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

[Drona]

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']

 

Please don't use that African conflict for reference. Those missiles even though flown by Russian merc's were probably inferior to the ones used by the VVS and PVO. Russia are known to give the Warsaw pact countries downgraded versions of their aircrafts. It is also said that the aircrafts given to non-Warsaw pact countries were even further downgraded. So you could just imagine the state of those missiles.

 

Currently, if you look at what's happening in Syria, you'd notice that the Russians are carrying R-27Rs (not R-27ERs) on the latest top of the line Su-30SMs. They must have some confidence in the missile if they are carrying it into battle! And surely, they have a lot better missiles than the R-27R!

[SDsc0rch]

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?

 

at some point, we have to just trust ED, right?

 

we hope that they have access to material or sources that we don't have access to - at the very least, maybe they are able to reverse-engineer certain aspects of these missiles so they can at least form an educated "best guess" to fill in the blanks that necessarily exist

 

but up till now it seems ED tries to stay true to the data - to their credit

 

i like to see changes over time - that means they are either getting new information or they have evaluated that missile performance is be different from what their data indicates and they are making changes to bring the sim more in to line

 

its on us, however, to be so dedicated to the truth that if "teh Truth" means that our preferred side ends up with the short end of the stick.. we must accept that (maybe not gladly)

 

when its all said and done, we should be thankful that we have an outfit willing to put in the kind of effort to put this project together

[Boberro]

Maybe they have confidence but same they had in Georgian war at 2008 - plenty of RU weaponry either failed or partially worked like Kh-58 or dumb bombs.

Su-27 rely on high spam of missiles. This is why it has so many hardpoints.

If ED has access or better understanding of ER behavior and now it adapts, then OK.

They could think this way even in time of FC 2, but finally decided to push it now.

DCS is supposed to be sim, not balanced game for the Flanker or any other lovers - if it is crap in RL or there is high probability it is, then make it the crap.

However there should be added fancy things, obvious like Time-to-Impact counter or relock possibility....

[Dudikoff]

Su-27 rely on high spam of missiles. This is why it has so many hardpoints.

 

Hilarious. So, it's not because it's a long range air superiority fighter like e.g. the F-15C (which then I presume also relies on 'high spam of missiles')?

[Weta43]

Hi ShuRugal,

This is well outside my area of expertise but I'm not convinced by some of what you've posted, and think you overstate the range at which an ARH seeker has an advantage over a fighter's radar.

Neither the fighter nor the missile produces a collimated beam of radar energy, so they are both subject to the inverse square law

I thought that the Su-27 had a twisted cassegrain antenna - which is a parabolic reflector.

 

The parabolic reflector transforms an incoming plane wave traveling along the axis into a spherical wave converging toward the focus. Conversely, a spherical wave generated by a point source placed in the focus is reflected into a plane wave propagating as a collimated beam along the axis. That means the antenna from an N001 is at least attempting to generate a collimated beam. PESA and AESA radar do the same (attempt to generate planar waveforms) but by other means.

 

The beam ... missile ... doesn't need a search function, after all) as the fighter.

it does need a search function, otherwise it couldn't re-acquire a lock after being diverted by chaff, but that's by the by..

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.

 

On the question of how focused the 2 beams are relative to each other, I've attached 2 images.

The first is an official Raytheon sectional image of an AIM-120(A)

It looks very much to me like the antenna is flat, which means either in contrast to the fighter's radar it's not collimated & so does adhere more to the inverse fourth power rule - or it has some form of waveguide that modifies that beam - but we don't know in what way. Maybe it collimates the beam to a greater or lesser extent, maybe it still radiates as a point source, only over a smaller arc.

We could imagine it's an (A/P)ESA unit, but if it were an ESA unit, it would have very few elements in the array.

The second image is an ESA intended to generate a planar (collimated) waveform that doesn't strictly obey the inverse fourth power rule .

