I got my hands on the manual :)

I'm fine with it being implemented.

Not so long back. Obviously I dont recall exactly when:)

 

Are they flying the same plane? What does 'equal' mean? If you want equal, give the same stuff to everyone - then it becomes about the tacticians and the pilots without the 'my missile doesn't work as well as it should' whining.

And what a terribly dull existence that would be. F15 vs F15, 27 vs 27. 999, Ive just witnessed the death of MP:)

 

And it still wouldn't help. People would still whine about the missiles. Sometimes with good reason.

Edited November 24, 2014 by ///Rage

[GGTharos]

Im less bothered about how historical testing is done if I have real life Pks to hand.

 

But you don't. All you have is a detail-free public account. :)

 

As far as I know it was because they felt the missile needed to be more maneuverable and better off bore site capability. Especially compared to aim132.

The AIM-9X has no problems with off-bore capability (but it may have had problems with the development timetable - IIRC USAF was going with a very low-risk development, and not everyone wanted to wait that long). ASRAAM had different goals, IIRC it was to have more range.

 

You described it as akin to a pointless endeavor before. Hence my defense.

I describe it as a very poor comparison to RL air combat in this discussion.

 

Ive been around since F4 and Flanker 2.0. I'm genuinely interested to know what events you ran. You've been a little shy since the hyperlobby days (at least with your screen name). Why no longer participate in the public squad events?

It was way back in LOMAC time, well before FC. Things fell apart fairly quickly (over the span of a few events) due to inter-squad bickering.

 

Not so long back. Obviously I dont recall exactly when:)

I'm sure I can come up with BS people said and claim it was 'not so long back'. I've had the flanker manual for years, before it ever made the rounds here ... so yes, it would have been quite a while back. Either that, or we weren't on the same page regarding what we're talking about :)

 

And what a terribly dull existence that would be. F15 vs F15, 27 vs 27. 999, Ive just witnessed the death of MP:)

If you want dissimilar combat, then by definition you don't want equality.

[*Rage*]

It was way back in LOMAC time, well before FC. Things fell apart fairly quickly (over the span of a few events) due to inter-squad bickering.

 

An awful lot has changed since lomac 10 years ago. The events run now are really quite good. I was just curious about why you dismissed them when you've never tried them. I can see you're a little reticent about that subject though so Ill stop.

 

I'm sure I can come up with BS people said and claim it was 'not so long back'. I've had the flanker manual for years, before it ever made the rounds here ... so yes, it would have been quite a while back. Either that, or we weren't on the same page regarding what we're talking about :)

It was maybe like 6 months ago. I don't blame you for not remembering though. :)

 

If you want dissimilar combat, then by definition you don't want equality.

Dissimilar does not necessarily mean outclassed in every way. A Porsche turbo, Ferrari 458 and lamorghini gallardo are quite dissimilar. Yet given the same driver, track and conditions they are reasonably evenly matched.

[Esac_mirmidon]

And another Su-27 thread hijacked again with one vs one offtopic debate.

 

How many we have already?

[TAW_Blaze]

An awful lot has changed since lomac 10 years ago. The events run now are really quite good. I was just curious about why you dismissed them when you've never tried them. I can see you're a little reticent about that subject though so Ill stop.

 

We should give it some time. Lot of functionality missing right now, and the numbers are pretty small aswell. Especially a working CA and dynamic campaign would bring so much more immersion rather than having to deal with all the stupid AI all the time. The game still has a lot of room for improvement. So do we :D

 

That said, since we started JW it's been getting better and better gradually.

[Dudikoff]

And another Su-27 thread hijacked again with one vs one offtopic debate.

How many we have already?

 

Was it actually ever a genuine thread? Pardon my ignorance, but the initial post seems to indicate that it might have started as a one vs one debate in another thread moved here as not to derail the source thread :)

 

In any case, maybe some sticky FAQ Su-27 thread might be useful to state some points which seem to be brought to question time and again (e.g. R-77 not being present, R-27ET and datalink, etc.).

Edited November 24, 2014 by Dudikoff

[GGTharos]

Jet fighters are not cars. And we are talking about BVR and BVR missiles, right? At least I didn't intend to get into a complex discussion involving BVR to WVR, that needs a thread of its own - BVR is already complex enough to compare game to RL. It's relatively easy to see that much is missing, and I'm told a lot of things we don't know about (or just don't think about) are missing also.

