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

[Capn kamikaze]

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')?

 

No, he is correct, it is the RuAF's doctrine with the R-27, they usually fire several R-27's at a single target, first an R27T/TE, then a couple of R27R/RE's, leaving 1 T/TE and 2 R/RE's for a second target.

 

The F-15C does not need to these days, with the AIM-120, but back when it was using the AIM-7 it was common to launch two of them at a target, even when talking about the later models of the AIM-7.

 

I'm convinced that for a long time the R-27 in DCS has performed far better than it should, and what people need to learn to do/accept is that you need to send several missiles to compensate for its relatively low pk compared to even the AIM-7, and especially the AIM-120, and realise you're only likely to get one or two kills at BVR in the Su, maybe one kill with the Mig-29, and consider the R-27 as just a tool to force your opponent defensive and get you into close combat, where you can do real damage with the R-73.

[OnlyforDCS]

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 your 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 :)

 

And how would you know how I feel about this topic and what my opinion on it is, since I have not said anything one way or the other? I merely pointed out a theory which is way beyond ridiculous.

 

To avoid confusion I will state my opinion since Ive been following this (and all other missile topics) with interest. I don't feel that I have enough knowledge or data to comment one way or the other. In short: I don't know. A lot of wisdom is contained in those three words, and many here would do well to remember it. I do feel that ED is striving for realism wherever possible but that at least with their missiles modelling, they have fallen short of the mark. The only hard data I have to support this feeling is the hard work done by IAGTSG and others which has been looked at by ED and dismissed. I don't know why, and the reasons that were listed were very unconvincing. This is all I will say on the subject, as I don't want to indulge into theory-mongering about something I have no clear knowledge of. (I think many others on this forum would be well advised to follow my lead on this).

Edited November 11, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[Capn kamikaze]

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.

 

Trying not to laugh...

[*Rage*]

I'm convinced that for a long time the R-27 in DCS has performed far better than it should

 

Convinced based on what? Dont bother with the the ethiopia/eritrea stories again. If you've read my previous posts you'll understand why.

[apocom]

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.

 

Ofc pK is meaningless, but it's often the best information we have.

 

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.

 

This is the best paragraph I've read in this thread. Deploying actual combat tactics should be define the outcome of a fight.

 

After 1973’s crushing 80-to-1 victory by Israelis flying F-4s and Miragesagainst Arab pilots flying MiGs, the commander of the Israeli Air Force (IAF),Gen. Mordecai Hod, famously remarked that the outcome would have been thesame if both sides had swapped planes

General Schwarzkopf said the outcome of Gulf War I would have been the sameif the U.S. and Iraqi armies had exchanged weapons

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09-sprey-w-covers.pdf

 

 

 

 

[Teknetinium]

No, he is correct, it is the RuAF's doctrine with the R-27, they usually fire several R-27's at a single target, first an R27T/TE, then a couple of R27R/RE's, leaving 1 T/TE and 2 R/RE's for a second target.

 

The F-15C does not need to these days, with the AIM-120, but back when it was using the AIM-7 it was common to launch two of them at a target, even when talking about the later models of the AIM-7.

 

I'm convinced that for a long time the R-27 in DCS has performed far better than it should, and what people need to learn to do/accept is that you need to send several missiles to compensate for its relatively low pk compared to even the AIM-7, and especially the AIM-120, and realise you're only likely to get one or two kills at BVR in the Su, maybe one kill with the Mig-29, and consider the R-27 as just a tool to force your opponent defensive and get you into close combat, where you can do real damage with the R-73.

 

The problem is that this is a simulator and we all exploiting it because it is. I want to get as close to RL tactic and a reaction from a pilot when you lunch. At the moment ER-27 appose to little threat, witch leads to much more aggressive flying. In FC1 and FC2 F-15 had far more advantage compere to now while missiles were tracking better. At that time you could actually make a BVR kill compare to now.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[*Rage*]

Ofc pK is meaningless, but it's often the best information we have.

 

 

 

This is the best paragraph I've read in this thread. Deploying actual combat tactics should be define the outcome of a fight.

 

Yes! So what do you use to build the game mechanics that make for actual BVR tactics. Meaningless pK data (for both Russian and US missiles) or actual combat tactics? (not aimed at you apocom)

 

What would have been the point of developing extended range missiles (ER/ETs) when all they want to do is guide to the moon?

