After last patch, 27ER's performance is very weak again

[Capn kamikaze]

Need glasses?

[ShuRugal]

Need glasses?

 

Do you? look at the timestamps, his post came through at the same time you posted your edit, which means when he was typing his reply, you had not yet posted your edit.

[Capn kamikaze]

Etheopian war (1999) 1/24 R-27's hit vs 30/44 for the AIM-7 in the Gulf war (1990).

 

The Mig/Su drivers were Russian merc pilots.

[Capn kamikaze]

Do you? look at the timestamps, his post came through at the same time you posted your edit, which means when he was typing his reply, you had not yet posted your edit.

 

The edit was a direct link to the operational service portion of the page, I previously put the top of the page....

[SDsc0rch]

bottom line is....

 

ED should model REALITY - as supported by EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION

 

this is a SIMULATION - not a "game"

 

people who want a "game" have war thunder and counterstrike and arma and call of duty

 

thank you

[Capn kamikaze]

bottom line is....

 

ED should model REALITY - as supported by EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION

 

this is a SIMULATION - not a "game"

 

people who want a "game" have war thunder and counterstrike and arma and call of duty

 

Agreed.

[ShuRugal]

Also, can someone explain how missle-class radar can be better then aircraft-class radar? (about r-27 and aim-120)

 

the strength of the radar return signal, as seen by the missile or aircraft, drops off with the fourth power of distance. This means that if you are 40km from your target, and your ARH missile is 20km from your target, the missile is seeing 16x the return signal as the aircraft. This means that a missile at 20km with a 1kW radar would see the same picture as a 15kW fighter radar at 40km. At 10km, our hypothetical 1kW missile has 256x advantage in returned signal strength than our plane at 40km. This means that our 1kW ARH sees 17x the radar return energy as our 15kW plane.

 

The advantage stacks up fast as that missile closes.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ShuRugal

[DarkFire]

bottom line is....

 

ED should model REALITY - as supported by EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION

 

this is a SIMULATION - not a "game"

 

people who want a "game" have war thunder and counterstrike and arma and call of duty

 

thank you

 

Can't argue with that, however tough this makes life for us Flanker drivers. Realism above all else is supposed to be what DCS is all about.

[apocom]

bottom line is....

 

ED should model REALITY - as supported by EVIDENCE and DOCUMENTATION

 

this is a SIMULATION - not a "game"

 

people who want a "game" have war thunder and counterstrike and arma and call of duty

 

thank you

 

I agree, the problem is, that is not possible. I'm not even sure if the russian millitary knows the PK of an R27ER. And of course the PK depends on many many factors. The german army did some tests after they got their MiG29s, but ofc never in a real conflict.

 

Bottom line seems that these missles have a really low PK in reality, espacially if the enemy performs defensive maneuvers. Thats why there are many other possibilities in reality to deploy this weapon.

 

Another example (besides someone else illuminating your target), is to fire the missle ballistic, without turning your radar on, at the point where it will intercept an enemy aircraft. Shortly before impact the SU27 turns the radar on (for final guidance) leaving the enemy with less time to react. (Source:

"The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems" by Norman Friedman)

Edited November 11, 2015 by apocom

[Capn kamikaze]

I think the way to look at it is that you should employ the tactics that real Su/Mig pilots try, always send more than one missile, and if you have a mix of IR and radar send an IR then follow it with a couple of radar missiles (assuming you're flying the Su) and give it a couple of seconds between the first radar missile and the second one.

 

The idea being that the target may just get hit by the IR with no warning, if not, the radar may do it, and while he's busy evading them, the last missile will still have more energy and won't have been manuvouring as hard (being that it's still further out) and so may just get lucky and hit the now low energy target, all the time, you should be closing the distance so you can get into R-73 range.

 

If you have sent six missiles (again assuming you're flying a Su) and got a single kill then it's a good day, if not then it's not really unexpected given their pk, and in that case consider them as something just to put the target on the defensive.

 

The other thing is that radar guided missiles, especially SARH missiles like the R-27 and AIM-7 were intended primarily for attacking bombers and such, obviously they've been used against fighters, but that was not what they were optimised for.

[ShuRugal]

I agree, the problem is, that is not possible. I'm not even sure if the russian millitary knows the PK of an R27ER.

 

Bottom line seems that these missles have a really low PK in reality, espacially if the enemy performs defensive maneuvers.

 

make up your mind, does the weapon have a low PK, or does no one, including the RUAF, have any idea what the PK is?

[Capn kamikaze]

I agree, the problem is, that is not possible. I'm not even sure if the russian millitary knows the PK of an R27ER. And of course the PK depends on many many factors. The german army did some tests after they got their MiG29s, but ofc never in a real conflict.

 

Well from what we know the hit rate is just slightly over 4% from the Ethiopian war, and that probably included all common versions of the R-27.

