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

[naydenivanov]

Back at you.

 

I don't claim that the missile is reliable or unreliable, especially based on just one source.

[apocom]

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.

 

Yeah, I don't think so, but I'm not an expert in this. I was trained on a very specific radar and radio, thats where I have all my knowledge about electromagnetic waves. I don't have studied that topic.

 

I just wanted to say, from my limited experience, that distance is a really important value, and you have to put a lot of energy into a system, to overcome this.

 

So, the reason why I mentioned the frequenzies, is, that your results my vary, depending on the frequenz you use. For example weather has a huge impact, depending on your used frequenz. But now I'm completly off topic.

[Capn kamikaze]

I don't claim that the missile is reliable or unreliable, especially based on just one source.

 

I don't claim it is reliable or unreliable based on a GAME.

[Dudikoff]

That was the idea with the F-4 since day one of the missleer concept' date=' do a bit of research.[/quote']

 

This is getting tiresome. What idea exactly? That BVR missiles are useless and need to be spammed till the opponent is forced on the defensive and then finished off with Sidewinders? Where is this mentioned in the Missileer concept and why were the USAF and USN completely taken by surprise with their missiles and tactics not working in Vietnam?

 

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

 

Wait while having several BVR missiles incoming? That's an official air force doctrine? Besides, you said yourself that the doctrine is to spam these missiles to force the opponent on defensive. You keep making conflicting claims that you're not backing up.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Dudikoff]

Agreed' date=' and why the hell would any air force/manufacturer even give them classified info to begin with.[/quote']

 

Nobody suggested anything like that; it can be as simple as experiences of former pilots.

[Capn kamikaze]

This is getting tiresome. What idea exactly? That BVR missiles are useless and need to be spammed till the opponent is forced on the defensive and then finished off with Sidewinders? Where is this mentioned in the Missileer concept and why were the USAF and USN completely taken by surprise with their missiles and tactics not working in Vietnam?

 

Do some research, the USAF and USN knew that they would have to launch more than one missile on a typical intercept, the fact that they ended up finding that they would need to launch pretty much all of them for a good chance at a kill just showed that they still over estimated the early AIM-7.

 

Wait and have several BVR missiles incoming? That's a doctrine? You keep making conflicting claims that you're not backing up.

There is nothing conflicting in what I said, and I'll repeat it for you, launch an IR, then launch a radar, or even two, if that means waiting a little longer to let the IR lock, then all that means is the radar one/s have a higher pk.

 

It was standard practice to launch an IR missile first in the russian air force since as far back as the introduction of the MiG-25, the only reason for launching the IR first is that if it is second it will just follow the radar one.

[*Rage*]

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']

 

lolwut? Real world large scale employment? You dont even know which missile type was fired. Or how many. You really know nothing about this engagement.

 

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.

 

Ive just shown you the pK can vary from 5% to 70% depending on the engagement (Desert storm vs Falklands). Therfore taking one pK value (which you dont even know) from the ethiopia/eritrea war and using that as your benchmark for the russian missiles is completely stupid and hypocritical.

 

It was standard practice to launch an IR missile first in the russian air force since as far back as the introduction of the MiG-25' date=' the only reason for launching the IR first is that if it is second it will just follow the radar one.[/quote']

 

Source? Anyway the Mig25 was introduced in 1970. 45 years ago. Thats closer to the end of the second world war than it is to now. The R27 was introduced 13 years later. The ER even later. Doctrine could well have changed since then. ET even later than the R73. So your assertions make no sense. But we knew that already anyways since theyre baseless.

[Dudikoff]

Do some research' date=' the USAF and USN knew that they would have to launch more than one missile on a typical intercept, the fact that they ended up finding that they would need to launch pretty much all of them for a good chance at a kill just showed that they still over estimated the early AIM-7.[/quote']

 

I did read books on Vietnam and on the subsequent ACM training efforts and I don't remember reading anything like that. Hence why I'm saying your one-size-fits-all out-of-a-hat "doctrines" without a date and a context require some arguments beyond just your words.

