Russian missiles - usage, bug, problems, advantages

[ArkRoyal]

Well, not necessarily. The game doesn't have to supply each side with time equivalent equipment. Also, the SM slots well below AESA F-15's. That would be rivals with the Su-35.

 

 

Real life doesn't balance sides either, 1990's F-15's don't necessarily have to fight 1990's Flankers. Even within the US arsenal, the aircraft are at different levels of upgrades, so you could have top of the line Flankers fighting aged F-15's and be completely realistic.

 

 

 

The nose makes a huge difference. There's a reason why subsonic aircraft have rounded noses and fighters have pointed ones. Beyond that, even just making something vaguely sharp doesn't mean it will have great performance. The F-15 nosecone is actually quite draggy, but this sacrifice was made for better radar performance. The ET is outclassed by the ER just on the basis of nosecone.

 

 

 

Just by having the ability to go farther, you change the situation that the seeker sees. From afar, your view is much wider. Flares hang out in you're FoV for longer.

 

 

 

Not having aircraft go against contemporary equivalents that either represent a peer in terms of time, or in terms of availability ruins the legacy of the aircraft in question. Part of the fun is getting to experience how good or how bad something was over its service run, or during some war it fought it. Nobody wants a game where a BF-109 G-6 fights a P-47M the majority of the time, or a P-47D-11 fighting a 109K-4. Neither is representative of how the aircraft matched up as a measure of what models made up the bulk of their forces for any given period.

 

What does this have to do with Russian missiles? Simply put, people need to get used to the idea of some aircraft losing, and have fun anyhow. As has been stated by others here already, if you take up a Flanker against a properly flow Eagle---missiles fixed or not----he can force you into a no win situation. Get used to it. Its completely pointless to go to the trouble of making a ultra-"realistic" (at least ostensibly) and then discard all that to avoid the inevitable seal-club that is going to occur when two planes are modeled right. If you want balanced, play command and conquer.

[Erdem]

I think what makes people mad about the Ru missile discussions that constantly happen on these forums is because you guys have WVR, and we have BVR.

 

I think what makes people mad is this "we" and "you" mentality. On each side there's this incredibly "dedicated" people who won't even stain their national pride by touching Russian/American aircraft in the game. So whenever one "side" complains about performance/modeling, people from each side rush in to lobby for their favorite toy, lest it gets nerfed.

 

So in the end you have two kinds of people arguing against each other, but ultimately they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Exorcet]

Not having aircraft go against contemporary equivalents that either represent a peer in terms of time, or in terms of availability ruins the legacy of the aircraft in question. Part of the fun is getting to experience how good or how bad something was over its service run, or during some war it fought it. Nobody wants a game where a BF-109 G-6 fights a P-47M the majority of the time, or a P-47D-11 fighting a 109K-4. Neither is representative of how the aircraft matched up as a measure of what models made up the bulk of their forces for any given period.

 

I disagree about legacy. It's interesting to see what an airframe went through historically, but it's far from necessary to simulate that aspect of its service life. Fantasy conflicts are as good as any real ones, and fantasy conflict can be made without having to worry about some limitations of the simulator, like logistics, training of pilots, etc.

 

With your example on P-47 vs Bf-109, it's not that the sim will end up with gross mismatches that will become the norm. If a mission designer wants to come up with a situation where P-47D's are up against Bf-109K's, why not? It doesn't represent the most common match up, but that doesn't really matter because we don't have to limit ourselves to that situation.

 

What does this have to do with Russian missiles? Simply put, people need to get used to the idea of some aircraft losing, and have fun anyhow. As has been stated by others here already, if you take up a Flanker against a properly flow Eagle---missiles fixed or not----he can force you into a no win situation. Get used to it. Its completely pointless to go to the trouble of making a ultra-"realistic" (at least ostensibly) and then discard all that to avoid the inevitable seal-club that is going to occur when two planes are modeled right. If you want balanced, play command and conquer.

We're not limited to simulating the real world. The simulation is exactly as valid even if you attempt to balance sides. The aircraft are still realistic, you're just exploring a different situation.

 

I'm not sure that you understood my post though. I don't advocate balancing aircraft/weapons/etc. Model them as they were as the first priority, then let the mission designer work from there. One thing I don't like is an insistence on only adhering to real history. I can understand the appeal, but it makes no sense to say that the simulation becomes watered down if you step away from that specific type of mission.

[pr1malr8ge]

An almost identical, current thread in the F15 Subforum about Aim-7 missile usage.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147048

 

Not a single reference to R/ER/ET issues or R77-1 missiles or Pak-Fa or any other nonsense.

 

 

What I find funny is you're bringing up the fact that the AIM120 gets mentioned in any missile thread in the RU side, how ever ru missiles are not mentioned in the F15 side...

 

See if you scroll back to page one you might notice that YOU are the first person to mention the Aim120c..

 

While the statement might be true etc. But currently your statement holds no value in this thread because you're the one whom brought the aim120 in the conversation in the first place.

 

There is no doubt you have an arbitrary love for the RU birds and you have a disdainful hatred of the Western birds that you patronize those who don't share the same view.

[*Rage*]

What I find funny is you're bringing up the fact that the AIM120 gets mentioned in any missile thread in the RU side, how ever ru missiles are not mentioned in the F15 side...

 

See if you scroll back to page one you might notice that YOU are the first person to mention the Aim120c..

 

While the statement might be true etc. But currently your statement holds no value in this thread because you're the one whom brought the aim120 in the conversation in the first place.

 

There is no doubt you have an arbitrary love for the RU birds and you have a disdainful hatred of the Western birds that you patronize those who don't share the same view.

 

Hmm...Where to begin? I wont bother. Your idea of relevance are pictures of fire engines and flying motorcycles:megalol: None this time?

 

Edit: Oh and enough of this nonsense about a hatred of western birds. I'll be shoving 120s/meteors up all your tailpipes as soon as the Typhoon is out. Its one of my all time favourite birds. As with the Mirage. I may even have to change my sig:)

Edited September 21, 2015 by ///Rage

[pr1malr8ge]

Hmm...Where to begin? I wont bother. Your idea of relevance are pictures of fire engines and flying motorcycles:megalol: None this time?

 

I've got many Let me KNOW HOW MANY you want to see! I'm not afraid to show what I've accomplished in my life.

 

I'm still eating my awesome sauce!

[*Rage*]

I've got many Let me KNOW HOW MANY you want to see! I'm not afraid to show what I've accomplished in my life.

 

I'm still eating my awesome sauce!

 

Well at least you had the sense to delete the ones you posted before in our last 'discussion' :music_whistling:

[pr1malr8ge]

Well at least you had the sense to delete the ones you posted before in our last 'discussion' :music_whistling:

 

You want the links to them Have no issue giving them to you!

 

you saw them. No need to retain them on the forums.

 

And Best of luck with the Mirage/typhoon.. Great birds can't wait to fly them my self.

 

You how ever probably wont shove an aim120 up my tail pipe unless you are a fraticider which I wouldn't doubt you would do if I were there. Then again you play on a different server anyways.

[Chrinik]

In closing I want to say that this issue could be resolved if we removed the C amraam from the game.

I mean, serriously...why is the C variant even in FC3? It was specifically designed to be carried internally by the F22 Raptor back in the day. :lol:

 

I mean, what are we complaining about, FC-3 is a game...F-15 is best in BVR, SU-27 is best in everything else, since the F-15 can´t even carry any air to ground, while the SU-27 can. I fly the 33 as a strike-fighter most times anyway since it´s plentiful hardpoints give me a good selection of weapons to carry.

 

Since we don´t know which Amraam C we have in the sim, I am going to assume the first batch.

The R-27ER had a much longer burntime and more thrust, creating a longer ranged missle then the Aim-120. This negated SARH disadvantages as when you can shoot sooner, you have the advantage. The Eagle (or whoever) would have had to press the attack with a missle underway at him. Doable, as at these extreme ranges, flight times and closure rates where higher then in DCS.

This was changed in subsequent updates to the C variant 120. It´s later variants do indeed outrange almost anything with some boasting ranges closer to the Pheonix then any "medium range missle" has the right to have.

 

But it would be an interesting "balance" for DCS, sure, the Eagle gets active missles that can be launched stealthily, but the 27 has more range, so different tactics have to be employed by both.

 

Of course, this is based on googleable data. I am sure Missle PK data exists for both relevant missles, but especially when they come from the militaries that employ them, expect data to be skewed downwards by X% as having publically available information about how your equipment performs is still a big nono for many big players.

I have spend too much time with military intelligence personell to not suspect everyone to be lying at all times. It just benefits you, as Sun Tzu already said.

 

 

So let´s all agree to stay on topic now, If anyone has rebuttals to my comment, please, I have a PN box.

 

To stay on topic now, I wish ED will fix missle aerodynamics and tracking issues and all that fun stuff, especially since it´s a big part of the sim to lob missles at each other.

The BVR ranges in this game are laughable, and ED confirmed this, saying that missle performance at 12000[?] feet and above was "acceptable" but anything below was way too low...boosting the ranges for the lower altitudes resulted in "outrageous performance" at higher altitudes.

 

So they are looking into that.

 

What they could also fix would be the indefinate ECM Jamming bull that is going on in DCS for, what I believe to be, ever.