As you can see the elements at the edge don't do this, they essentially radiate half their energy as spherical waveforms.

A very small AESA array of necessity has more elements at the edge, and so a larger percentage of the radiated energy comes from elements at the edge of the array, and the 'collimated' section of the beam therefore has a lower power than for a larger array of the same power. Small array leads to more beam dispersion. For AESA arrays, the larger array of a fighter produces a more collimated beam, and is less subject to the inverse forth power rule.

( EDIT. I think the antenna in the image is a slotted planar array, which I think tightens the beam in the same way as an ESA, but isn't steerable electronically, rather having the array steered mechanically to track or scan. I can't see how the same comments I made about relative beam focusing ability for different sized ESA antennae on fighters and missile seekers wouldn't be true)

 

If I'm right then simply applying the inverse fourth power rule to the strength of the fighter's radar underestimates the signal strength incident on the target, and may , or may not, do the same to a lesser extent to the seeker's output.

I suspect that while there is spread on the fighter's radar beam, the partial collimation of the beam means that signal strength at the center of the beam falls away more slowly with distance, while the edges may more closely resemble a spherical waveform

Without information on the efficiency of the various emitters antennae at producing planar waveforms I don't think it's possible to do the calculation you're laying out, and so you can't use it to justify the relative strength of ARH seekers in the SIM.

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.

See above

 

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

See above

Edited November 11, 2015 by Weta43

[Weta43]

Images showing the relative number of slots (dipoles) in an AIM-120 seeker, and an N011 radar antenna

[GGTharos]

That a smaller dish will have a beam that diverges more than a large dish in general is a simple given in physics.

 

The smaller antenna on the missile will always have less capability in terms of range compared to the fighters dish, less power capacity and typically worse thermal handling and this potentially higher self noise.

 

You can deal with a lot of that, but the end result is that the missile seeker's sensitivity will be lower to that of a large dish.

 

(Also pushing more power through the dish result in more self noise. There are trade offs for everything)

[*Rage*]

The ethiopia/eritrea conflict is not a reliable source. Not documented which types of missiles, how many fired, serviceability of them or the aircraft systems etc. Last time I looked into it I read reports that the Migs were downed by R73s fired by the flankers. Thats not even mentioned in the 'Wiki' source. Should we then assume the pK of the R73 is 100%? Completely impervious to flares and manuevering? One explanation could be that the missiles are truly aweful. The other could be the migs turned and run and got downed when they ran out of fuel. There is no way you or I can deduce anything from that conflict because nothing is reliably documented about it.

 

https://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/quarrels-over-the-border/

 

Even the above source is full of questionable material. Salvo firing R27s at different targets..hmmm

 

Those guys saying the 27 is a missile spam aircraft! Have you failed to notice the f15 can carry 8 120s/Aim7? Thats even more BVR missiles then the 27 can carry. It must also be a spammer! (Actually it often is in MP).

 

Funny how when the ER/Rs had reasonable performance one patch ago no one had any criticism of EDs improved tracking modelling. Now thats its been degraded again (Probably trying new code - I guess) all the usual suspects are asking for the status quo to remain.

 

Also, I see alot of talk about pK. The issue we're discussing is tracking. There is a big difference between the two and most people just dont get it.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[Ragnarok]

Having read through this thread I just have to ask if people are assuming too much of the R-27 series, from all the things I've ever read about it, the R-27 has always had a low pk, and that's compared to AIM-7's, and especially the R-27T and TE's, there was a reason aircraft like the Su-27 carried half a dozen of them, and that was to compensate for its low pk....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_%28air-to-air_missile%29#Operational_service

 

I know it's a wiki, but you can check the sources.

 

First, it is the R-27R.

Secondly, what you do not know, is the case the pilots immediately after the launch, guiding interrupted when they get lock on of the enemy fighters. Also, when Russian instructors said they would not shoot with Rmax and explained how to take the R-27R, arrived immediately hit.

