Russian missiles - usage, bug, problems, advantages

[domini99]

Well then I hope we get it on the Hornet too! ^.^

They can't just let out a key missile of the jet. It's like releasing the F22 without an AIM-120 and releasing the F14 without the Phoenix.

Not to mention off-boresight abilities superior to the R-73, a 50g maneuvering limit and lock on after launch for shooting at targets behind you (requires a friend and link 16).

I kinda expect a newer jet to be more technologically advanced.

My jet is newer, so I will use the capabilities of it and don't want you be limited because of balance reasons.

 

It's a simulator not some random fighter jet game.

[Teknetinium]

Im not talking about balance, but MP environment where players exploit the bad preference of missiles instead of using more RL approach.

Its to early to say anything about 1.5 missiles since it still a beta. Lets hope ED make it great. The future feels better then 2 years a go.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Teknetinium

[Exorcet]

They can't just let out a key missile of the jet. It's like releasing the F22 without an AIM-120 and releasing the F14 without the Phoenix.

 

I kinda expect a newer jet to be more technologically advanced.

My jet is newer, so I will use the capabilities of it and don't want you be limited because of balance reasons.

 

It's a simulator not some random fighter jet game.

Well, limitations are realistic. Remember the AMRAAM engine issues at high altitude? What if your ASRAAM's have a similar defect and you're forced to use 9M's instead? Realistic and balanced.

[blkspade]

Im not talking about balance, but MP environment where players exploit the bad preference of missiles instead of using more RL approach.

Its to early to say anything about 1.5 missiles since it still a beta. Lets hope ED make it great. The future feels better then 2 years a go.

 

Question. What is real? RL missile avoidance, a part from never being shot at, is basically exploiting the limitations of the design. What exists in DCS has a lot to do with limited public info to express exactly what missiles should do. This approximation comes with its own limits that Vpilots get to test way more than RL ones. Sure missiles may be updated at some point, but unless they are designed into perfection we are just sliding the scale to a new set of limits.

[*Rage*]

Question. What is real? RL missile avoidance, a part from never being shot at, is basically exploiting the limitations of the design. What exists in DCS has a lot to do with limited public info to express exactly what missiles should do. This approximation comes with its own limits that Vpilots get to test way more than RL ones. Sure missiles may be updated at some point, but unless they are designed into perfection we are just sliding the scale to a new set of limits.

 

Exactly. And those set of new limits will force a more realistic play style than what we have now. Or so I hope.

[Heratic]

The SU27 missiles are pretty much useless right now with the latest patch. unless a plane flies into them you wont be hitting shit. Hence why every one just flies F15's on MP servers. I swear the people complaining about balancing just like being chicken hawks. Yes its a SIM but its also a game. F15's never came out firing 120C missiles. No reason why they couldn't add R27EA's to the SU27 or at least make it so R27's already in game can hit something.

[TAW_Blaze]

*cough* it works though *cough*

 

even against aim-120s up until NEZ.

 

When it comes to IR missiles, that's the only kind of defense since it works so incredibly well.

 

I've tried snaking, barrel rolling, or just flat out straight flying all while chaffing and it's anything but reliable against ERs. It might work X out of Y times but that's not a tactic I'm ever gonna use. A good move needs to be reliant on my actions and the opponent's actions as much as possible, not on the current mood of RNGesus. I've got a million better moves than rolling a dice.

 

IR missiles are awhole different story, you can fly in their face all you want and they'll never hit you as long as you are aware of them and know what to do. I don't consider this a terribly realistic behavior, but it does make some sense - showing your nose to an IR missile is one if not the lowest IR profile of a jet. IR are far more dangerous from behind your 3/9 line and not just because you probably won't see it.

[blkspade]

The SU27 missiles are pretty much useless right now with the latest patch. unless a plane flies into them you wont be hitting shit. Hence why every one just flies F15's on MP servers. I swear the people complaining about balancing just like being chicken hawks. Yes its a SIM but its also a game. F15's never came out firing 120C missiles. No reason why they couldn't add R27EA's to the SU27 or at least make it so R27's already in game can hit something.

