Russian missiles - usage, bug, problems, advantages

[*Rage*]

Possibly. But then you don't have to be head on all the time. A little aspect at high altitude on a hot chunk of metal in thin air can provide a good target.

 

With the possible implementation of peer to peer datalink are there any sources on whether the ER can be buddy guided?

[Bruce_D]

About the R-27ER in the DCS 1.5, it is very accurate (I didn’t apply the last hotfix; I’m having problems with the auto update).

 

But you have to keep the target at your 12 almost all the flight. The advantage is that you can fire first without being hit, because the 120C loses more energy and have to approach more to fire and hit.

 

At the .acmi file attached you can see that I let the F-15C firing first, so I have to dive fast to dodge the missile. When I’m diving I don’t use the afterburner.

 

If I program the F-15C to fire at the no scape zone range I can fire from a bigger distance and reduce my speed.

Tacview-20151014-204011-DCS.txt.rar

[Alfa]

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.

 

You mean "bigger glass" but same sensor? :) - in such a case I think it would be a better idea to upscale the whole unit and gain increased range performance instead(along the lines of the EOS of the Su-33 vs. that of the Su-27) to take advantage of the range potential of the missile itself.

 

 

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

 

It was in its day, but these days there are newer designs that match or exceeds it.

 

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

 

Not really :) - if its the same technology, the only way to increase sensitivity would be to increase the size of the apparatus.....I think :D

[Alfa]

Possibly. But then you don't have to be head on all the time. A little aspect at high altitude on a hot chunk of metal in thin air can provide a good target.

 

Possibly, but I think you would be hard pressed to get a solid IR lock at anything approaching head-on range of the SARH - except in tail aspect.

 

With the possible implementation of peer to peer datalink are there any sources on whether the ER can be buddy guided?

 

No and I would be 99% sure that it can't - doesn't sound plausible with a SARH weapon/WCS technology dating back to the early eighties. Whether it is possible with newer Flanker iterations/missiles I don't know - supposedly its part of the feature set of some 5th gen aircraft(F-22 - F35?).

[*Rage*]

Possibly, but I think you would be hard pressed to get a solid IR lock at anything approaching head-on range of the SARH - except in tail aspect

 

With EDs current implementation I can get ER kills at 40km with a cooperative target (talking range only). A follow on shot at 20km could easily be part of engagement doctrine in real life and an ET may have a lock then. Given the right circumstances of course.

 

No and I would be 99% sure that it can't - doesn't sound plausible with a SARH weapon/WCS technology dating back to the early eighties. Whether it is possible with newer Flanker iterations/missiles I don't know - supposedly its part of the feature set of some 5th gen aircraft(F-22 - F35?).

 

Didn't think so. Was worth asking though:)

 

Either way we'll prob never know for sure in either case. As always your input is appreciated.

[GGTharos]

99% is about right.

 

'Buddy guiding' isn't what people believe it is in most cases.

 

You can designate a datalink target, but it's your radar that will be generating the M-Link, not your buddy's, so you're still effectively guiding that missile. You're just not radiating a run-of-the-mill search or STT waveform.

 

Some very modern hardware may be capable of picking up the data-link itself, in which case it is truly 'data-link guided', but I'm not sure what, if anything, in fact does that.

 

Take AIM-120D ... 2-way data-link with the launch platform. Not the entire Link-16 network.

 

Going back a couple of decades, you can consider setting up two radars to operate on the same channel. One plane can illuminate for the other's missile (AFTER the missile is launched. No 'secret launches'), but you've probably killed their ability to attack close bandits/effectively search the same airspace due to EMI. Similarly, only one jammer channel is needed to defeat both platforms.

 

The techniques exist, but they appear to have limited utility for practical reasons.

 

No and I would be 99% sure that it can't - doesn't sound plausible with a SARH weapon/WCS technology dating back to the early eighties. Whether it is possible with newer Flanker iterations/missiles I don't know - supposedly its part of the feature set of some 5th gen aircraft(F-22 - F35?).

[Frostie]

Datalink is not real time so getting a SARH to hit with this would surely be impossible.

[GGTharos]

Typically you can't even launch a SARH that way, with the exception of a bunch of SAMs that seem to be quite well equipped to do such things (but then, they've got a bunch of people to do this, the fighter has well ... just you :) ).