 

For the most part, relative BVR performance could be modeled better given (reliable) knowledge that does exist. And it's not good news for Russian kit. This is why they had other things to try and make up for it, but those things also have limitations (on both sides, obviously).

 

You're not demonstrating equality with your example, and you're shifting the subject. This isn't a discussion about who's the better pilot. It's about the better BVR machine, all other things being equal - at least that was how I perceived it. And no, they're not reasonably matched. The matching is so unreasonable that F-15A pilots trained for 2v8 defensive scenarios.

 

Dissimilar does not necessarily mean out classed in every way. A Porsche turbo, Ferrari 458 and lamorghini gallardo are quite dissimilar. Yet given the same driver, track and conditions they are reasonably evenly matched.

[GGTharos]

That is correct.

 

Was it actually ever a genuine thread? Pardon my ignorance, but the initial post seems to indicate that it might have started as a one vs one debate in another thread moved here as not to derail the source thread :)

[karambiatos]

And another Su-27 thread hijacked again with one vs one offtopic debate.

 

How many we have already?

i think ive seen about 15 by now...

[Esac_mirmidon]

So a thread name change would be useful.

 

People like me use this forum mainly for searching info. When i search threads like this and after reading a couple of pages the discussion ends like here, well, the searching process could be frustrating.

[GGTharos]

What information are you looking for? Do you have access to the Su-27SK manual?

[*Rage*]

For the most part, relative BVR performance could be modeled better given (reliable) knowledge that does exist. And it's not good news for Russian kit. This is why they had other things to try and make up for it, but those things also have limitations (on both sides, obviously).

 

Sounds a bit waffley my friend. What are you talking about?

 

You're not demonstrating equality with your example, and you're shifting the subject. This isn't a discussion about who's the better pilot. It's about the better BVR machine, all other things being equal - at least that was how I perceived it. And no, they're not reasonably matched. The matching is so unreasonable that F-15A pilots trained for 2v8 defensive scenarios.

 

Evidence? care to be more specific. What exactly are you comparing? Why wouldn't they train for a 2v8 scenario. I would. BFM isnt it?

[GGTharos]

Sounds a bit waffley my friend. What are you talking about?

 

Find the right people to talk to and you'll be less waffled about it. Unfortuantely that's how things go. You could look at exchange ratio estimates to get an idea as well. Of course, no one tells you how they arrive at those conclusions :)

 

Evidence? care to be more specific. What exactly are you comparing? Why wouldn't they train for a 2v8 scenario. I would. BFM isnt it?

You can probably find a lot of the info about it on dtic.mil.

 

BFM is the very basis of all A2A combat. This was a very specific scenario, not basic training. And again, you can also just look at exchange ratios. They even change in time, if you can find sources from different time periods.

 

It isn't easy work, it's very time consuming, and I just don't have the time for it any more.

[Esac_mirmidon]

In this forums there are very talented people, with great knowledge about real planes and systems and also the simulated version of that.

 

This info is very interesting to understand how real equipment works and how well or not so well they are simulated in DCS.

 

This is the info i´m searching here.

 

And yes i have the SK manual ( i´ve translated to spanish ), but having a manual doesn´t mean i can understand it completly. This is why i always search for help, info and other opinions.

 

When a thread like "Su-27 Weapons Systems and Missiles " ends in a debate about Aim-9X, fair and unfair MP battles, Amraams and realism and the common one vs one debate it´s very difficult to extract the info i could expect from this tittle thread.

[GGTharos]

I know, it's terrible. It should probably be split again into some XvY thread.

 

As far as the manual goes, I agree, some times it's difficult to understand, and it doesn't contain all the information anyway. A lot of pilot technique is not discussed in those manuals either, or if it is, it already assumes a certain level of training.

 

In this forums there are very talented people, with great knowledge about real planes and systems and also the simulated version of that.

 

This info is very interesting to understand how real equipment works and how well or not so well they are simulated in DCS.

 

This is the info i´m searching here.