 

The pilots of that conflict were russian mercs, so would have been ex RuAF pilots, so training probably wasn't an issue.

 

So it's pk does not look amazing.

[Tello]

Regardless - Would it not benefit all of us if some kind of standard method to calculate and model ingame-missiles were designed ?

 

Then we can debate over the pK and defensive and so on. Every thing else is speculation

 

Or we could simply create a Tacview library and use that for comparison between the new or old "fixes/tweaks/bugs"

 

o7

 

Edit: gramma

[SDsc0rch]

speaking of "standards"

 

when will they fix the DLZ symbology on the radar scope to match the in-game performance of the missiles??

[apocom]

make up your mind, does the weapon have a low PK, or does no one, including the RUAF, have any idea what the PK is?

 

The highest PK I have found was a drone target practice, and the PK was stated with ~1/3. I'm pretty sure that using the missile against real pilots performing high G defensive maneuver and spamming chaff will lower this number significant.

 

As far as I know, the R27 in all its implementations was never used against a F15 in a real fight, and thats the only way to tell the PK for that.

 

Maybe ED shouln't go the ultra realistic path for a Standard Systems Modeling aircraft.

[Weta43]

the strength of the radar return signal, as seen by the missile or aircraft, drops off with the fourth power of distance. This means that if you are 40km from your target, and your ARH missile is 20km from your target, the missile is seeing 16x the return signal as the aircraft. This means that a missile at 20km with a 1kW radar would see the same picture as a 15kW fighter radar at 40km. At 10km, our hypothetical 1kW missile has 256x advantage in returned signal strength than our plane at 40km. This means that our 1kW ARH sees 17x the radar return energy as our 15kW plane.

 

The advantage stacks up fast as that missile closes.

 

Surely that depend on the degree of coherence of the radiated energy.

Yes a candle's light might lose power in proportion to 1/d^4, but a laser beam doesn't, and a well-designed torch is somewhere in-between.

 

Isn't part of the reason that fighter aircraft have such large radar dishes that a larger dish allows a more coherent beam & less dispersion (as if they were generating a plane wave), and so escapes some of the precipitous drop off in power with range you're talking about.

 

The tiny antennae on the 1 KW ARH seeker will be radiating much more as a point source than the fighter, and so your estimates probably are much more true for the ARH seeker than the search radar of an aircraft.

 

Surely also, the size of the dishes on the 2 devices also come into play for detecting the return signal - at the same distance from an emitter, the 1m dish on the aircraft is going to receive 100 x the energy for signal processing that a 10cm ARH seeker is going to receive, so presumably could detect the same emitter at ~ 3 times the distance the small dish could ?

 

So if we ignore the dispersion comment above and accept that "this means that if you are 40km from your target, and your ARH missile is 20km from your target, the missile is seeing 16x the return signal as the aircraft", surely the larger dish means that the aircraft actualy receives 100/16 times the radiated energy that the ARH head does, so 5.25 times as much energy, and to receive the same amount of energy on its dish has to be at 1.6*40km = 60km.

[Teknetinium]

Cap'n kamikaze, The problem is now that you don't get a realistic representation of RL, because pilots have intelligence about how good missiles are and take risks accordingly compare to RL. This need to bee looked at by ED in order to bring back the tactical aspect of DCS. I would assume that modern air combat community were happier whit how missiles tracked in FC1/FC2/FC3, And there is no prove that missiles was less realistic then. Fly paths of missiles have changed to the better, but reducing tracking to this extend compare to before makes me wonder about what intel :)

 

I would like to argue that late FC3 to DCS 1.5.3 missiles tracking made DCS modern air to air community much more war thunder like on MP servers.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[Exorcet]

Cap'n kamikaze, The problem is now that you don't get a realistic representation of RL, because pilots have intelligence about how good missiles are and take risks accordingly compare to RL.

 

If ER was that bad in reality, how would pilots respond? That players have an idea of how enemy weapons work isn't unrealistic. Also, tweaking missile performance won't change this. People will learn and adapt again.

 

I'd hope the R-27 is a reliable missile and that if it is (or even if it isn't), ED models it accuracy. However trying to tweak missile performance to achieve a certain player reaction is iffy to me. If it was an option, like the old LOMAC missile performance slider, that is OK as long as the most realistic option is clearly labeled. If ED is only going to have one model of guidance, realism should be placed ahead of everything.

[ShuRugal]

Surely that depend on the degree of coherence of the radiated energy.

Yes a candle's light might lose power in proportion to 1/d^4, but a laser beam doesn't, and a well-designed torch is somewhere in-between.

 

The beam on the missile is just as tightly focused (if not more so, it doesn't need a search function, after all) as the fighter. Neither the fighter nor the missile produces a collimated beam of radar energy, so they are both subject to the inverse square law, and once the round-trip is factored in, that means that the return signal drops of proportionally to the fourth power of distance, regardless of what type of radar the signal originates from.

