MiG-29S EOS flying at 4000m not detecting F-15 that's straight hot and very low

[D4n]

There is no such thing :)

 

The warhead is the same on all R-27 versions and is detonated either by the proximity fuze(radar) or by impact fuze.

 

That's what Vympel wants us to believe... of course they use a proximity fuze (triggering after target specific large image gets smaller again), else the whole missile would be waste of money...

[SinusoidDelta]

Good test Darkfire, unless the variable LifeTime inside the missile_data.lua is set to 60, the ER missile should hit the target, you had lock all the time until 13:14, but the missile was fubar anyway. And if you notice you launched the missile at 52.5 km away, and even coming from above the missile could not reach 40 kms with a good speed!

 

The missile lifetime should be set to 60 in order to be realistic. Unless I'm misunderstanding. Also, don't compare this to DarkFire's Aim-120C test. The 120C was not guided and thus is not a valid comparison.

 

The first ER was subsonic 5nm off the target's nose and thus could not maneuver. That is a result of the guidance commanding the missile to maneuver immediately after leaving the rail and is the same behavior you'll see with a guided 120C and the rest of DarkFire's ER/ET tests.

 

I graphed the missile flyout and attached the excel. The main thing I notice is the ET's higher drag in comparison to the ER. I think this is what GG predicted. In either case I see no reason to complain about the R-27's max speed. Its actually higher than I expected for a launch from 32 kft. The concern illustrated here is the effect of guidance on missile downrange distance. GG has said ED is aware of this and working on a solution.

 

In hindsight graphing Mach/Alt over downrange distance would have made a much better illustration. I'm too lazy at the moment. Perhaps someone else can look into it? :music_whistling:

 

DCS Missile Performance Graph.zip

Edited July 8, 2016 by SinusoidDelta

[DarkFire]

Good test Darkfire, unless the variable LifeTime inside the missile_data.lua is set to 60, the ER missile should hit the target, you had lock all the time until 13:14, but the missile was fubar anyway. And if you notice you launched the missile at 52.5 km away, and even coming from above the missile could not reach 40 kms with a good speed!

 

Thanks. I did wonder actually whether the missile had lost lock. By the time it was supposed to hit I was going so fast and so high over the target that I wondered if the target had gone outside the maximum deflection angle of the radar. I don't think it did, and as you say I think the missile just didn't have quite enough energy to reach the target.

[Ktulu2]

That's what Vympel wants us to believe... of course they use a proximity fuze (triggering after target specific large image gets smaller again), else the whole missile would be waste of money...

 

What!?

not too sure what to think about this. Never heard of that kind of prox. fuzing.

If you're talking about the ET, than each time the missile would go upwards towards the sun it would proxymity fuze...

Or do you think they wasted space and increased the missile's drag and weight to add a camera inside it for other than R-27XT? Seems VERY counter-effective given they have a radar that can be much more accruate and harder to CCM.

Also, if the image gets smaller, that means that :

A) the missile is off course and it would prox. fuze instead of correcting its trajectory.

B)The missile somehow got close to its target, did a 180° like it was in wanted and it's seeker is now able to see its getting further AND does all of that fast enough to still be in acceptable range!?

 

radar/IR is much better

 

Also, saying ''that's what they want us to believe'' is quite a poor argument, given we could just stop playing sims as they could never be accruate.

[JunMcKill]

The first ER was subsonic 5nm off the target's nose and thus could not maneuver. That is a result of the guidance commanding the missile to maneuver immediately after leaving the rail and is the same behavior you'll see with a guided 120C and the rest of DarkFire's ER/ET tests.

 

Yes GG told that ED was working in the guidance, because is someone tell me that this is the real ER flight model, I will think again as I posted before, that russian scientists are dumb! and those working in the military the worst!! :chair:

[SinusoidDelta]

Yes GG told that ED was working in the guidance, because is someone tell me that this is the real ER flight model, I will think again as I posted before, that russian scientists are dumb! and those working in the military the worst!! :chair:

 

???

 

You realize I'm strengthening your complaint, right? Missile performance is wrong for all missiles regardless of the country they were developed in. And as I've said before on this forum, I have no idea what the actual argument is here.

[JunMcKill]

???

 

You realize I'm strengthening your complaint, right? Missile performance is wrong for all missiles regardless of the country they were developed in. And as I've said before on this forum, I have no idea what the actual argument is here.

 

I know, my post was a joke mate!

[Sweep]

I have no idea what the actual argument is here.