[apocom]

The ethiopia/eritrea conflict is not a reliable source. Not documented which types of missiles, how many fired, serviceability of them or the aircraft systems etc. Last time I looked into it I read reports that the Migs were downed by R73s fired by the flankers. Thats not even mentioned in the 'Wiki' source. Should we then assume the pK of the R73 is 100%? Completely impervious to flares and manuevering? One explanation could be that the missiles are truly aweful. The other could be the migs turned and run and got downed when they ran out of fuel. There is no way you or I can deduce anything from that conflict because nothing is reliably documented about it.

 

Hi, if you don't like this source, maybe read this for general BVR combat:

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

 

I don't know, I'm reading a lot how bad missiles perform in BVR (every missile not espacially the russians).

 

If someone can submit a link that reads like something has a good BVR capability I would be really happy. You guys often state that this is not realistic and I really wonder why.

 

Also, I see alot of talk about pK. The issue we're discussing is tracking. There is a big difference between the two and most people just dont get it.

 

Maybe care to elaborate? I don't see a big difference in this game, where a successful (maneuvering the missile in deadly range) tracked target results in a kill.

[*Rage*]

In DCS pK depends on 2 factors - tracking and energy (assuming flat terrain).

 

If the missile has infinite energy and perfect tracking pK will always be 1.

 

The issue we have is with tracking. If tracking is almost zero it doesnt matter if the missiles has energy or not. It will go nowhere (pK=0) and will present no threat and you need not take evasive action as a target. You can also take no meaningful offensive action as a shooter since the missile you fire presents no threat to your adversary. There is no shooter/target dynamic.

 

If it has reasonable tracking then it presents a threat. The pK can still be zero if the target defeats it kinematically or notches.

 

In both scenarios the pK when you calculate it at the end of the mission is still zero. But when you have reasonable tracking the gameplay is more representative of what we understand BVR combat to be about (Flying high and fast, launching early, F-pole, A-pole, beaming and notching etc etc).

 

When I started doing my ER tracking testing I did not use the pK since it introduces too many other confounding factors that are not the missiles fault. I instead use pTrack to identify if the missile tracks a target or not. Whether it has the energy to intercept or not can be considered a secondary outcome, at least while we're talking about tracking.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[apocom]

In DCS pK depends on 2 factors - tracking and energy (assuming flat terrain).

 

If the missile has infinite energy and perfect tracking pK will always be 1.

 

The issue we have is with tracking. If tracking is almost zero it doesnt matter if the missiles has energy or not. It will go nowhere (pK=0) and will present no threat and you need not take evasive action as a target. You can also take no meaningful offensive action as a shooter since the missile you fire presents no threat to your adversary. There is no shooter/target dynamic.

 

If it has reasonable tracking then it presents a threat. The pK can still be zero if the target defeats it kinematically or notches.

 

In both scenarios the pK when you calculate it at the end of the mission is still zero. But when you have reasonable tracking the gameplay is more representative of what we understand BVR combat to be about (Flying high and fast, launching early, F-pole, A-pole, beaming and notching etc etc).

 

Thanks a lot for that explanation.

 

Unfortunatly we have even less information about the tracking aspect than the PK.

[Sleksa]

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

 

This is a giant cop-out.

 

If we wanted a sim-DCS, the best way to do it would be to remove the 80's F-15 that flies around with weapons from the year 2000+, as well as every other FC3 aircraft alltogether as they pretty much represent the remnants of a "air-quake" fc rather than "sim" DCS that's more represented by the likes of the F86, MiG-15/21, A-10C, and the various helicopters.

 

However as this is clearly not the case, the best thing to do would be to make the setting of the simulator somewhat closer to reality. This however would include things like Removing the amraam capability off the F-15, along with certain capabilities and armaments off the Su and MiG aircraft of FC3.

 

The end result would be exactly what you say you want, a more realistic DCS, but the end result would be that the game would also have a lot more equal playing field between the various aircraft.