 

Isn't part of the reason that fighter aircraft have such large radar dishes that a larger dish allows a more coherent beam & less dispersion (as if they were generating a plane wave), and so escapes some of the precipitous drop off in power with range you're talking about.

No, the point of having a large dish is to capture as much of the signal as possible, since the signal spreads out as it goes through space.

 

The tiny antennae on the 1 KW ARH seeker will be radiating much more as a point source than the fighter, and so your estimates probably are much more true for the ARH seeker than the search radar of an aircraft.

Irrelevant, as neither the missile nor the fighter projects a collimated beam. See above.

 

Surely also, the size of the dishes on the 2 devices also come into play for detecting the return signal - at the same distance from an emitter, the 1m dish on the aircraft is going to receive 100 x the energy for signal processing that a 10cm ARH seeker is going to receive, so presumably could detect the same emitter at ~ 3 times the distance the small dish could ?

 

So if we ignore the dispersion comment above and accept that "this means that if you are 40km from your target, and your ARH missile is 20km from your target, the missile is seeing 16x the return signal as the aircraft", surely the larger dish means that the aircraft actualy receives 100/16 times the radiated energy that the ARH head does, so 5.25 times as much energy, and to receive the same amount of energy on its dish has to be at 1.6*40km = 60km.

 

This much is correct, my numbers do ignore differences in dish size, which will allow a greater area of signal capture to the fighter than the missile. I don't know off the top of my head how much the signal gain improves with dish diameter (and that shit is too closely related to my day job to want to do in my off time), but it would offset the range-related gains somewhat.

 

However, even if my numbers are off by an order of magnitude, at a 40/10km range comparison, the missile still comes out seeing 1.7x the energy as the parent aircraft.

[Capn kamikaze]

Cap'n kamikaze, The problem is now that you don't get a realistic representation of RL, because pilots have intelligence about how good missiles are and take risks accordingly compare to RL. This need to bee looked at by ED in order to bring back the tactical aspect of DCS. I would assume that modern air combat community were happier whit how missiles tracked in FC1/FC2/FC3, And there is no prove that missiles was less realistic then. Fly paths of missiles have changed to the better, but reducing tracking to this extend compare to before makes me wonder about what intel :)

 

Well all we can go on is real life combat performance, and that for the R-27 seems pretty close to what it is like now, that at best you may as well use it just to put the other guy on the defensive and try to get in a knife fight, the R-27 is next to useless in the sim, and it was/is next to useless IRL, I don't see a problem:D

[Teknetinium]

If ER was that bad in reality, how would pilots respond? That players have an idea of how enemy weapons work isn't unrealistic. Also, tweaking missile performance won't change this. People will learn and adapt again.

 

I'd hope the R-27 is a reliable missile and that if it is (or even if it isn't), ED models it accuracy. However trying to tweak missile performance to achieve a certain player reaction is iffy to me. If it was an option, like the old LOMAC missile performance slider, that is OK as long as the most realistic option is clearly labeled. If ED is only going to have one model of guidance, realism should be placed ahead of everything.

 

What makes you think that ED have more intel on ER/ET-27 tracking now compere to FC1/FC2/FC3?

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[Teknetinium]

Well all we can go on is real life combat performance' date=' and that for the R-27 seems pretty close to what it is like now, that at best you may as well use it just to put the other guy on the defensive and try to get in a knife fight, the R-27 is next to useless in the sim, and it was/is next to useless IRL, I don't see a problem:D[/quote']

 

You don't want to see the problem. But I have witnessed whit my own eyes how missiles tracking problem effecting the air to air community. ED must find a foundation for missiles. How should we adapt tactics when missiles change every patch from bad to worse until it is not worth it.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[Capn kamikaze]

You dont want to see the problem. But I have witnessed whit my own eyes how missiles tracking problem effecting the air to air community.

 

If it's realistic then it is not a problem, DCS is supposed to be a sim, not air-quake.

[Teknetinium]

If it's realistic then it is not a problem' date=' DCS is supposed to be a sim, not air-quake.[/quote']

 

It is not realistic, so it is a problem and it is very demotivating since we are tired to adapt tactics every patch to such extent where it is not worth it anymore. I would like to argue that late FC3 to DCS 1.5.3 missiles tracking made DCS modern air to air community much more war thunder air-quake like on MP servers;)

 

By the way no offence ED, Im sure you are working hard and we all will be happy whit missile performance.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[ShuRugal]

If it's realistic then it is not a problem' date=' DCS is supposed to be a sim, not air-quake.[/quote']

 

The problem is that you are assuming what we have now is more realistic than what we had before or what we had in older versions of Flaming Cliffs. Since publicly available data on R-27 performance has not changed since FC1/2, how can anyone say that the changes ED has been implementing are realistic?