 

It went from "how did this happen" to "lets blame everything except the meatbag in the cockpit"

 

Oh, yeah, then it derailed a billion times.... :doh:

[DarkFire]

In hindsight graphing Mach/Alt over downrange distance would have made a much better illustration. I'm too lazy at the moment. Perhaps someone else can look into it? :music_whistling:

 

Great work! The mach no. & altitude vs. distance graph looks like this (for the R-27ER):

 

 

Frankly the graph looks crap and I can't get the range to work properly on the X-axis though. Some times Excel makes me want to smash things. With a GIANT F***ING HAMMER :mad: :chair:

[TAW_Blaze]

OK, I did two further possibly more representative tests, one using the R-27ER (x2, and 2xR-73, and cannon fire, let's not go there ) and the second using the R-27ET.

 

For both tests I was at 10,000m altitude approaching head-on to a KC-135 which was at 1,500m altitude and 650 Km/h TAS. In each case I was up at 10,000m and had been accelerating in maximum AB for some minutes.

 

For the R-27ER test, I launched at a range of 52.2 Km. My speed was 2,380 Km/h = M2.2. The missile immediately performed a 9.1G push-over and descended towards the target. It bled off so much speed that it eventually kinematically failed to reach the target, falling short by maybe 20m or so and passing under the target. Close enough to be considered representative of a successful missile flight path. The missile reached a maximum speed of 5,086 Km/h = M4.63 at 8,686m ASL.

 

For the R-27ET test, I launched at a range of 34.2 Km. It should be noted that it was only at this point that the missile seeker acquired the target and in terms of range this was close to being a launch at Rtr. At the time of launch I was at 2,225 Km/h = M2.06. In this case the missile immediately performed a 12G push-over and again descended towards the target which was subsequently directly hit. The missile reached a maximum speed of 4,665 Km/h = M4.30 at 9,548m ASL.

 

For anyone wanting to plot the missile flight profiles, the ACMI files are attached.

 

I don't have the time to watch ACMIs but did you happen to be level when you fired? Target being far below you would explain the pushovers.

[DarkFire]

I don't have the time to watch ACMIs but did you happen to be level when you fired? Target being far below you would explain the pushovers.

 

Indeed I was. Altitude hold mode at 10,000m and the KC-135 was at 1,500m. I can understand why the missiles would perform a push-over if they simply use PN to head towards their targets, but I'm sure that the engineers who program the missile flight guidance at both Vympel and Ratheon are much cleverer than that. For this scenario I'd expect some sort of energy-conserving level flight phase in order to maximise missile energy for terminal approach.

 

*looks back at page 1* this thread's gone so far off topic I'll have to dig my Land Rover out of the garage! :lol:

[GGTharos]

Indeed I was. Altitude hold mode at 10,000m and the KC-135 was at 1,500m.

 

So a choice of shot (high to low), which can't be compared to anything published. :D

 

I can understand why the missiles would perform a push-over if they simply use PN to head towards their targets, but I'm sure that the engineers who program the missile flight guidance at both Vympel and Ratheon are much cleverer than that. For this scenario I'd expect some sort of energy-conserving level flight phase in order to maximise missile energy for terminal approach.

 

According to published material R-27's are PN all the way. I don't recall where they were presented, and searching the Russian side of the forum isn't that easy for me.

[red_coreSix]

According to published material R-27's are PN all the way. I don't recall where they were presented, and searching the Russian side of the forum isn't that easy for me.

 

Simple LOS-rate based PN? I highly doubt that. They surely used some more advanced form of PN, such as APN...

Edited July 9, 2016 by red_coreSix

[JunMcKill]

Simple LOS-rate rate based PN? I highly doubt that. They surely used some more advanced form of PN, such as APN...

 

Agree, and what happened in the ACMI posted by DarkFire is far from any PN or APN logic

 

http://trajectorysolution.com/HomingGuidance.html

[GGTharos]

I didn't say anything about the type of PN.

 

Simple LOS-rate based PN? I highly doubt that. They surely used some more advanced form of PN, such as APN...

[TAW_Blaze]

Indeed I was. Altitude hold mode at 10,000m and the KC-135 was at 1,500m. I can understand why the missiles would perform a push-over if they simply use PN to head towards their targets, but I'm sure that the engineers who program the missile flight guidance at both Vympel and Ratheon are much cleverer than that. For this scenario I'd expect some sort of energy-conserving level flight phase in order to maximise missile energy for terminal approach.

 

*looks back at page 1* this thread's gone so far off topic I'll have to dig my Land Rover out of the garage!

 

How about you reprogram yourself and fire at optimal parameters? :) Guidance is shit but if you purposely troll your missile with bad launch angles then your complaint is kind of invalid.

[JunMcKill]

How about you reprogram yourself and fire at optimal parameters? :) Guidance is shit but if you purposely troll your missile with bad launch angles then your complaint is kind of invalid.

