Su-27 'flanker' actually means evade incoming F-15C all the time?

[rrohde]

First of all, the oldest Flanker that could carry the R-77 should be the SM version; I believe that it does not have any substantial reworking, basically should be the same SU-27S we have in DCS with an improved Radar with the ability to employ the R-77.

 

See? Now all we need is a small update by ED to keep our Su-27 a tad more up-to-date. ED should really adopt a more modular approach that allows them to plug in desired components into their existing modules that step them up to an improved variant (without having the reinvent the wheel), that is still based on reality. I'd gladly pay for that . :thumbup:

Edited November 20, 2015 by rrohde

[*Rage*]

I'm not saying ED has it right' date=' I'm saying there seem to be a lot of people here who want it to be a perfect missile that will never ever miss, and even though it has no active seeker it should act like it does.[/quote']

 

More nonsense. No one (least not I) wants the ER to be perfect or have an active seeker. Do you realise what you're typing?

[Darkwolf]

Please gentlemans, lets keep it polite. :) they is nothing more ridiculous than R3R ~85% pk anyway :P

[Capn kamikaze]

Do you realise what you're typing?

 

Do you? because that's how you're coming across.

[TheFurNinja]

I'm getting pretty tired of people pretending (wishing) that the R-27 is anywhere near as capable as the AIM-120, range is not the only thing...

 

Yes, you are confused, the AIM-120 has active terminal guidance the R-27 doesn't, if you break the lock of the R-27 for even a few seconds your chances go up of defeating it, especially if you manoeuvre out of its guiding radar's beam path seperating the R-27's FOV from the beam guiding it, and if it doesn't get an update or you've left that bit of sky that it can see then it will miss, the AIM-120 will go to its predicted intercept point based on its last update, then goes active, all in all that is a huge advantage.

The point is that a Su-27 can fire, but a F-15 cannot. Having no ability to fire equals 0% chance of killing.

 

As we all know that dogfight theory doesn't always follow through, and that the ER has a pretty pathetic hit rate at its Rmax. This makes situations where the F-15 can launch his higher hit rate AIM-120s.

 

This still doesn't change the fact that the F-15 has to risk his life and plane to get that close (which your life isn't quite that meaningful in sim).

 

From personal experience (I cant speak for everyone) in both 1.2 and 1.5 is that firing a pair of ERs close to Rmax ends up with a dead eagle before he even gets a chance to fire. Most of the time where I die is where I am surprised at moderate to short range with AIM-120s or AIM-9s and I cannot dodge them.

 

But aside from that...

 

Cant you just out maneuver a missile that is using termnial active guidance? By just moving out of the way?

 

I mean really if anybody is losing lock in combat you can almost assume that their missile has been trashed. Su-27 or F-15 no different in that respect.

 

Su-27 loses lock: trashed missile

F-15 loses lock: can terminally active guide but you can just change paths and its trashed yet again.

 

Please gentlemans, lets keep it polite. they is nothing more ridiculous than R3R ~85% pk anyway

:lol:
Edited November 20, 2015 by TheFurNinja

[*Rage*]

they is nothing more ridiculous than R3R ~85% pk anyway :P

 

I'm genuinely scared when in missile range of a Mig21 :)

[ShuRugal]

I'm not saying ED has it right' date=' I'm saying there seem to be a lot of people here who want it to be a perfect missile that will never ever miss, and even though it has no active seeker it should act like it does.[/quote']

 

 

That's a rather ridiculous assertion: No one is saying they expect the R-27 to be 100% effective. A great many people, however, are upset that the current iteration of seeker guidance has SARH missiles going dumb 100% of the time when launch range exceeds 15km.

 

Depending on what source you choose to believe is most accurate, the R-27ER has an effective employment range of anywhere between 60 and 120km. Your favourite source has the following to say:

R-27ER AA-10 Alamo-C, the semi-active-radar homing extended-range version. Missile can be used at 20 to 27000 meters altitude. Effective kill range for a target at same altitude: 2 to 65.5 km head-on, 0.7 to 16.5 km tail-on. Missile cannot be fired at altitude less than 3 km againist a target with background earth, if launch range is less than 6 kilometers. Maximum range: 117 km. Maximum allowed vertical separation: 12 km.[3]

 

However, your continued argument in support of the current implementation of missile guidance suggests that you believe that the missile should have a useful range that is 1/5 of what published literature states is its effective range, and 1/9 of its published maximum range.