[Tucano_uy]

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:

 

No, I suggest they can't do it better, let alone realistic. Not to fool anyone, just because they would be representing something they are not allowed to do.

 

For example, let's assume that IAGTSG's work is 100% correct, if they implement it, they get in trouble.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Tucano_uy

[Exorcet]

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

 

My post was mostly about flying behavior, not missile modeling. I don't know which R-27 is correct. However, if a weapon is ineffective, real pilots would take that into account. MiG pilots in Korea flew over the Sabres because they knew they could. Likewise F-15 pilots will fly as they do because they know how the R-27 works in DCS.

 

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.

I don't completely follow the logic. Balancing the sim isn't a component of realism. Also, having the option to limit weapons (as we do now by just no using AMRAAM) is as good, if not better than, forcing a limitation by removing a weapon.

 

As for FC3 vs DCS, a sim is a sim. There is no clearly defined minimum standard to be a sim. FC is less accurate, but still realistic.

[Teknetinium]

My post was mostly about flying behavior, not missile modeling. I don't know which R-27 is correct. However, if a weapon is ineffective, real pilots would take that into account. MiG pilots in Korea flew over the Sabres because they knew they could. Likewise F-15 pilots will fly as they do because they know how the R-27 works in DCS.

 

 

I don't completely follow the logic. Balancing the sim isn't a component of realism. Also, having the option to limit weapons (as we do now by just no using AMRAAM) is as good, if not better than, forcing a limitation by removing a weapon.

 

As for FC3 vs DCS, a sim is a sim. There is no clearly defined minimum standard to be a sim. FC is less accurate, but still realistic.

 

I would assume that FC1 and FC2 was more accurate because pilots ware reacting more realistically to threats, F-15 had bigger advantage in BVR compare to now, as it should be when using aim-120 vs ER-27.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Teknetinium

[Dudikoff]

No, he is correct, it is the RuAF's doctrine with the R-27, they usually fire several R-27's at a single target, first an R27T/TE, then a couple of R27R/RE's, leaving 1 T/TE and 2 R/RE's for a second target.

 

The F-15C does not need to these days, with the AIM-120, but back when it was using the AIM-7 it was common to launch two of them at a target, even when talking about the later models of the AIM-7.

 

How can he be correct at saying that a plane was "designed as a 'high spam' fighter"? I guess F-4 Phantom had a "high-spam" design carrying four Sparrows and Sidewinders before they even knew that their Sparrows had issues and then developed any relevant ACM training and doctrine.

 

Do you have any documents backing such specific one-size-fits-all doctrinal claims? For example, I don't see how you'd launch the R-27T/TE first since the seeker range is rather low, especially for head-on shots.

 

This whole debate seems superfluous since performance changes from patch to patch and there's little reliable data, but there are suddenly strong claims that the last beta patch behavior is THE realistic one and some are apparently reverse engineering DCS MP experience into historical combat doctrines and aircraft design facts.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Dudikoff

[ShuRugal]

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.

 

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

 

While radar technology itself is not my direct area of expertise, I maintain satcom and other radio-communication gear for my day-job. My training includes a good deal of radio propagation theory, and, if you want (serious offer, not trying to condescend), I could break down the bare physics for you of why no radar set in the world produces a collimated beam.

 

What it basically boils down to is that there is no such thing as "partialy collimated" (that's literally saying "partially parallel"). All rado/microwave transmissions diverge. Because the outgoing beam diverges, it is subject to the inverse square law. Being tightly focused only means that a greater percentage of the radar's power is going into the same signal. The reflected energy off the target is pure, unfocused, spherical radiation, and is also subject to the inverse square law. since we are applying the inverse square law twice for the same signal (two effective emitters in series) we are performing a multiplication operation, which simplifies out to reflected return signal dropping off with the fourth power of range.

 

Now, yes, there are other factors which effect how much of the original radar energy returns to the seeker. Dish diameter plays an important role in this, but the only factor with an exponential influence is range dropoff, and nothing else in the equation can compare to the effect of a fourth-power exponent.

 

As I stated previously, even if my original numbers (which ignore dish size) for 15kw fighter at 40km and 1kw missile at 10km (17x advantage to missile) are wrong by a full order of magnitude, the missile still would have a 1.7x advantage in captured energy from the target.