 

The launch process involves tuning the missile to the radar, so no STT, no initialized missile/system, at least as far as I understand the subject.

[whitehot]

Possibly. But then you don't have to be head on all the time. A little aspect at high altitude on a hot chunk of metal in thin air can provide a good target.

 

With the possible implementation of peer to peer datalink are there any sources on whether the ER can be buddy guided?

 

There is a manual of the SU-27S somewhere on this forum (in spanish), that describes the datalink usage, and from what I can understand totally rules out buddy guiding.

 

The only case of true "buddy guiding" in an intercepting system I know of is the Mig-31/R-33 system.

 

The Zaslon radar on the Foxhound makes it possible for one AC to illuminate the target and another AC, with the radar off, to launch an R-33 towards said target. The missile is then guided by the designating AC radar, making the shot more stealthy and probably more difficult to spoof. This information is on the book by Yefim Gordon on the Mig-31, iirc.

 

Clearly, the PESA radar design on the Foxhound makes possible a number of tactical options impossible to the Su-27 traditional single mechanical steering antenna. I would surmise that modern PESA/AESA designs would allow for modes similar to the ones of the Foxhound, but this is not the topic of this thread.

[Alfa]

99% is about right.

 

'Buddy guiding' isn't what people believe it is in most cases.

 

You can designate a datalink target, but it's your radar that will be generating the M-Link, not your buddy's, so you're still effectively guiding that missile. You're just not radiating a run-of-the-mill search or STT waveform.

 

Some very modern hardware may be capable of picking up the data-link itself, in which case it is truly 'data-link guided', but I'm not sure what, if anything, in fact does that.

 

Take AIM-120D ... 2-way data-link with the launch platform. Not the entire Link-16 network.

 

Going back a couple of decades, you can consider setting up two radars to operate on the same channel. One plane can illuminate for the other's missile (AFTER the missile is launched. No 'secret launches'), but you've probably killed their ability to attack close bandits/effectively search the same airspace due to EMI. Similarly, only one jammer channel is needed to defeat both platforms.

 

The techniques exist, but they appear to have limited utility for practical reasons.

 

Yeap :D

 

Anyway, as I understand it, the Su-27's datalink is an expansion to the pure GCI one of the MiG-29 - i.e. the ability to share target information directly between members of a flight - each having the "big picture" displayed on the HDD and the ability to make indepedant tactical decisions rather than relying on a remote radar station doing it for them.

[Stealth_HR]

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 :)

 

Wouldn't the opposite order make more sense, to avoid having the thermal head lock onto the 27R/ER's exhaust?

[Svend_Dellepude]

Wouldn't the opposite order make more sense, to avoid having the thermal head lock onto the 27R/ER's exhaust?

 

Burntime is AFAIK around 8 sec. and the ER wouldn't necessarily be in the FOV of the heater.

Anyway, if that was the case the pilot probably wouldnt fire the heater anyway and had to change the plan.

[blkspade]

Burntime is AFAIK around 8 sec. and the ER wouldn't necessarily be in the FOV of the heater.

Anyway, if that was the case the pilot probably wouldnt fire the heater anyway and had to change the plan.

 

This does actually happen in sim. You can (and I have) shoot down your own aim9 for example. You can intentionally (or accidentally) target an enemy missile with your own ir missile head on.

[red_coreSix]

Also happened in real life. In the Gulf war an Iraqi MiG-25PD had an engagement with an American RQ-1 Predator. The Predator spotted the foxbat, observed a missile launch and it returns fire with an AIM-92. Ended up with the stinger missing due to the R-40s exhaust and the MiG scoring the kill.

 

[GGTharos]

There doesn't appear to be a way for the operator to verify what he locked the stinger onto on the rail, and that's the problem ... not the R-40's exhaust.

 

We have it pretty good in-game, we almost always know what the seeker of our missile is locked onto.

[red_coreSix]

It shows that it is possible for a missile to lock onto another fired missile which is what I intended to prove.

[Svend_Dellepude]

This does actually happen in sim. You can (and I have) shoot down your own aim9 for example. You can intentionally (or accidentally) target an enemy missile with your own ir missile head on.

 

I know. I have shot down my own aim-9's with another aim-9, but mostly for fun.

But again, never accidently fired on my own missiles in the SU-27. Anyway the ET wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to catch the ER due to increased drag of the rounded seekerhead on ET.

I don't know how they do it in russia, but i guess they have a plan and they train accordingly. :)

[blkspade]

I know. I have shot down my own aim-9's with another aim-9, but mostly for fun.

But again, never accidently fired on my own missiles in the SU-27. Anyway the ET wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to catch the ER due to increased drag of the rounded seekerhead on ET.

I don't know how they do it in russia, but i guess they have a plan and they train accordingly. :)

 

While it might not be able to catch it, I could imagine it causing a mistrack if fired closely in succession. I know 120s fired with less than 4 seconds of separation while accelerating can potentially cause the 2nd to collide as it begins to overtake. An ET leading toward the ER exhaust isn't too far fetched.

[GGTharos]

Fair enough. It also shows that tracking a missile despite locking onto it is not so easy, if it is indeed locked onto the incoming missile.

 

It shows that it is possible for a missile to lock onto another fired missile which is what I intended to prove.

[DarkFire]

It shows that it is possible for a missile to lock onto another fired missile which is what I intended to prove.

 

Pretty sure the R-77 used to be able to do that back in a very much earlier version of Su-27.

[Cik]

ETs can guide on ER engine trail, i've seen it. it'll never hit because of missile kinetics but it'll of course misguide the ET so it'll miss 100% of the time(?)

 

you usually try to fire ET first if you are going to ripple but usually that doesn't work just because LA is very difficult to attain unless you are tail aspect or at like 5~ nm.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Cik

[Svend_Dellepude]

While it might not be able to catch it, I could imagine it causing a mistrack if fired closely in succession. I know 120s fired with less than 4 seconds of separation while accelerating can potentially cause the 2nd to collide as it begins to overtake. An ET leading toward the ER exhaust isn't too far fetched.

 

I too know this has happened, but i don't think it happens very often and if it does you (not you personally) might want to reconsider the way you employ A-A ordnance.

Regarding the RUS missiles, mistrack can happen for sure. But it should be possible to seperate the missile paths with a bit of maneuvering to make sure the ET does in fact track the bandit and not the ER you just fired.

I for one can say that i never had any problems with this before, but again, didn't have a go at 1.5 yet so things might have changed since 1.2.16 or whatever the last release was called, so maybe i should just mind my own business. :)

[Alfa]

Wouldn't the opposite order make more sense to avoid having the thermal head lock onto the 27R/ER's exhaust?...

 

As Svend_Dellepude said, the risk of the IR version homing in on the exhaust plume of the earlier fired SARH is rather marginal and only really plausible if they are fired in quick succession, which in turn I don't see the sense in if employing the missiles according to their performance characteristics. In a head-on engagement the radar guided versions will outrange the IR ditto several times - according to manufacturer specs, you can engage a fighter type target at up to some 60 km(roughly the same range you can expect the radar to lock the same type of target) with the SARH version(s), while you would be lucky to get a solid IR lock at much more than 10.

 

In a rear-aspect engagement the situation would be pretty much reversed - doppler radars don't like things that are moving away from them and both aircraft radar and missile SARH seeker have drastically reduced performance in such a situation, so it doesn't really make sense to use them if you have an ET at your disposal.

 

As far as I can see, the only practical way of using them in combination would be to launch the radar guided variant as soon as the WCS lets you, then observe the reaction of the target as you are closing in and, if need be, follow up with an IR if the target's evasive manouvering provides the oppotunity to do so(change in aspect).

[DarkFire]

I'd say that there must be systems built in to prevent the IR missile from locking on to the engine of the radar missile. Either that or the SOP is to launch the IR missile first and then the radar missile.

 

All the videos I've watched concerning the MiG-25 and earlier interceptors has the pilot launching the two missiles in very quick succession, probably as fast as possible.

 

There are a couple of MiG-25 videos that show this happening, this one in particular being in English:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npSvKmXslpg&ab_channel=Aeronauticator

[*Rage*]

ERs in hotfix 3 are much more potent.

 

:thumbup:

 

ET/73 flare IRCCM is a different story though. Saying that the R73s pull some simply amazing turns. Combined with the improved effects and smoke its a real sight to behold. Beautiful at times.

Edited October 25, 2015 by ///Rage