 

On multiple occasions, you have posted that because people are arguing in favor of increasing the R-27 family performance to match published performance figures, that we are not truly interested in simulation, and only want "balance with the F-15". Based on your insistence, in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence, that the R-27 should be a worthless PoS, I believe that I would not be alone in saying that you give off the appearance of a certain piece of kitchenware making disparaging comments regarding the observed hue of another piece of kitchenware.

[Alfa]

 

Yes, you are confused, the AIM-120 has active terminal guidance the R-27 doesn't, if you break the lock of the R-27 for even a few seconds your chances go up of defeating it, especially if you manoeuvre out of its guiding radar's beam path seperating the R-27's FOV from the beam guiding it, and if it doesn't get an update or you've left that bit of sky that it can see then it will miss, the AIM-120 will go to its predicted intercept point based on its last update, then goes active, all in all that is a huge advantage.

 

I think you are confused as well - the R-27R/ER is not guided by the aircraft radar beam(beam riding), but by its onboard INS(inertial navigation system) using proportional navigation - updates are transmitted from aircraft radar to missile INS via datalink(radio correction) - i.e. same as with the AIM-120.

 

But at terminal stage the SARH seeker is homing in on the target via the aircraft radar's reflected energy, so if it breaks lock, the seeker has nothing to home on.

[Capn kamikaze]

I think you are confused as well - the R-27R/ER is not guided by the aircraft radar beam(beam riding), but by its onboard INS(inertial navigation system) using proportional navigation - updates are transmitted from aircraft radar to missile INS via datalink(radio correction) - i.e. same as with the AIM-120.

 

But at terminal stage the SARH seeker is homing in on the target via the aircraft radar's reflected energy, so if it breaks lock, the seeker has nothing to home on.

 

I didn't say it was beam riding, I was trying to explain how the beam of the radar will be pointed at the target, but the missiles FOV can move out of seeing that, if the radar starts to look at chaff and the lock transfers to that then the actual target can move outside the seekers field of view, and cause a miss, the datalink is also dependent on the radar looking at the right target, if it sends data that says to go to the chaff because it has locked on to that, then that will send the missile off track aswell.

[Capn kamikaze]

That's a rather ridiculous assertion: No one is saying they expect the R-27 to be 100% effective. A great many people, however, are upset that the current iteration of seeker guidance has SARH missiles going dumb 100% of the time when launch range exceeds 15km.

 

Depending on what source you choose to believe is most accurate, the R-27ER has an effective employment range of anywhere between 60 and 120km. Your favourite source has the following to say:

 

Those figures will be max kinematic range, the ability of a seeker that small to see the returns of a fighter size target at 120Km, so a data link is used, so if the radar starts to track chaff rather than the target then the data link will tell it to go to the chaff.

 

However, your continued argument in support of the current implementation of missile guidance suggests that you believe that the missile should have a useful range that is 1/5 of what published literature states is its effective range, and 1/9 of its published maximum range.

Again, the published literature is talking about kinematic range, no I don't support it, I just don't support the clear desire that some people are showing to turn it into a super-missile that they expect to perform on par with an active radar missile.

 

On multiple occasions, you have posted that because people are arguing in favor of increasing the R-27 family performance to match published performance figures, that we are not truly interested in simulation, and only want "balance with the F-15". Based on your insistence, in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence, that the R-27 should be a worthless PoS, I believe that I would not be alone in saying that you give off the appearance of a certain piece of kitchenware making disparaging comments regarding the observed hue of another piece of kitchenware.

What evidence, all I've seen is kinematic ranges mentioned, no one has actually given any data about its seeker performance, probably because there is no publicly available data for it, so they give the flight range instead.

 

The R-27 is not a PoS, but it is not in the same class in reality as missiles like the AIM-120, a missile a couple of decades more advanced than it.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Cap'n kamikaze

[ShuRugal]

Those figures will be max kinematic range' date=' the ability of a seeker that small to see the returns of a fighter size target at 120Km, so a data link is used, so if the radar starts to track chaff rather than the target then the data link will tell it to go to the chaff.[/quote']

 

Again, the published literature is talking about kinematic range, no I don't support it.

 

What evidence, all I've seen is kinematic ranges mentioned.

 

Your reading comprehension requires improvement:

 

"Effective kill range for a target at same altitude: 2 to 65.5 km head-on"

 

This one is not kinematic range.

 

"Maximum range: 117 km"

 

This one is kinematic range.

 

 

 

Also, from your same highly-valued source:

Operational

range

• AIM-120A/B: 55–75 km (30–40 nmi)[3][4]

• AIM-120C-5: >105 km (>57 nmi)[5]

 

So, if we apply the rule of 1/9 maximum kinematic range == actual combat usefulness range, then the in-game 120B should have a maximum effective range of 6-8km, and the 120C should have a maximum effective range of 12km.

 

 

The R-27 is not a PoS, but it is not in the same class in reality as missiles like the AIM-120, a missile a couple of decades more advanced than it.

 

Sure thing bub, whatever you say. Not at all fanboying here, are you?

[Darkwolf]

Excuse me again, but can we stop shooting at Wikipedia ?

 

 

1/ If you think you know better, why not improve it ? :music_whistling:

 

2/ Absolutely agree that it has not the best technical facts, but it's still something awesome to learn a lot of stuff. :thumbup:

[Capn kamikaze]

Depending on what source you choose to believe is most accurate, the R-27ER has an effective employment range of anywhere between 60 and 120km.

 

YOU said between 60 and 120Km effective!

 

Shooting at 120 will not be effective, so make your mind up.

 

It is you who needs to learn to read, and yes, if you think you can improve the wiki why haven't you?

 

How about this for a source on the R-27...

 

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

[ShuRugal]

Excuse me again, but can we stop shooting at Wikipedia ? :thumbup:

 

I'm only using it because kamikaze insists. If it's a good enough source for him to quote, he can bloody well accept it back.

 

 

 

YOU said between 60 and 120Km effective!

 

Yes, i did. And then I supported the claim with a source that you find perfectly adequate for supporting your own claims.

 

Shooting at 120 will not be effective, so make your mind up.

 

My mind, position, and arguments have not changed the entire course of this discussion. Also, source?

 

 

It is you who needs to learn to read

 

Is that so? could you please enlighten me as to which piece of literature i have incorrectly understood?

 

and yes, if you think you can improve the wiki why haven't you?

 

I never said any such thing. Wiki is a perfectly good source for you, so I'm using it as well.

 

 

How about this for a source on the R-27...

 

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

 

I linked you that source. Twice. Over a week ago. Glad you finally got around to reading it.

 

Did you get to the bit where the author concluded that western military planning has not made sufficient allowance for russian tactics, and that if russian tactics in an air war were applied to australia, they would get run over flat?

[Santi871]

I'm only using it because kamikaze insists. If it's a good enough source for him to quote, he can bloody well accept it back.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, i did. And then I supported the claim with a source that you find perfectly adequate for supporting your own claims.

 

 

 

My mind, position, and arguments have not changed the entire course of this discussion. Also, source?

 

 

 

 

Is that so? could you please enlighten me as to which piece of literature i have incorrectly understood?

 

 

 

I never said any such thing. Wiki is a perfectly good source for you, so I'm using it as well.

 

 

 

 

I linked you that source. Twice. Over a week ago. Glad you finally got around to reading it.

 

Did you get to the bit where the author concluded that western military planning has not made sufficient allowance for russian tactics, and that if russian tactics in an air war were applied to australia, they would get run over flat?

 

I can tell you from experience arguing against cpt kamikaze is a waste of time ;)

[Exorcet]

Just to add a point to the whole Ethiopian War thing that I have not seen brought up, probabilities are measures of uncertainty and can have little meaning without error bars.

 

Ignoring everything except the claim 1/24 Pk, what do we know about the ER Pk?

 

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=96

 

https://www.easycalculation.com/statistics/standard-deviation.php

 

Mean = 1/24

Sample = 24

sigma = Mean of (Mean-test value)^2

 

If we want to risk being wrong about ER Pk by 10%, we can say it is between 2% and 11%. However the data is still consistent with say 99% Pk.

 

95% confidence is the most common one I tend to see used. In that case the ER Pk based on the EW is between 4% and 13%, but it can still be more, it's just unlikely.

 

Now those numbers apply only to the EW. Different factors could change the Pk. A sample of 24 is quite small. Even if we increased the number of missiles fired by 100 times, to 2400 missiles, the Pk still sits between 3.3% and 4.9% at 95% confidence.

[ShuRugal]

I can tell you from experience arguing against cpt kamikaze is a waste of time ;)

 

yes, but i'm bored.

[Sweep]

YOU said between 60 and 120Km effective!

 

Shooting at 120 will not be effective, so make your mind up.

 

It is you who needs to learn to read, and yes, if you think you can improve the wiki why haven't you?

 

How about this for a source on the R-27...

 

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

 

No offense meant here...but APA as a source for R-27 ranges? :music_whistling: :D

[Capn kamikaze]

No offense meant here...but APA as a source for R-27 ranges? :music_whistling: :D

 

Actually I posted it for people to have a read of the technology, and the way the Russians intended the missiles to be used, eg several at once as a mix of Radar and IR, and guess what, it works.

 

Thankyou to Exorcet.

[Capn kamikaze]

My mind, position, and arguments have not changed the entire course of this discussion. Also, source?

 

Your own post.

 

First you say it has an effective range of 120Km, then you say its max range is less than that, and its effective range is only 62.5, that makes 120 a bit of a stretch.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Cap'n kamikaze

[Capn kamikaze]

Did you get to the bit where the author concluded that western military planning has not made sufficient allowance for russian tactics, and that if russian tactics in an air war were applied to australia, they would get run over flat?

 

... and I suggested the exact same tactics he did, multiple missiles of a radar/IR mix, and it works.

 

Against an opponent with the AIM-120 it is difficult, but it is possible, but not if you only fire one.

[Alfa]

Those figures will be max kinematic range, the ability of a seeker that small to see the returns of a fighter size target at 120Km, so a data link is used, so if the radar starts to track chaff rather than the target then the data link will tell it to go to the chaff.

 

An aircraft radar tracking a target at 100+ kilometer range is not going to be fooled by chaff :) . But if it was, it would also affect an ARH weapon since it is guided to terminal stage in the same way.

 

Again, the published literature is talking about kinematic range, no I don't support it

 

No its maximum engagement ranges(some 60 km versus a fighter type of target and up to 100 km against non-manouverable targets). But its for optimal launch conditions, so in most cases it would be considerably less.

 

I just don't support the clear desire that some people are showing to turn it into a super-missile that they expect to perform on par with an active radar missile.

 

Well its not really just about being ARH(some ARH seekers actually have an additional SARH mode for increased acquisition range) - the AIM-120(and R-77 for that matter) are simply more agile and newer tech across the board, so I agree that the R-27R/ER isn't on par. But then, as far as I can gather, "people" are questioning the game performance of the R-27R/ER itself, rather than expecting it to be on par with the AIM-120.

 

What evidence, all I've seen is kinematic ranges mentioned, no one has actually given any data about its seeker performance, probably because there is no publicly available data for it, so they give the flight range instead.

 

The seeker is the 9B-1101K made by AGAT - IIRC the published range performance is some 20 km against a target with an RCS of 5m2.

[Capn kamikaze]

Well its not really just about being ARH(some ARH seekers actually have an additional SARH mode for increased acquisition range) - the AIM-120(and R-77 for that matter) are simply more agile and newer tech across the board, so I agree that the R-27R/ER isn't on par. But then, as far as I can gather, "people" are questioning the game performance of the R-27R/ER itself, rather than expecting it to be on par with the AIM-120.

 

Yet every complaint I've seen has been about not being able to succeed against AIM-120 armed opponents.

[ShuRugal]

Your own post.

 

First you say it has an effective range of 120Km, then you say its max range is less than that, and its effective range is only 62.5, that makes 120 a bit of a stretch.

 

Depending on what source you choose to believe is most accurate, the R-27ER has an effective employment range of anywhere between 60 and 120km. Your favourite source has the following to say:

 

Since your ability to understand compound sentence structure is clearly lacking, let me break this down for you into simple, declarative sentences:

 

1) There are multiple sources of information on R-27 performance

2) Some of these sources claim effective range values as low as 60 km

3) Other sources claim effective ranges as high as 120km

4) I notice that you often use Wikipedia for your citations.

5) Wikipedia states the following information: <Block quote from Wiki follows>

 

 

Now, tell me again where I contradicted myself?

[Alfa]

1) There are multiple sources of information on R-27 performance

2) Some of these sources claim effective range values as low as 60 km

3) Other sources claim effective ranges as high as 120km

4) I notice that you often use Wikipedia for your citations.

5) Wikipedia states the following information: <Block quote from Wiki follows>

 

Manufacturer's specifications for the R-27R and -ER:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/527/