R-27 ET "Anomalies"

[GGTharos]

The real ones do, eventually, the lomac ones, no ;)

 

Nor would I really want them to - not because I don't want the simulation to be realistic, but rather because if you can imagine the amount of chaff dispensed in play ... scary. It would murder the CPU.

[Breakshot]

OK for page 169 (at the bottom) Continuation of previous post. (That one has also been edited)

 

Unguided release of missiles such as R27R/T/ET/ER if the AC is in emergency condition such as inability to land with missiles on. OR if the tactical situation requires such a release. (This is what I assumed coud be that Maddog situation)

 

Unguided release of missiles can be done while flipping: unguided launch switch & holding another key untill the missiles release.

 

Next paragraph it states how to do a jettison of them as well.

[GGTharos]

Such as: about Inertial Guidance (because it isnt stated in the manual) Simply because its an operational manual not a technical manual.

I made this conclusion because the manual clearly states that the ET has a maximum forward aspect target range of ~53 km (based on some parameters offcorse). Now how can an ET hit something at that range wihtout some sort of initial guidance? And no, the manual doesnt just state the ballistic stats on the missiles, it states the parameters of their employment, so theoretically it is possible to hit a flying target at that range.

 

Answer: It can't. It's a kinematic range which -may- be useful if you are attacking a -very- hot target at high alt in look-up, such as an SR-71 at which point you -may- well get a lock at a pretty long range.

Do NOT assume that kinematic range equates to hitting anything in any way. Even the AMRAAM needs a data link to find a target that far out and the R-27ET DOES NOT HAVE ONE.

A fighter with its burner out head-on will NOT get you an IR lock at that sort of range. PERIOD.

 

Such as: Maddoging was possible, now in this part he just misunderstood me as all I was trying to say that it could be possible because the missiles could infact be released without lock if the situation requires.

 

Yes. And it will miss. If you still don't believe that, I suggest -very- strongly that you study sources outside the manual to understand why, and try to understand how reticle seekers work.

 

No one will tell you 'impossible' ... they might tell you 'uh sure' ... but what they really mean is 'I would never launch my missile this way'. They have a GOOD reason for this ... ask.

 

 

I hope that clears it out for you. But if not let me recap just the facts from the manual:

 

Pg 128-129 (Table for Missiles)

Title: Conditions for Missile Launch

 

(pg 128) Under IR missiles (2,3,4) it states certain weather conditions that could affect the launch. Such as: clouds, sun, water that is lighted by sun, also states the allowed temp deviation of 15C during this conditions for day and 4C during night with moon instead. etc etc

 

I think that pretty much answers the question as to why no maddogs, and why no 53km range head-on engagements ;)

 

(pg 129) 4 (P27TE)

 

 

First line 4 (ET)

Parameters when launching at longer ranges using CYB depending on the conditions of atack

 

PPC from 2 to 52.5km ZPC from 0.7 to 12.5km

 

Kinematic, with min range for fuze armament. Looks pretty obvious here!

 

Second line

Parameters when launching at identified visual ranges using KP

 

PPC from 2 to 3Hp+15km ZPC from 0.7 to Hp/2 + 2km

 

 

Now the only 2 things I couldnt uderstand is the short forms for the (avionic systems?) such as CYB and KP. It states that u use them for providing range data on the target. That could be it, the system that provides the missile with necessary guidance info for launch. Anyone knows what these stand for?

 

Probably laser and radar range, and only for the pilot's benefit, to calculate the WEZ. An IRH seeker doesn't need, understand or use range data. It's pretty useless since it cannot compute closure.

[GGTharos]

OK for page 169 (at the bottom) Continuation of previous post. (That one has also been edited)

 

Unguided release of missiles such as R27R/T/ET/ER if the AC is in emergency condition such as inability to land with missiles on. OR if the tactical situation requires such a release. (This is what I assumed coud be that Maddog situation)

 

Unguided release of missiles can be done while flipping: unguided launch switch & holding another key untill the missiles release.

 

Next paragraph it states how to do a jettison of them as well.

 

But that's not a good assumption. Sure, if you knew you had say, a huge formation of bombers 30km ahead, you could maddog in their general direction, but you are still in no way guaranteed a hit probability like you would with a lock. If you pitch the weapon accurately enough you might hit something, and it may be useful if there's a desperate need to engage multiple targets at range.

 

That you might use it against fighters is well ... quite unlikely. Small, low contrast, maneuvering targets with plenty of environmental distractions.