 

There is nothing conflicting in what I said, and I'll repeat it for you, launch an IR, then launch a radar, or even two, if that means waiting a little longer to let the IR lock, then all that means is the radar one/s have a higher pk.

 

OK, I'll draw it for you. An IR seeker on R-27T/TE is the same as on the R-73 missiles. Let's presume I can lock onto a certain fighter target in certain weather conditions head-on with those missiles from rather generous 3-4 km.. Are you starting to see a problem with your "doctrine"?

 

It was standard practice to launch an IR missile first in the russian air force since as far back as the introduction of the MiG-25, the only reason for launching the IR first is that if it is second it will just follow the radar one.

 

MiG-25P was a bomber interceptor and its IR missiles were primarily designed to be used against large bombers when their jammers were blocking the radar lock. Those missiles' seekers were not all-aspect so I'm curious how your generic "doctrine" would work in practice in this example.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Capn kamikaze]

Unbelieveable.

 

Ok, let's ignore a real source of data of a real combat employment, lets ignore doctrinal usage of the missiles...

 

ED, can we please turn DCS into air-quake, make the R-27 a skynet controlled killing machine, no need for any warhead, we want the missile, now to be known as a hittle, to just hit targets regardless of real world performance, and then pass through the target and hit another and another, oh and can it have a laser on it too, afterall we are not interested in an actual simulation, but just a fanboy flying game.

 

Thanks ED.

[Santi871]

An IR seeker range on R-27T/TE is the same as on the R-73 missiles. Let's presume I can lock onto a certain fighter target in certain weather conditions head-on with those missiles from rather generous 3-4 km

 

Can you cite any sources for that? The seeker on the R73 and R27T/ET isn't the same. I get head on locks with ETs from up to 40km away in DCS, although I can't comment for real life. Is there any source that makes your 3-4km range claim valid?

[*Rage*]

Unbelieveable.

 

Ok, let's ignore a real source of data of a real combat employment, lets ignore doctrinal usage of the missiles...

 

ED, can we please turn DCS into air-quake, make the R-27 a skynet controlled killing machine, no need for any warhead, we want the missile, now to be known as a hittle, to just hit targets regardless of real world performance, and then pass through the target and hit another and another, oh and can it have a laser on it too, afterall we are not interested in an actual simulation, but just a fanboy flying game.

 

Thanks ED.

 

^The hallmark of a failed argument.

 

Reverting to ER performance in hotfix 3 would suffice. They can still be notched, still susceptible to ground clutter and still susceptible to chaff when used appropriately. And of course they could be defeated kinematically. All of that can still contribute to a pK of zero if you employ proper tactics as a target.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[Santi871]

^The hallmark of a failed argument.

 

Reverting to ER performance in hotfix 3 would suffice. They can still be notched, still susceptible to ground clutter and still susceptible to chaff when used appropriately. And of course they could be defeated kinematically. All of that can still contribute to a pK of zero if you employ proper tactics as a target.

 

"Used appropriately" is a subjective phrase as is "proper tactics". I use them with nearly perfect effectivity on fighters 10-20km from me head on, with the sky as background, they rarely get spoofed by chaff.

[Dudikoff]

Can you cite any sources for that? The seeker on the R73 and R27T/ET isn't the same. I get head on locks with ETs from up to 40km away in DCS, although I can't comment for real life. Is there any source that makes your 3-4km range claim valid?

 

I've read on various forums that they're the same, but can't find the official data on the R-73 seeker right now. Best I could find ATM was the below link which specifies the same seeker being used on the R-27TE and R-73.

 

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

 

There are also acquisition ranges specified there (e.g. up to about 15 km max), albeit with no reference of the weather conditions or target size or aspect so they're not really useful.

 

I didn't make an absolute claim of the lock on range, but a guess based on the above number (please note that I intentionally wrote unspecified head-on fighter target and weather conditions meaning non-ideal), the mere point being to show the absurdity of the posted "doctrine" of waiting for an IR shot first.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Boberro]

No' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Exactly.

I've also read some Su-27s (don't know if all) had possibility to set timer for auto fire. It would fire missiles in time interval.

I think that also confirms general doctrine to use many missiles against single target, thus overall thoughts about own missiles.

 

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.

 

So we should make ER better \ worse just to make better tactics, I mean force people to run against missile which in reality would be just like mosquito?

That would make DCS further from realism than now.

Pilots have to get new way of dealing with it.

[*Rage*]

I mean force people to run against missile which in reality would be just like mosquito? That would make DCS further from realism than now.

 

In reality just like mosquito? Source? Ethiopia again?......

[Frostie]

I don't claim it is reliable or unreliable based on a GAME.

So what you are really trying to say is that the R27 should be nerfed so much so that it is a useless choice at anything over 10km (a'la current version) based on a personal belief that they are just as useless in the real world.

Sounds more like an anti Rus hardware attitude to me because you base it on pretty much next to nothing.

 

USAF exchange pilots (Luftwaffe) believed the R27 was a very good missile, I'd take that opinion over yours any day.

 

The problem in DCS is probably not the missiles themselves but EDs tinkering with chaff effectiveness that they love to do. The fact it ruins the point of BVR is lost on them possibly due to the lack of actual serious combat they may do.

 

FC2 had it close, BVR tactics was a real thing unlike now, since the missile AFM the only time we've been back on track is hotfix 3. And i'm not just talking R27ER, it's all missiles SARH, ARH and IR have drastically poor performance against countermeasures which degenerates this sim down to what is bordering on a one man band arcade shooter where one guy can easily survive against many, if anyone knows anything they should know that this never happens in the real world.

[GGTharos]

There's no tinkering that I know of. These changes are most likely bugs.

[Breakshot]

Cool discussion chaps, but the main questions that really need answering are the following:

 

Who is responsible for missile and CM effectiveness testing, making adjustments etc.?

 

What were the parameters changed from the previous patch?

 

Why were they changed and what is the logic behind it, especially if things for radar missiles looked pretty good in previous patch? Why backtrack again?

 

Why on earth was the change NOT Logged, and who is the scrappy tester that failed to report this in the log? -- for any software developer this would be a cardinal sin.

 

Everything else is just an opinionated fanboy discussion, IMO.

[rrohde]

It seems as if this recent 1.5.1 patch introduced a lot of regressions overall for some reason...

[Capn kamikaze]

But we knew that already anyways since theyre baseless.

 

Manufacturing support by speaking for others is the hallmark of a failed arguement.

[IASGATG]

 

USAF exchange pilots (Luftwaffe) believed the R27 was a very good missile, I'd take that opinion over yours any day.

 

Where as Polish MiG-29 pilots I've spoken to said it's a terrible missile and they hate using it.

 

Just like USAF exchange pilots have said that the EOS in the MiG-29 is useless, yet the Indians say it's amazing.

 

Hmmmmm... It's almost like everyone on the planet is biased...

[Capn kamikaze]

USAF exchange pilots (Luftwaffe) believed the R27 was a very good missile, I'd take that opinion over yours any day.

 

Which pilots, and compared to what?

 

I'm not anti-anything, except turning a high quality sim into a game to just keep people happy.

[*Rage*]

Which pilots, and compared to what?

 

I'm not anti-anything, except turning a high quality sim into a game to just keep people happy.

 

lol. Because hotfix 3 ruined it into a game but its a high quality sim now that SARH and IR are entirely useless.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ///Rage

[rrohde]

I'm not anti-anything' date=' except turning a high quality sim into a game to just keep people happy.[/quote']

 

I hope that will never, ever happen. This is not e-sport, nor MWO, nor DOTA 2, etc... :doh:

[Frostie]

Where as Polish MiG-29 pilots I've spoken to said it's a terrible missile and they hate using it.

 

Just like USAF exchange pilots have said that the EOS in the MiG-29 is useless, yet the Indians say it's amazing.

 

Hmmmmm... It's almost like everyone on the planet is biased...

Probably because Polish pilots use R-27r-1 export, also Mig-29 use the much older OLS-29 compared to Indian Flankers using OLS-30.