 

Even if my numbers are even further off (they're not), we still have the fact that ARH missiles are more effective than SARH missiles, even when both are fully supported to impact. If it were not the case that the radar on the missile gets better return as it closes, then there would be no benefit from putting one there.

 

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.

 

This. We may not have any reliable sources on missile seeker/tracking performance (this applies to US missiles as well) but it is a reasonable assumption that the air-combat tactics developed around those missiles exist for a reason.

[OnlyforDCS]

No, I suggest they can't do it better, let alone realistic. Not to fool anyone, just because they would be representing something they are not allowed to do.

 

For example, let's assume that IAGTSG's work is 100% correct, if they implement it, they get in trouble.

 

You really think there is a Russian policeman, or intelligence service man, playing DCS daily and going "Oh look, that R27ER can fly 10km further now, and it tracks much better too, hmmm where did they get that information? We definitely need to close them down and send them to the gulag!"??? Besides, ED as far as I know is a company based in Belarus, which as far as I know is still a sovereign state.

 

Sorry, but thats not how it works. If there was even a remote possibility that ED could get in trouble for modelling certain aircraft and weapons, then they would not even attempt to do so, as they have stated repeatedly on numerous occasions.

Edited November 11, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[apocom]

While radar technology itself is not my direct area of expertise, I maintain satcom and other radio-communication gear for my day-job. My training includes a good deal of radio propagation theory, and, if you want (serious offer, not trying to condescend), I could break down the bare physics for you of why no radar set in the world produces a collimated beam.

 

What it basically boils down to is that there is no such thing as "partialy collimated" (that's literally saying "partially parallel"). All rado/microwave transmissions diverge. Because the outgoing beam diverges, it is subject to the inverse square law. Being tightly focused only means that a greater percentage of the radar's power is going into the same signal. The reflected energy off the target is pure, unfocused, spherical radiation, and is also subject to the inverse square law. since we are applying the inverse square law twice for the same signal (two effective emitters in series) we are performing a multiplication operation, which simplifies out to reflected return signal dropping off with the fourth power of range.

 

Now, yes, there are other factors which effect how much of the original radar energy returns to the seeker. Dish diameter plays an important role in this, but the only factor with an exponential influence is range dropoff, and nothing else in the equation can compare to the effect of a fourth-power exponent.

 

As I stated previously, even if my original numbers (which ignore dish size) for 15kw fighter at 40km and 1kw missile at 10km (17x advantage to missile) are wrong by a full order of magnitude, the missile still would have a 1.7x advantage in captured energy from the target.

 

Even if my numbers are even further off (they're not), we still have the fact that ARH missiles are more effective than SARH missiles, even when both are fully supported to impact. If it were not the case that the radar on the missile gets better return as it closes, then there would be no benefit from putting one there.

 

I can backup these statements a little bit.

 

During my military service I've worked with G2A/G radar. This may differ widely from A2A radar in fighters, but for our radar, powering the system with 10x more energy, leads to 2-3 times more range.

But plz keep in mind that there are many many other factors that effect the picture you get. For example the frequenz the radar is using.

[Capn kamikaze]

Convinced based on what? Dont bother with the the ethiopia/eritrea stories again. If you've read my previous posts you'll understand why.

 

I have, and I have dismissed them, the information I cited is the only real world large scale employment of the weapon, and that will always be more valid than any armchair arguement.

[Capn kamikaze]

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.

 

They're not meaningless at all, you're comparing different tactical situations, against different target aircraft, all of the kills in the falklands were in visual range, the Harrier pilots were well trained in that, as they had no other option, and the Argentinians were not expecting us to have those missiles (L model), we only got them at very short notice from the US, as our fleet was sailing out, giving the argentines no warning that we would have all aspect IR missiles.

 

In the gulf war, the Iraqis knew what weapons they would face, and the US were more inclined to go BVR, just from their training doctrine, so it's not surprising that if they would use a missile like the AIM-9 they would tend to do so at or close to its max range, most dogfights it was used in it was launched while an AIM-7 was still flying, that suggests either the AIM-7 was launched well within its range, or the AIM-9 was launched at the limits of its range, secondly the environment, cold south atlantic vs hot desert will have an effect on IR guidance, you may not think it, but it will, especially with a target at the limits of the seekers sensitivity.

 

Pk values, and real world performance are very meaningful, especially compared to assumptions and wishful thinking.

[ShuRugal]

I can backup these statements a little bit.