 

The reason why jammers have an off button is that they can only run a very limited amount of time. Very short in fact.

The F-15Cs jammer for example, when turned on, requires 80% of the entire airplanes cooling capacity just to run, and then still randomly breaks, is a harsh mistress to maintain, and even if nothing breaks, after 5 minutes it starts melting out the back of your aircraft...

Fighter sized jammers are not indefinately usable is what I am trying to convey.

The nature of "take off, music on" is also hurting both the sim, and the russian birds as for some reason their TWS doesn´t work if there is a single jammed threat anywhere.

It reduces combat ranges, and skews they way actual BVR combat was fought, the radar screen wasn´t full of jammed contacts everywhere, you would use the jammer if you noticed a bandit is looking at you, to mask your movement to get critical advantages (like climbing, going cold, whatever you decide to do really), and then turned it off again when the threat was dealt with.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Chrinik

[TAW_Blaze]

DCS has 120C-5. I agree on the latter part that ECM should be reworked as it's highly bullshit. Not only the indefinite service time but the ability to jam all search radars is a joke at best. If DCS retains the current ECM model with improved missile kinematics / guidance then it'll become the next FC2 of maddog spam, except now it'll be HoJ. :)

[domini99]

Hmm...Where to begin? I wont bother. Your idea of relevance are pictures of fire engines and flying motorcycles:megalol: None this time?

 

Edit: Oh and enough of this nonsense about a hatred of western birds. I'll be shoving 120s/meteors up all your tailpipes as soon as the Typhoon is out. Its one of my all time favourite birds. As with the Mirage. I may even have to change my sig:)

 

That's kind of a shame as we're probably not gonna get a meteor missile.

[Jumbik]

Russian missiles - usage, bug, problems, advantages

 

1. Lets itroduce some lag protection to prevent loosing a lock.

2. Remove K/D ratio in multiplayer.

3. Done.

 

The biggest problem in multiplayer is the simple fact that people take it as a deathmatch and not a simulation of battlefield with one life only premise.

[WinterH]

The biggest problem in multiplayer is the simple fact that people take it as a deathmatch and not a simulation of battlefield with one life only premise.

 

Well the reason for people to take it that way may be that, it actually is just that. At least majority of servers, are just that : team-deathmatch fragfest. It is an enjoyable thing in it's own right, nothing particularly wrong with it, but I would love a new direction of improvement in DCS where creation of missions with actual objectives and limited resources as well as general logistics / equipment / infantry transport by helis etc. are much easier, more dynamic, and wouldn't require lots of lua wrangling that puts even a software developer off.

 

Yes, mission editor is highly powerful, but, to implement these stuff it requires a lot of scripting, which itself seem not so stable and a script work in one version can get broken in another.

[domini99]

There are fun servers with objectives, like OP Blue Flag for example.

But the servers are usually 80% Fighters, 15% strikers and 5% heli's

[Jumbik]

Russian missiles - usage, bug, problems, advantages

 

People would behave differently just by removing the K/D ratio. No ego boosters, no ego crushers. No slugfest just for positive K/D. No tears...

[Chromius]

What about the timeline problem? We are looking at 1990-91 are we not?

 

In 1990 if it was SU-27 vs F15c what versions of what missiles were available? In quantities. Would the US still have held back the newest AIM120?

 

Aim-7 in Gulf war, yes AIM120 was available but what version and want quantities. The ER's were not available in large quantities at the time, so the match up should be the non ER version vs AIM 7 and AIM120b no c's. Did they have quantities of 120a in inventory in 1990-91?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

 

I am just asking, as I am working on a plausible 1991 campaign.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Chromius

[Dudikoff]

Aim-7 in Gulf war, yes AIM120 was available but what version and want quantities. The ER's were not available in large quantities at the time, so the match up should be the non ER version vs AIM 7 and AIM120b no c's. Did they have quantities of 120a in inventory in 1990-91?

 

AFAIK, AMRAAM was not available for the operational use in Desert Storm. In the link you've posted, you can see that the first operational use came at the end of 1992.

[Heratic]

Why don't they just add the R-27EA to the game? One thing i don't get is why they have such a mish mash of aircraft. Hardly makes good MP

[blkspade]

AFAIK, AMRAAM was not available for the operational use in Desert Storm. In the link you've posted, you can see that the first operational use came at the end of 1992.

 

This site claims that were actually available in small quantities for Desert Storm, but unused. It would have been the AIM-120A, which isn't in game anyway.

 

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm

[DarkFire]

Why don't they just add the R-27EA to the game? One thing i don't get is why they have such a mish mash of aircraft. Hardly makes good MP

 

The R-27EA isn't available because the Russian air force never used or stockpiled it.