[naydenivanov]

Probably this may be in help.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

[Santi871]

This is a giant cop-out.

 

If we wanted a sim-DCS, the best way to do it would be to remove the 80's F-15 that flies around with weapons from the year 2000+, as well as every other FC3 aircraft alltogether as they pretty much represent the remnants of a "air-quake" fc rather than "sim" DCS that's more represented by the likes of the F86, MiG-15/21, A-10C, and the various helicopters.

 

However as this is clearly not the case, the best thing to do would be to make the setting of the simulator somewhat closer to reality. This however would include things like Removing the amraam capability off the F-15, along with certain capabilities and armaments off the Su and MiG aircraft of FC3.

 

The end result would be exactly what you say you want, a more realistic DCS, but the end result would be that the game would also have a lot more equal playing field between the various aircraft.

 

Any sources for verifying what armaments are currently unrealistic?

[*Rage*]

Thanks a lot for that explanation.

 

Unfortunatly we have even less information about the tracking aspect than the PK.

 

No problem:thumbup: Note my addendum as well.

 

When I started doing my ER tracking testing I did not use the pK since it introduces too many other confounding factors that are not the missiles fault. I instead use pTrack to identify if the missile tracks a target or not. Whether it has the energy to intercept or not can be considered a secondary outcome, at least while we're talking about tracking.

 

Youre right. We have even less info about the tracking. Its why when I see people writing that we must only model what is documented and evidenced I have a little laugh to myself. If that were the case we could model very little based on missile guidance data. I also wonder if the shoe were on the other foot would they be saying the same thing.

 

We know far more about BVR tactics than we do about the particulars of missile guidance. As such ED should model the missile guidance to make those BVR tactics a viable strategy. We saw a sneak peak of that in Hotfix 3. I would like to see more of it.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[Teknetinium]

We know far more about BVR tactics than we do about the particulars of missile guidance. As such ED should model the missile guidance to make those BVR tactics a viable strategy. We saw a sneak peak of that in Hotfix 3. I would like to see more of it.

 

Agree 100%

[Bruce_D]

Hi,

 

Well, for me the new hotfix is working fine for the way that I play. They fixed the missile re-engage system.

 

Now I managed to Hit an 120C with my 27ER and the explosion destroyed the F-15C.

Tacview-20151111-090935-DCS.txt.rar

[Sleksa]

Any sources for verifying what armaments are currently unrealistic?

 

It's not so much about the armament as it's about the aircraft carrying it. The cockpit model in DCS is the 80's version, while the manual makes references to the AN/APG-63(V)1 which would indicate that the aircraft would be a 2000's upgraded one.

[*Rage*]

Hi, if you don't like this source, maybe read this for general BVR combat:

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

 

 

Id read that paper before but on reading it again 2 things caught my eye ;)

 

Combined, the Navy/Marines fired 21 Sparrows and 38 Sidewinders from F-18s and F-14s scoring one kill with a Sparrow (PK = 4.8%) and two with Sidewinders (PK = 5.3%) (Desert Storm). Perhaps a better testimony for the lightweight fighter plus Sidewinder combination are the British Harriers in the 1982 Falklands War: 27 AIM-9s were fired for 24 hits and 19 kills (PK = 70.4%).

 

Either British Harrier pilots are the gods of the air (I see no reason to disprove this ;)) or pK values on their own are meaningless.

 

 

 

And for a little OT humour:

 

According to GWAPS, at least 20 of the 36 Sidewinder launches from F-16s were accidental. This was due to poor ergonomics on the joystick which was quickly modified.

 

:)

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[Tucano_uy]

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

 

I suspect they actually do have a lot of information on Russian hardware and, from what I've read in this forums, they unfortunately can't use it without getting in trouble with the law. That's why I believe there's a ceiling up to where Eastern machines can be simulated.