 

During my military service I've worked with G2A/G radar. This may differ widely from A2A radar in fighters, but for our radar, powering the system with 10x more energy, leads to 2-3 times more range.

But plz keep in mind that there are many many other factors that effect the picture you get. For example the frequenz the radar is using.

 

while the freq you are using will have some effect on how the radar signal interacts with the target and atmospheric conditions, changing freqs does not change the way the signal itself propagates.

 

Pk values, and real world performance are very meaningful, especially compared to assumptions and wishful thinking.

 

I believe that the point he was trying to make is that Pk statistics, taken out of context from the operational conditions they were observed in, are meaningless.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ShuRugal

[Dudikoff]

Sorry, but thats not how it works. If there was even a remote possibility that ED could get in trouble for modelling certain aircraft and weapons, then they would not even attempt to do so, as they have stated repeatedly on numerous occasions.

 

The problem is that, if they have any inside info on the missile performance on which they base their tweaks, they're not allowed to share that info with us.

[Capn kamikaze]

How can he be correct at saying that a plane was "designed as a 'high spam' fighter"? I guess F-4 Phantom had a "high-spam" design carrying four Sparrows and Sidewinders before they even knew that their Sparrows had issues and then developed any relevant ACM training and doctrine.

 

That was the idea with the F-4 since day one of the missleer concept, do a bit of research.

 

Do you have any documents backing such specific one-size-fits-all doctrinal claims? For example, I don't see how you'd launch the R-27T/TE first since the seeker range is rather low, especially for head-on shots.

 

Again do a bit of research, read some books, and what you've said right there suggests a lot, that you like to launch at as long a range as possible, you can launch the T/TE first, you just wait....

 

Then that improves the pk of the R/RE

 

This whole debate seems superfluous since performance changes from patch to patch and there's little reliable data, but there are suddenly strong claims that the last beta patch behavior is THE realistic one and some are apparently reverse engineering DCS MP experience into historical combat doctrines and aircraft design facts.

 

No reverse engineering is going on, just highlighting those doctrines, and real world combat performance, and how it isn't irrelevent.

 

The fact is that in reality, the R-27 has had a rather dismal record, and now it has one in DCS....

[ShuRugal]

The problem is that, if they have any inside info on the missile performance on which they base their tweaks, they're not allowed to share that info with us.

 

I get really tired of hearing this particular cop out, because it's complete BS. If they had classified info, they would not be able to model it into the game, as the information could be extracted from the game, either through analysis of game performance or by ripping it straight out of the code. Either their sources are not of a sensitive nature, or they're going off purely internal decisions.

[Capn kamikaze]

I get really tired of hearing this particular cop out, because it's complete BS. If they had classified info, they would not be able to model it into the game, as the information could be extracted from the game, either through analysis of game performance or by ripping it straight out of the code. Either their sources are not of a sensitive nature, or they're going off purely internal decisions.

 

Agreed, and why the hell would any air force/manufacturer even give them classified info to begin with.

[naydenivanov]

I have' date=' and I have dismissed them, the information I cited is the only real world large scale employment of the weapon, and that will always be more valid than any armchair arguement.[/quote']

 

You are reffering to a situation, which you are not very familiar with. Either the conditions and the situation. For example you don't know if the pilots who fired the missiles, used it at maximal range, just to intimidate the enemy, because on their turn they were afraid, or there was some other situation. You don't know even the proficiency of the pilots and their mental state at the moment. It doesn't even matter how good they are. For example, if I'm a mercenery, would I'll be ready to risk everything to have a successful kill, knowing the opposite can also happen? I'll get my money in any case, even if there is no kill.

[Capn kamikaze]

It'd be like me giving someone my bank card and pin number and then just asking them not to steal from me.... it'd make more sense to just not give it to begin with if you don't want them to use it.

[Capn kamikaze]

You are reffering to a situation, which you are not very familiar with....

 

Back at you.

[OnlyforDCS]

The problem is that, if they have any inside info on the missile performance on which they base their tweaks, they're not allowed to share that info with us.

 

Exactly. Which is why everyone and their grandmother keeps harping on these forums how they know best, and that ED Is wrong, etc. etc. about nearly every single issue. It is a continuous circle jerk that has no happy ending. Like I said I do feel that the missiles are not done right, but I think that there is a more mundane reason for why that is other than: "it's classified".