 

Kills can be gotten with them and the AIM-7 for that matter, which for all intents and purposes has the same flaws as the R-27 with worse performance. On occasion I'll take the old school Eagle loadout on unrestricted MP missions and try my luck. They don't always hit when I'd like them to or think they should (RL kill rate of 37% reported from Desert Storm), but they don't always miss. I did this recently after the update mind you. Also keep in mind that Eagles are on both sides on the 104th server, and some of those Eagle driver are really good at using 120s while evading 120s. The 120C isn't some uber-god missile, but its naturally designed to have an advantage over SARH limited platforms.

[Slazi]

So is the main thrust of the argument here that even if Russian missiles were accurately modeled, the F-15 woulds still dominate? Then surely it's the mission makers responsibility to ensure balance by adding more red aa / aaa and extra slots for pilots.

[blkspade]

So is the main thrust of the argument here that even if Russian missiles were accurately modeled, the F-15 woulds still dominate? Then surely it's the mission makers responsibility to ensure balance by adding more red aa / aaa and extra slots for pilots.

 

Some people are arguing an unrealistic response to missile launches, but what is unrealistic about returning fire when you are clearly able to when most launches are not inside RTR. If you haven't completely caught your target off-guard, there is no reason to expects you'll get an uncontested tail chase against a bandit with active missiles. He's already got you queued up, and firing is apart of the defensive maneuver. I've mentioned before how bad it is to let an ET equipped fighter inside of 8nm if you're plan is to turn around and run.

[Teknetinium]

Getting up the KR to 50% would force pilots to take less risk.

[blkspade]

Getting up the KR to 50% would force pilots to take less risk.

 

There is no limit to acceptable risk with virtual lives, in open servers, with respawns. People already take way less risks in competitions, where first blood might not be drawn for over an hour in to the competition. I don't regularly take risks online accept when experimenting or bored.

[whitehot]

So is the main thrust of the argument here that even if Russian missiles were accurately modeled, the F-15 woulds still dominate? Then surely it's the mission makers responsibility to ensure balance by adding more red aa / aaa and extra slots for pilots.

 

I believe that the most realistic scenario we 've had has happened before the update that mangled the Aim-120s.

 

FCwise, imho it was a model that may had some flaws, but was a much better abstraction of this kind of aerial warfare. I'm sure that most experienced players remember the situation I'm talking about, basically it was the FC2 model, still used with the FC3 planes, but it was kinda perfected, at least as far as I can see.

 

I remember that with that model, there were many more possible tactical means to face determinate situations - unlike the following ones which have, in my view, impoverished very much the overall results of the game. All in all, what happens now is that as a Flanker rider you are forced to fly and fight pretty much the same way all the times, just to be able to survive.

 

To have a rebalance in the current state of these planes/weapons, I'd say that mission designers and game masters should force only vintage loadouts on fighters - Sparrows vs 27R/T only. There is at least one server (in fact, I remember there was one, I haven't played MP since a while, and not at all in 1.5) that does that, and seems more fun; ofc not many people in that at any time.

[Frostie]

The major problem is that countermeasures are far too effective against missiles, currently chaff is too effective against radars that have means to ignore chaff, yes ARH missiles have the ability to ignore chaff and this is implemented in DCS but surely ED is discounting the fact that aircraft radars are bigger and far more complex than ARH radars whilst also possessing anti-chaff algorithms.

Throw in the fact you can beam an IR missile whilst in burners and drop a few flares to defeat it, it's bizarre.

[Slazi]

What about adding AI Mig-31 CAPs as a tempory solution? A script to increase or decrease depending on F-15 count. And then hopefully the missiles will get fixed at some point.

 

Perhaps a Russian long range interceptor should be the next DCS level jet.

[whitehot]

The major problem is that countermeasures are far too effective against missiles, currently chaff is too effective against radars that have means to ignore chaff, yes ARH missiles have the ability to ignore chaff and this is implemented in DCS but surely ED is discounting the fact that aircraft radars are bigger and far more complex than ARH radars whilst also possessing anti-chaff algorithms.

Throw in the fact you can beam an IR missile whilst in burners and drop a few flares to defeat it, it's bizarre.

 

Yesterday reading this thread I was thinking the same thing, and asking myself if SARH missiles, at least advanced ones, should be more robust to chaffs. The fact that they are being guided by a much powerful and complex radar would point to that.

The reverse is probably true with ECM: although I'm not sure.

 

Also, as you and many others stated, it is true that IR are very less effective than expected in ECCM capability: modern ones like the R-73 should be almost impervious to flares, as they are guided by several different IR channels, every one with a different bandwidth.

I believe that in this case, even the performance/tech level of the countermeasures should be modeled: a Phantom trying to spoof an R-73 would face an impossible task, if equipped with 1970 flares. On the other hand, an EF-2000 facing the same missile would have a much higher probability, employing modern multispectral flares.

 

In regards to the 27T/TE, although they were conceived as "pursuit" missiles, to be fired at receding bombers, everything I read on the subject, including Aerofax "Russian/soviet air launched Ordnance" seem to be describing them as all-aspect

[*Rage*]

R73 and ET share the same seeker.

[Alfa]

In regards to the 27T/TE, although they were conceived as "pursuit" missiles, to be fired at receding bombers, everything I read on the subject, including Aerofax "Russian/soviet air launched Ordnance" seem to be describing them as all-aspect

 

The seekerhead is all-aspect, but as the -T/ET don't have INS/midcourse guidance, they are limited to the range at which the IR seeker can lock the target prior to launch and although it is "all-aspect", this range is nevertheless going to a lot shorter head-on than in rear aspect - i.e. the reversed of the missile itself - hence the idea of sticking an IR seeker on a large missile body for chasing down receeding targets where agility is less of a concern.

 

For a head-on engagement there would be little reason to pick an R-27T/ET since it would be limited to practially the same range(seeker limitation) as an R-73, while being a lot less agile.

[Alfa]

R73 and ET share the same seeker.

 

Not sure thats correct Rage - IIRC the R-27ET has a different seeker with a wider FOV(+/- 60 deg versus +/- 45 for the R-73).

[*Rage*]

Not sure thats correct Rage - IIRC the R-27ET has a different seeker with a wider FOV(+/- 60 deg versus +/- 45 for the R-73).

 

Thats interesting. Do you know how else they vary?

[Alfa]

No mate I don't and I am not possitively sure that its correct either - just something I seem to remember from the dark corners of my mind :D

 

It is possible that its an updated design by a Ukrainian company(called "Arsenal" IIRC) and may be the same unit slated for an updated version of the R-73 - now known as "RVV-MD".

[*Rage*]

Thanks Alfa. I suppose the real reason i'm asking is to see whether they should have the same CM rejection/guidance capability or whether one has a better/newer seeker than the other?

 

Edit: And I also thought that it was soviet doctrine to fire R/ER with an T/ET together in order to increase the chance of a kill. That being so it surely cant be for a tail chase scenario only.

Edited October 15, 2015 by ///Rage

[domini99]

I don't know if anybody knows, but both missiles can lock on after launch, so I use this too my advantage in a head-on fight

 

I override the launch when locked with radar, fire the missile as accurately as possible, and lots of times it manages to obtain lock halfway and destroy the enemies' jet.

 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn XT1068 met Tapatalk

[Alfa]

Thanks Alfa. I suppose the real reason i'm asking is to see whether they should have the same CM rejection/guidance capability or whether one has a better/newer seeker than the other?

 

Well I did a quick search and found this on the new R-27ET seeker from Arsenal:

 

http://www.asian-defence.net/2010/09/ukraine-develops-modernised-seeker-for.html

 

....it doesn't indicate the date of the article, but its clearly quite recent and therefore this particular IR seeker cannot have anything to do with the existing unit of the R-27ET......sorry :)

 

Mind you, the info about the wider FOV dates much further back too, so I don't know....

 

Edit: And I also thought that it was soviet doctrine to fire R/ER with an T/ET together in order to increase the chance of a kill. That being so it surely cant be for a tail chase scenario only.

 

Well I heard that too but cannot really see how that would be feasible considering that the two types of homing have virtually opposite characteristics - at least not in a sort of "ripple firing". But if it means firing an R/ER head-on and then follow up with a T/TE as the target turns tail, it sounds a lot more plausible IMHO :)

Edited October 15, 2015 by Alfa

[whitehot]

could it be that the larger FOV is due only to the larger diameter of the missile? It makes sense, as the same gimbal would have more space around it to rotate.

As a sidenote, I thought that the R-73 actually was globally the missile with the larger sensor FOV.

Also, it would make sense that although being mechanically similar, the 73 head actually has a more sensitive IR imager?