 

Apparently different political doctrines between the east and the west, released data, propaganda, marketing, counter-intelligence, will translate in better/worse performance of a given aircraft or weapon. What do we know about reality? What they want us to know.

 

Are the Russians so stupid to be flying for decades with a missile that can't hit anything? Can they only shoot down an F15 if they hide behind a mountain? Surely not. But they won't come to tell us.

 

It is what it is guys, DCS can only be as realistic as the reality they portrait to us.

[OnlyforDCS]

I suspect they actually do have a lot of information on Russian hardware and, from what I've read in this forums, they unfortunately can't use it without getting in trouble with the law. That's why I believe there's a ceiling up to where Eastern machines can be simulated.

 

Apparently different political doctrines between the east and the west, released data, propaganda, marketing, counter-intelligence, will translate in better/worse performance of a given aircraft or weapon. What do we know about reality? What they want us to know.

 

Are the Russians so stupid to be flying for decades with a missile that can't hit anything? Can they only shoot down an F15 if they hide behind a mountain? Surely not. But they won't come to tell us.

 

It is what it is guys, DCS can only be as realistic as the reality they portrait to us.

 

You think that ED is downgrading the R27R and ER because in reality the missiles are actually fantastic and that this is a deliberate ploy to fool western intelligence services? Might I suggest some tinfoil to go with that theory? :lol:

[Capn kamikaze]

Please don't use that African conflict for reference. Those missiles even though flown by Russian merc's were probably inferior to the ones used by the VVS and PVO. Russia are known to give the Warsaw pact countries downgraded versions of their aircrafts. It is also said that the aircrafts given to non-Warsaw pact countries were even further downgraded. So you could just imagine the state of those missiles.

 

Possibly true, but it is the only combat record we have of many R-27's being used, so it's the only data we have to go on, assuming better performance would be guessing games.

 

Currently, if you look at what's happening in Syria, you'd notice that the Russians are carrying R-27Rs (not R-27ERs) on the latest top of the line Su-30SMs. They must have some confidence in the missile if they are carrying it into battle! And surely, they have a lot better missiles than the R-27R!

 

The russians have no need to carry anything else, and if you're going to jettosen a missile better an R-27 than an R-77, if things changed in syria and they were facing an air-air threat I think we can all agree that they would soon start carrying R-77's instead.

[Teknetinium]

You think that ED is downgrading the R27R and ER because in reality the missiles are actually fantastic and that this is a deliberate ploy to fool western intelligence services? Might I suggest some tinfoil to go with that theory? :lol:

 

What dose support you theory? And what makes you think that missiles tracking was less realistic in FC1/FC2/FC3? You just assume it is right since ED say so, But if you fly and try to employ tactics you find your self in very frustrating situation when everyone know that 90% of Soviet missile miss, go 10m and pop some flares and you can stay hot whit no fear against Soviet missiles. I would like you to try that in RL, The simulator result in how good you are in exploiting instead of using tactics.

 

Vietnam SAMS had better tracking then ER-27:)

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[*Rage*]

Possibly true' date=' but it is the only combat record we have of many R-27's being used, so it's the only data we have to go on, assuming better performance would be guessing games.[/quote']

 

Combined, the Navy/Marines fired 21 Sparrows and 38 Sidewinders from F-18s and F-14s scoring one kill with a Sparrow (PK = 4.8%) and two with Sidewinders (PK = 5.3%) (Desert Storm). Perhaps a better testimony for the lightweight fighter plus Sidewinder combination are the British Harriers in the 1982 Falklands War: 27 AIM-9s were fired for 24 hits and 19 kills (PK = 70.4%).

 

If you're flying US (not UK) aircraft and fire an aim9 you must assume the pK to be 5%. the data suggests the Aim9 has been downgraded between the Falklands conflict and Desert Storm. it's the only data we have to go on, assuming better performance would be guessing games.

 

Ill say it again:

 

pK on its own means nothing.

 

Please try to understand.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage