Missiles Overpreforming?

[mattebubben]

Is it just me or are the R-3S and R-3R missiles overpreforming?

 

For me the R-3S is just as reliable as the R-13M1 or the R-60M when it comes to hit chance.

 

And the R-3R is very deadly in head on fights.

 

But as they are both 1960s missiles it feels like they are preforming a bit better then they should.

 

And while that might not be as much of a problem since they are currently facing mostly more advanced aircraft that will still have a very large advantage that is about to change.

 

Since as the F-5E (aswell as the AJS-37) are on the way the Mig-21 will start to fight opponents that are closer matched.

 

And as such it will be more important that the missiles preform more realistically.

 

Since the R-3S should be very comparable to the Aim-9B while ingame the R-3S is far superior to the Aim-9B.

 

Even in MP against manuvering fighters using flares i tend to have a 60-80% hit ratio with the R-3S and that feels very much to high.

Edited February 19, 2016 by mattebubben

[probad]

and then people also say the default missiles are underperforming

 

the only qualitative assessments i trust are from people who have actually shot the real thing in real life

Edited February 19, 2016 by probad

[mattebubben]

and then people also say the default missiles are underperforming

 

the only qualitative assessments i trust are from people who have actually shot the real thing in real life

 

 

Seeing as most of the Pilot reports when it came to the R-3S are negative

and that it had a very low hit percentage in real life thats kinda what im doing...

 

Pilots reported It was not very manuverable and it was very easy to fool with flares etc.

 

The R-3S is a 1960s missile and as most 1960s missiles it had very low hit probability and was not well likes by pilots and the gun was seen as a more reliable weapon against manuvering targets.

 

In game The Gar-8 (Aim-9B) preforms like you would expect of a 1960s missile

(and is rather realistic in its abillities)

 

While the R-3S Preforms about the same as the K-13M1 wich is supposed to be a much more advanced missile (comparable with the mid 1970s Aim-9J)

 

And while the K-13M1s preformance is believable i the R-3S feels like it really should not preform like it does.

[WinterH]

Can't speak for R-3S, haven't used it for a long time. But, last I tested, R-3R was not the death ray it used to be anymore.

 

Shot head on, I've had both AI and humans ditch it fairly easy with chaff and evasive maneuvering. Earlier on, it more or less never missed indeed :).

 

Missile is shot pretty much close, and if shot in ideal parameters, (i.e. not max launch authorization range even head on) there is not much time to react so this may be contributing more to good hit ratio than we think.

 

Even though it may be the same motor and airframe as the R-3S, after all it has a different seeker, and some of the G limitations that R-3S are subject to may be due to seeker. I think if R-3R to be changed, that should be on more solid arguments than it being a 60s missile. If it can be documented to overperform I'm all for it to be fixed.

 

Again, in my experience since a few patches, it can be evaded significantly more easily than infamy it achieved in earlier versions.

 

However, I agree that R-3S should be the same as AIM-9B (GAR-8) and also R-3S in L-39 module. I know AI can shoot it head on even, but I very rarely used it so can't comment if it works too good in hands of human pilots.

 

There is though, another face of that medallion too. R-60M barely aqcuires in the rear hemisphere, it is almost rear aspect too. It doesn't feel like it matches seeker aqcuisition diagrams from it's manuals posted in forums recently, and it certainly doesn't feel like the same behaviour as ED R-60M, even shot from a Su-25. I know it is not truely a all aspect missile, and shouldn't really aqcuire fully head-on but, currently, on MiG-21, it is barely more than a rear aspect missile.

 

Edit : Oh, and while also haven't tried it in forever, RS-2US, when I tried it last time before 1.5, was most likely over performing though. Although it is very short ranged, it acted more like a SARH missile than a beam riding one, also, a very maneuvrable SARH at that. If it still performs like that, that really should change. And again, I completely agree that R-3S should absolutely, completely suck :).

Edited February 19, 2016 by WinterH

[Sweep]

and then people also say the default missiles are underperforming

 

the only qualitative assessments i trust are from people who have actually shot the real thing in real life

 

So you prefer anecdotal evidence over...anecdotal evidence?

 

Ok.

 

Edit: BTW, seems like the R-3R is slower than it once was, I remember it doing 2000kts TAS from an approx 800km/h, 10,000ft MSL, slight nose up launch a while ago.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Sweep

[King_Hrothgar]

The issue with the R-3R and R-3S is countermeasure resistance. The actual missile flight performance doesn't strike me as unreasonable (bearing in mind most DCS missiles under perform). The gimbal limits on the seeker heads maybe also be a bit generous. I haven't looked too closely, but I've seen them track in ways that are a bit suspicious.

[Tarres]

In the LN-21, the R-3S can be fired in excess of their real limit of 2G, correctly modeled in the L-39C/ZA. Same applies for the R-3R (Oficial manuals and technical manuals)

 

R-13M had a limit of 3.7G according to manuals and museums. You can fire it outside of this envelope safely in the sim. R-13M was like a AIM-9G more or less.

 

The R-55, that shares the same seeker form the R-3S, and the RS-2US (apart for be incompatible with a RP-22SM radar set and being 50´s tech) are... well... non coment...

 

In the L-39C/ZA the R-3S acts like a GAR-8, try to fire it outside the limits and the system doesn´t let you to fire the missile, or try to get a lock with the sun in front of you...

[pepin1234]

In the LN-21, the R-3S can be fired in excess of their real limit of 2G, correctly modeled in the L-39C/ZA. Same applies for the R-3R (Oficial manuals and technical manuals)

 

R-13M had a limit of 3.7G according to manuals and museums. You can fire it outside of this envelope safely in the sim. R-13M was like a AIM-9G more or less.

 

The R-55, that shares the same seeker form the R-3S, and the RS-2US (apart for be incompatible with a RP-22SM radar set and being 50´s tech) are... well... non coment...

 

In the L-39C/ZA the R-3S acts like a GAR-8, try to fire it outside the limits and the system doesn´t let you to fire the missile, or try to get a lock with the sun in front of you...

 

You are completely wrong. Because the L-39 use the same missile does not mean all the feauture should be the same with the same weapons for the Mig-21. It is a matter of wings G's load limitation for every single aircraft. The missile have a limit and the aircraft wings G's load have a limit.

 

Regarding the R-3 missiles. The RADAR version is quiet acceptable in performance. This missile have a very short LA in head on so I don't see any reason to say should be worst than current performance in this LA distance.

 

The R-3 IR version is a miss when you launch it closer than the minimum engage limit, also is a miss if the enemy go defensive maneuvers.

 

Because the F-5E is coming the Mig-21Bis should be downgraded?:D

[Tarres]

And the flight manual of the MiG-21bis and the technical manuals states that 2G/1.3G on high altitude, were the limits for the launch for the R-3S and 3.7g the limits of the R-13M.

 

Same missile, same APU launchers.

[Cobra847]

And the flight manual of the MiG-21bis and the technical manuals states that 2G/1.3G on high altitude, were the limits for the launch for the R-3S and 3.7g the limits of the R-13M.

 

Same missile, same APU launchers.

 

Your bug report was replied to about this. It is not incorrect:

 

"Real missile launch limitations are imposed in order to guarantee safe missile launch, initial missile flight and maintained lock during the initial missile trajectory.

However, there is nothing that prevents the pilot from firing the missile unless the lock is broken."

 

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.com/view.php?id=103

[Tarres]

If it's closed I can't request an explication or what are your documents to give this answer.

 

Ok. You can launch but your missile will act as a rocket, now it acts like a AIM-9X or a R-73M.

 

So, what's the point to have a R-13M or a R-13M1 or a R-60 (graphically apart) if you don't have to cope with their limitations?

 

On the other hand the bombs departs from the hardpoints at excess of xG, BUT MAGICALLY your APU launchers and associated systems can cope with parameters that excess their limits.

 

And your answer that the RS-2US saw a wide service and we don't need a safety trigger or the new radio instead of one thing that your team had simulated ok, the R-802 with the only bug being a typo (now we have a R-832 V/UHF set) or thanks to LN you don't need to cope with the limitations of a 60's nav-system (magically you've got an overmodeleded system with plenty of WP) but we don't have the possibility to use the manual mode of the RSBN that would allow us to navigate in every map without cope with Lua files, and yes I know that this mode it isn't very precise.

 

...well I hope that your next project will be better due to the fact that will be done from scratch and not based on an ancient FC mod with the limitations that it had.

 

I'm too old for this kind of answers Mr Dackard.

 

Have a nice weekend.

 

Yours sincerely,

Miquel Serrat Ripoll

[mattebubben]

You are completely wrong. Because the L-39 use the same missile does not mean all the feauture should be the same with the same weapons for the Mig-21. It is a matter of wings G's load limitation for every single aircraft. The missile have a limit and the aircraft wings G's load have a limit.

 

Regarding the R-3 missiles. The RADAR version is quiet acceptable in performance. This missile have a very short LA in head on so I don't see any reason to say should be worst than current performance in this LA distance.

 

The R-3 IR version is a miss when you launch it closer than the minimum engage limit, also is a miss if the enemy go defensive maneuvers.

 

Because the F-5E is coming the Mig-21Bis should be downgraded?:D

 

 

Well the thing with the R-3S is that i will reliably get hits (60-70% of the time) on fighter targets that are manuvering hard and pushing flares.

 

And Alot of the time im not even in a direct chase (but rather taking side shots)

 

And thats where i feel it might overpreform.

[pepin1234]

Compare The radar features of the 21 with the parameters of the hit moment. I don't believe the chaff gonna make enough jamming in this distance. We are talking about ~10 km when launch and ~6 km when hit head on. Also take in mind the Mig-21 was designed to lock/launch, because the search was made by GSI.

Edited February 20, 2016 by pepin1234

[foxbat155]

I will help you guys with this discussion a bit. Here launch zones for R-3S from original polish military manual. Data for target speed/fighter speed ratio 0,7:

 

 

I think for R-3R those graphs should look a bit better due less seeker limitations + of course front hemisphere.

[MBot]

The R-3S does not seem to be affected by launch G. Below is a launch at 4G with the missile guiding correctly and hitting the target.

[MBot]

Another pretty impressive shot for an R-3S:

-Launch at 4G

-High aspect angle

-Target releasing flares