 

And yes i have the SK manual ( i´ve translated to spanish ), but having a manual doesn´t mean i can understand it completly. This is why i always search for help, info and other opinions.

 

When a thread like "Su-27 Weapons Systems and Missiles " ends in a debate about Aim-9X, fair and unfair MP battles, Amraams and realism and the common one vs one debate it´s very difficult to extract the info i could expect from this tittle thread.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Agree.

 

Also, the SK manual is a very good source of info but only at very low basic level. There are 6 books for the SK manual i think, and there are only book one and book six for free on internet.

 

The Book one is very interesting at the end, when describes all emergency procedures. And the book six is very useful because describes all main systems and equipment.

 

But it´s only a surface knowhow book. The technical more in deep ones must be keeped in secret because i can´t find it anywhere.

 

The same as the legendary Part VIII Weapons Systems from the NATOPS F-18 Flight Manual XDDD

 

PD: Sorry if i´ve been a bit rude earlier with previous comments

Edited November 24, 2014 by Esac_mirmidon

[*Rage*]

Find the right people to talk to and you'll be less waffled about it. Unfortuantely that's how things go. You could look at exchange ratio estimates to get an idea as well. Of course, no one tells you how they arrive at those conclusions :)

 

You can probably find a lot of the info about it on dtic.mil.

 

BFM is the very basis of all A2A combat. This was a very specific scenario, not basic training. And again, you can also just look at exchange ratios. They even change in time, if you can find sources from different time periods.

 

It isn't easy work, it's very time consuming, and I just don't have the time for it any more.

 

Ive no doubt you've invested yourself heavily in all this. Im just not seeing any hard evidence to prove your claims against what ED have deemed fit as the status quo in DCS. I entirely agree with Mirmidon. More evidence is always good.

Edited November 24, 2014 by ///Rage

[GGTharos]

Look at the missile mod; it's just one example of things that are being worked on.

 

As for why ED makes the decisions they do, I don't know. I do know that some moves towards more realism are detrimental, because a realistic flaw is missing for example.

 

If you can find the details for obtaining a full system lock-on for the flanker`s radar, you`ll find it can take as much as 10 sec to lock on (where you can find this, I can`t recall any longer, but it wasn`t `some page`or `some guy`on the internet :P ). By comparison there`s no such problems for its contemporary adversary. Imagine if ECM came into play. Similarly - flankers would be getting one set of jammers per flight of four, each eagle gets its own. This seriously affects tactics.

 

If this seems ranty, I really do not have time to get into it at the moment, busy doing things that pay me :)

 

My point is just this: DCS only reflects a little bit of A2A realism. As far as russian equipment goes, you have it good.

 

Im just not seeing any hard evidence to prove your claims against what ED have deemed fit as the status quo in DCS. I entirely agree with Mirmidon. More evidence is always good.

[Esac_mirmidon]

If people knows all the limits that the Su-27 ( and other fighters ) has because weapons and equipment management they could went crazy.

 

Following the manual a couple of this limits.

 

Radar Scan mode in Encounter PRF could suffer from target disappear effect in the range between 100-70 Km.

The radar could only detect targets flying at speeds higher than 210 km/h, both in Encounter or Pursuit PRF.

The radar can´t provide a safe detection of helicopters flying below this speeds in pursuit mode. In Encounter mode is possible but hard.

If the target is flying above us, higher than 8500 meters, the radar in Pursuit mode can only detect it if the speed difference between is higher than 300 km/h. Below that altitude, the approach speed could be 180 km/h or 100 km/h in pursuit.

For even speeds the detection can´t be guaranteed.

Vertical CAC mode only lock targets at ranges below 5 km for different approach speeds. At even speeds unstable locks could happen.

Aspect angle can´t exceed 70º in any aspect or hemisphere.

 

Any asymetric missiles load allow only maximum +2G maneuvers and no -G at all.

On training flights don´t use the outboard pylons ( for R-73 ) to avoid Position lights destruction.( this makes me laugh a lot )

 

This are only a few of them. There are a lot more.

[karambiatos]

Vertical CAC mode only lock targets at ranges below 5 km for different approach speeds. At even speeds unstable locks could happen.

 

i dont understand the speeds part? why would the EOS care about speeds?