 

Let me rephrase ...

 

Physically possible != useful

 

... almost ... ALMOST as useless as launching an AIM-7 without a lock.

[Breakshot]

GGTharos

So, -is- the ET wrong? Yes.

Is it -really- -badly- wrong? No. There's just some stuff missing from the simulation that -makes- it 'too good', but it's not a huge deal.

 

I think ET is wrong, the wrong part about it is the seekers ability to aquire so easily. The other thing is that it has no inertial guidance in the game (removed since 1.1)

 

So it would be best if the seeker limits and such were changed, but that the missile would still find its target due to inertial guidance, not by "maddog" launch.

 

It only makes sense, the ET is a big missile and is made for long ranges. It would make no sense in launching it only when seeker has lock as you have an P73 for that already, which has decent range.

[GGTharos]

Breakshot,

 

It only makes sense, the ET is a big missile and is made for long ranges.

 

This is incorrect (and it is why it had datalink removed). It's made for chasing down retreating targets primarily, that the 73 cannot reach. The seeker will instantly override the INS, this is why you need a lock to launch it with. It's just a matter of how the seeker is mechanized.

The R-27ET uses an R-60 OR R-73 seeker (not sure which, I've read different reports) and neither of those support any sort of INS or datalinking guidance (otherwise Python5 would not be claimed to be the first 'LOAL' IRH weapon).

 

I think the -biggest- problems with ET as is might be the gimbal limits and scanning logic, as well as the initial INS downlink. That's all. If you want to 'snipe' with it you should still be able to, but you would -truly- have to 'snipe' by pointing it in the right direction yourself. Effectiveness would decrease if walk-off is modelled some day.

[Breakshot]

LOL GG you have an answer for everything it seems. Therefore it is no point in arguing with you, you are the most exellent expert in missiles(be it seeker, guidance, kinematics, employment) also u seem to know alot about how effective they all "should" be, man you are good!

 

So tell me now then, do you work with all this missiles? Are you flying/building for the Russian BBC? Ti hot po ruskii govorit umeesh?

[Breakshot]

It's made for chasing down retreating targets primarily, that the 73 cannot reach

According to the manual pg 129

 

the P73 has a ZPC range from 0.6 to 13

ET from 0.7 to 12.5

 

So strangely enough it appears that P73 has better "kinematic" range on receding target (according to you)

 

Like I said the manual is not just giving kinematic ranges, its giving you the pilot a possible parameters for launch under different conditions.

 

The title of that table states: Conditions for Launch! Not kinematic range for missiles!

[GGTharos]

No, I don't speak Russian. ;)

 

What I tell you is based on:

 

Research Pieces I've read

Work with military IR equipment I've done in the past

Pilot testimony

Manuals

Other reports

 

And pieces most of those together.

Basically, same stuff as you, the only difference is I've looked at more sources, and I have a math degree so the research pieces are not so hard for me to read.

 

I've come across code for military missile simulations, including reticle seeker specific simulations, and I have an understanding of the underlying electronics (I tried building a seeker once ... it didn't work so well :D ) ... so I'm definitely 'no missile expect', I just have more '1+1' to put together than you have.

 

I'm pretty sure if you look at more sources you will reach similar conclusions.

 

And I definitely don't mean 'some guy said' sources on the 'net.

 

As for what an IR seeker can see, I've used IIR equipment personally, and I can try and point you to some AIM-9X telemetry video to give you an idea ... but you will also need some knowledge of image processing to understand what I am pointing out there.

[GGTharos]

According to the manual pg 129

 

the P73 has a ZPC range from 0.6 to 13

ET from 0.7 to 12.5

 

So strangely enough it appears that P73 has better "kinematic" range on receding target (according to you)

 

Like I said the manual is not just giving kinematic ranges, its giving you the pilot a possible parameters for launch under different conditions.

 

The title of that table states: Conditions for Launch! Not kinematic range for missiles!

This may be the case if the R-27TE is using the less sensitive R-60 seeker ... but I don't buy that, it's fishy. I wonder if the quoted paramters are even at the same altitudes ... moreover, the '12.5' ... the .5 is fishy in and of itself ... I mean, think about what you know from the game alone. Would you measure employment range for a missile in .5's of a km?

 

It may be the case that this info came from two sources that tossed out numbers or someone non-technical was editing the manual.

 

I mean seriously, .5 to 1km diffs are nothing ;)

 

But yes, you have a point, and to me this indicates that the manual itself is a little fishy.

If you look at the R-27R range diagram you would realize that there's /no way/ that the R-73 having a 13km range tail-on against a target moving at M0.9 is in any way reasonable. Against a slower target, maybe, but still fishy.

 

That's the problem here, is that WEZ is not part of this manual so these ranges should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Breakshot]

GGTharos

Let me rephrase ...

 

Physically possible != useful

 

It would be useful if human beigns could fly on their own, but it isnt physically possible is it?

 

Your "mr know it all" logic makes no sense what so ever

[GGTharos]

Okay well ... that quote combined with what you wrote pretty much lost me.

 

Sure, it works both ways. What's your point, and what did you prove? O.o

[Breakshot]

I have a math degree

I just have more '1+1' to put together than you have

There it goes, but does that make you a Russian Missile expert?

 

Also you havent brought up a single credible source (that concerns ET) at all, so untill you do It appears I have more info to offer. But it doesnt matter, you rule-out everything posted because ur understanding of the manual is exellent

not so hard for me to read

 

To be honest, it would not be such an easy read even for those who know perfect Russian.

[Breakshot]

It may be the case that this info came from two sources that tossed out numbers or someone non-technical was editing the manual.

 

Nice, so he forgot to edit the title from "Conditions for Launch" to "Kinematic range" as well then?? Wow you realy work fast. lol

[GGTharos]

So you're the Russian Missile Expert now, then? :)

 

You're right. All you need to do is read-off a couple numbers from a flight/ops manual to know the real deal. You don't really need to know anything else :)

[Breakshot]

Anyway I posted and cleared out the info from the manual as best as I could. People can interpet that how they wish. In your case GG it seems like you mind was made up already, and offcorse you have a background of infinite knowledge on the subject so how can a lousy, bad edited, wrong, easy to read manual prove anything?

 

Also I was never trying to prove that an ET has command updated guidance. It probably only has initial guidance, and once released is on its own. But that would be at least enough to set it on the right course to a distant target lets say 25km away. Sure the seeker is not as good as it is in lock on, but the fact of the matter is that the missile is ment to be employed as a medium range IR missile to be used in conjuction with the ER. And the manual states many things that prove that. So my conclusion on the matter is:

 

In lock on:

ET needs inertial guidance (not command updated)

ET should have a more limited seeker.

 

Regarding the amraam, I have no info at all on this and can only speculate. But I think its still the best radar missile in the game. Just by looking at my own stats in 504 server, it is the missile that killed me most.

[Breakshot]

So you're the Russian Missile Expert now, then?

Hmm, all my posts here are based on the info from the manual, nothing more. Meanwhile you are simply speculating as you have no credible info at all on Russian ET missile.

 

Also to repeat again the title of the manual page is: "Conditions for Missile launch"

 

OK, well we could argue forever here, so I am not going to post anything no more, unless you bring some credible info on the ET to prove your point, because as it is now I see nothing credible in your remarks. Although you do pretty good trying to "discredit" the credible info from the real Su-27SK manual with your statements about the poor edit etc. Its funny though I can give you that. Allright I am off for now

[GGTharos]

I'll only comment on this:

 

Also I was never trying to prove that an ET has command updated guidance. It probably only has initial guidance, and once released is on its own. But that would be at least enough to set it on the right course to a distant target lets say 25km away. Sure the seeker is not as good as it is in lock on, but the fact of the matter is that the missile is ment to be employed as a medium range IR missile to be used in conjuction with the ER. And the manual states many things that prove that. So my conclusion on the matter is:

 

It was proven in the past that 'it just makes sense' assumptions do NOT resemble reality, in fact with the R-27ET itself, where the datalink was concerned.

 

It was a long-range missile body, so of course 'it made sense' for it to have a data link. That was wrong.

 

In the same manner, your assumption that it has any sort of 'initial guidance' also fails to stand on its own, especially in the light that this missile uses a dogfighting missile's seeker, which -according to R27 mechanization as I have heard repeated from what ED consider reliable sources- once a seeker is in terminal homing mode it inhibits ALL other forms of guidance, and a dogifghting missile seeker is -always- terminal homing.

 

Just speculation on my part.

[Breakshot]

Thats the whole point, only when its in terminal homing. Initial homing has to be done inertialy or some other way. If someone could translate on what CYB stands for it could be alot clearer on if the missile does infact have inertial guidance or some from of other first stage guidance for that matter.

[Breakshot]

GGTharos

It was proven in the past that 'it just makes sense' assumptions do NOT resemble reality, in fact with the R-27ET itself, where the datalink was concerned.

 

Indeed, and so far most of the statements on this thread are exactly that

 

I also never tried to prove that there was datalink as I know there is none. After the missile is away there is nothing that can control it. But before launch thats another matter. Anyway if the ET could only be launched when the seeker is locked then why have it at all. Either way the manual states the P73 more effective in rear chase anyway. Oh but wait, the guy who last edited it was probably drunk and messed up the numbers

[GGTharos]

Because

 

'It's used to chase down rapidly retreating targets beyond other missile's reach' ...

 

This is apparently a quote from a fighter pilot too, but then, I certainly can't verify this.

 

By the way. I think the AMRAAM should shoot you down when you're running away at Mach 1.5 at 1000m from 30nm away. The MLU manual says so :)

[tflash]

Maybe some info about the somewhat similar Mica IR missile is relevant.

 

- this missile has inertial guidance for the first part of the flight, then "latches onto the target with its homing head"

 

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=124

 

- French Rafale pilots, in an interview I read, claim they had to develop specific tactics for the missile, to prevent fratricide. Reason is it travels far and can lock onto a target in terminal flight. This makes it very dangerous to employ when friendlies and foes are merged at a distance. They claim the big advantage is of course the stealth sniping possibilities in combination with the Rafale's optronics.

[D-Scythe]

Maybe some info about the somewhat similar Mica IR missile is relevant.

 

- this missile has inertial guidance for the first part of the flight, then "latches onto the target with its homing head"

 

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=124

 

- French Rafale pilots, in an interview I read, claim they had to develop specific tactics for the missile, to prevent fratricide. Reason is it travels far and can lock onto a target in terminal flight. This makes it very dangerous to employ when friendlies and foes are merged at a distance. They claim the big advantage is of course the stealth sniping possibilities in combination with the Rafale's optronics.

 

Not relevent. MICA IR is not only much newer but it also was designed for a different role than the ET.

 

And I would like to see how the Rafale's optronics would search for targets BVR. And filter out all the IR noise and clutter. To prosecute a stealthy attack. By itself.

[GGTharos]

There was even an AIM-7 variant (the R) with such capability, but these are the realm of -modern- missiles, equipped typically with FPA seekers and datalinks (and seekers which are built to cooperate with said datalinks) ... NOT the realm of old reticle-based dogfighting seekers.

 

I never said it can't be done. The difference is with what HAS been done back in those days :)

[Pilotasso]

Bottom line is and I think this is relevant to stop this spiral of arguments and counter arguments is:

 

That obviously GG had access to more material than did break. Break has the Su-27 manual wich is ok too. Now, even with that there are several different interpretations from it posted here. Both parties trying to still throw the others side arguments to the trash. After all this I think it makes no longer sense to keep at it indefinatly.

 

Either break, Sythe or Bivol would have to be intentionaly lying. I dont think either was, aditionaly to the ED staff who say the ET cant be maddogged (very far fetched if so at best) and they are russian.

 

So while neither of you is lying or trying to bring this issue to your own interests advantage ( I want to believe that) it is poitless to keep this on since there are no signs of concensus.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My final thoughts are:

-Personaly I stand on ED's staff who are informed by the largest amount of sources including break's manual.

-Thinking better about it I think even maddogging the AMRAAM is far fetched unless the target is dead ahead in like 3 miles away and manuevering, much less the ET at 30KM...

-I dont think the tactics we see teached and printed on flight manuals can be trashed like this by a small group of fans who play this one game.

-I already have made my point of this thread and I highly doubt that we are going to change either side opinions about this.

-I hope one day ED's implements WAFM and launch delays for all missiles ET', 9ers and even AMRAAM's (because it downloads data for BVR shots) so we can avoid firing instantly in a lucky moment when a targets passes in front of you for a split second.

-There should be no freedom for BVR air mines seading tactics for any aircraft, because no 1 has ever heard of such a thing.

 

Meanwhile I think we have to settle with simple tweaks. I strongly believe the F-15 pilots in LOMAC have the right to use the 4 target multi engagement capability to the fullest and not just for hitting nothing but thin air all the time. I think the F-15 deserves NOT to be obliged to come within 3 miles 1 on 1 and take all russian missiles in the face while guiding its own missiles. There should be a balance set for this without making any plane invincible and at the same time let their players practice normal tactics for each type.