[Heratic]

The R-27EA isn't available because the Russian air force never used or stockpiled it.

 

And. F15 never fired a 120C till 1998. I'm not sure what the prerequisites for weapons and planes getting added to this game is. In multiplayer i have seen a bf109 shoot down a A10?

[Exorcet]

Why don't they just add the R-27EA to the game? One thing i don't get is why they have such a mish mash of aircraft. Hardly makes good MP

This isn't a strictly MP game, however even then I don't see a real mish mash. Late Cold War era is the most diverse group, but we have WWII and Korea as well, and now we're getting into the 70's-80's with MiG-21, M2000, F-5, etc.

 

It is good that we have all these aircraft. No mission designer needs to includes them all at once, but if they choose to do so, it's their choice.

 

On the issue of missile balance, I think when the MiG-29 is upgraded things might get better. As much as there is talk about imbalance between because of missiles guidance, it should be forgotten that Red and Blue are equal in this regard. It's just that the Red ARH plane is not the favorite.

[DarkFire]

And. F15 never fired a 120C till 1998. I'm not sure what the prerequisites for weapons and planes getting added to this game is. In multiplayer i have seen a bf109 shoot down a A10?

 

True. I think the philosophy of ED has always been to only include aircraft that they (or partner developers) are confident of being able to model to the required level of accuracy & fidelity, hence aircraft like the A-10C and Ka-50 get the "DCS" label whereas the Su-27, Su-25, F-15 etc do not as they're modelled to a lesser, albeit impressive, level of accuracy.

 

I believe that there is a Grand Plan for there to be a DCS: World War 2 variant at some point, broadly covering the area around the English channel and western France, i.e. to largely play out the Battle of Britain. I guess the WW2 aircraft available now and those that are forthcoming (e.g. Spitfire IX and the P-40) will fit in to that era.

 

What aircraft are available in any given MP game is entirely up to the server admin. Some servers concentrate on WW2 and/or Korea-era aircraft, some concentrate on ~1990's aircraft and some include everything. Granted, it probably isn't fun to be flying around in an F-86 and to be taken out without warning by a MiG-29S, but those options are available, however historically inaccurate the matchup might be.

 

At present many would say that the Su-27 modelled in the game is generally inferior to the modelled capability of the F-15C. Personally I think that both have advantages and that the kill will always go to the pilot who makes best use of their aircraft.

 

The missiles available to the Su-27 in-game are apparently realistic to the aircraft that is modelled, which I'm pretty sure is the early-90's Su-27S, the bog standard VVS / PVO model of the time. I can't comment on the availability of the AIM-120C (I think it's a C-3 model?) for the period as I don't know when it was available, though I've always been under the impression that the AIM-120 C variant was developed for internal carriage on the F-22, but I could be wrong about all of that.

 

Again, many would say that the AIM-120C offers a huge BVR advantage over the most commonly used opposing missile which is the R-27ER, but that doesn't take in to account that the R-27ER has a Vmax of around 4,200 Km/h, which is VASTLY faster than the AIM-120C, or that the R-27ER has a longer range and much, much faster acceleration. Apples and oranges. Sure, it would be nice to have an improved range R-77-1 'izdeliye' but ED have long since commented that they will only make changes to the missiles based on hard, published facts, a policy with which I agree.

 

I can only offer my personal opinion which is that facing an advanced AIM-120C and F-15C drives me to be the best Flanker pilot that I can be. If I need to adjust my tactics and practice, practice, practice and practice some more then that's what I'll do in order to win :)

[Heratic]

This isn't a strictly MP game, however even then I don't see a real mish mash. Late Cold War era is the most diverse group, but we have WWII and Korea as well, and now we're getting into the 70's-80's with MiG-21, M2000, F-5, etc.

 

It is good that we have all these aircraft. No mission designer needs to includes them all at once, but if they choose to do so, it's their choice.

 

On the issue of missile balance, I think when the MiG-29 is upgraded things might get better. As much as there is talk about imbalance between because of missiles guidance, it should be forgotten that Red and Blue are equal in this regard. It's just that the Red ARH plane is not the favorite.

 

Yeah i love having all the planes of different era's. I own nearly all the DCS modules. Just to have good multiplayer you need to planes that are closely matched on both sides unless you just want to fight f15 against f15. I love flying the SU27 but i get sick of being stuck in the mountains. I'm just starting to learn the F15 lately and the Aim120C is kick ass and once it goes pitbull you can go full defensive and more or less garunteed the kill.

[FeistyLemur]

I found a server last night that had a mission up where f15 and su27 were limited to aim-7 and r27r max. I wish more servers would do that. 159th used to be my favorite because it had full awacs and flying the su27 was more fun that way. But they seem to have taken it to 1.5 and locked the server.