 

The problem is not the optimal fire parameters, it's the missile guidance and behavior. I have been flying in DCS for years, and I can tell you the use of ER is only to keep the enemy away and put him in defensive mode, all SU-27 and russian aircraft pilots in DCS, know for sure that all launched ER is a wasted missile. The only opportunities of kill with the ER is at close range, the best russian are now the ET and 73. Look at statictics in previous red flags, joint warriors, etc and you will see:

 

1. AIM-120C

2. AIM-120B

3. R-27ET

4. AIM-9M

5. R-73

6. R-77

7. R-27ER

[TAW_Blaze]

The problem is not the optimal fire parameters, it's the missile guidance and behavior. I have been flying in DCS for years, and I can tell you the use of ER is only to keep the enemy away and put him in defensive mode, all SU-27 and russian aircraft pilots in DCS, know for sure that all launched ER is a wasted missile. The only opportunities of kill with the ER is at close range, the best russian are now the ET and 73. Look at statictics in previous red flags, joint warriors, etc and you will see:

 

1. AIM-120C

2. AIM-120B

3. R-27ET

4. AIM-9M

5. R-73

6. R-77

7. R-27ER

 

Did you just not read what I said? He was saying how the missile fell short because of kinematics. That's ridiculous considering he didn't even bother to properly line up the target at launch. You can't just pretend guidance is shit based on things that only prove pilot incompetence. If you don't even bother to line up the target then you shouldn't even be really expecting hits.

 

We get it that guidance sucks but you'd better make sure you're doing your best on your end while trying to prove that. If all ED sees is some guy having no clue about how to use a weapon then complain about things they probably won't even bother to care.

 

Again I'm not saying guidance is flawless in fact it's quite the opposite but that doesn't mean you can automatically blame everything on it.

[DarkFire]

How about you reprogram yourself and fire at optimal parameters? :) Guidance is shit but if you purposely troll your missile with bad launch angles then your complaint is kind of invalid.

 

At the point I launched the first R-27ER the KC-135 was at most 5 degrees to port from my velocity vector. I'd hardly call that a terribad launch angle :huh:

 

I was well aware that the target was a big fat tanker that wouldn't even react to being launched upon. Obviously had the target been a fighter then launching at a hairs breadth under Rmax from a vastly higher altitude and then ploughing onward in a straight line at M2.2 instead of F-poling or cranking would have been wasteful and probably suicidal against any half competent opponent, but really that wasn't the point of the test.

 

Really the only point of the test was to see what sort of profile the missile would follow when launched from comparatively long range and high speed against an actual target as opposed to free launched as in the first test I did. If as GG said the R-27 missiles use some form of PN for guidance then so be it, I just wanted to see what it would do... :)

[JunMcKill]

At the point I launched the first R-27ER the KC-135 was at most 5 degrees to port from my velocity vector. I'd hardly call that a terribad launch angle :huh:

 

I was well aware that the target was a big fat tanker that wouldn't even react to being launched upon. Obviously had the target been a fighter then launching at a hairs breadth under Rmax from a vastly higher altitude and then ploughing onward in a straight line at M2.2 instead of F-poling or cranking would have been wasteful and probably suicidal against any half competent opponent, but really that wasn't the point of the test.

 

Really the only point of the test was to see what sort of profile the missile would follow when launched from comparatively long range and high speed against an actual target as opposed to free launched as in the first test I did. If as GG said the R-27 missiles use some form of PN for guidance then so be it, I just wanted to see what it would do... :)

 

 

Your launch was perfect in the angle, speed, distance and height, any dumb missile should shot down a big fat plane in these conditions!

[Weta43]

Did you just not read what I said? ... You can't just pretend guidance is shit based on things that only prove pilot incompetence...

 

He probably did :

 

... :) Guidance is shit but ...

 

There's no real argument to be had here.

People are complaining that the current implementation of missile guidance bleeds more energy than it should.

E.D. have said they're not happy with the guidance, and that it's on their 'to-do' list

 

...There's only one (major) fix for all this and that's guidance..

They are working on it, it just takes time. IIRC Wags mentioned there was a resource assigned to look at missile guidance in general (not just AAMs).

Edited July 9, 2016 by Weta43

[TAW_Blaze]

At the point I launched the first R-27ER the KC-135 was at most 5 degrees to port from my velocity vector. I'd hardly call that a terribad launch angle :huh:

 

I was well aware that the target was a big fat tanker that wouldn't even react to being launched upon. Obviously had the target been a fighter then launching at a hairs breadth under Rmax from a vastly higher altitude and then ploughing onward in a straight line at M2.2 instead of F-poling or cranking would have been wasteful and probably suicidal against any half competent opponent, but really that wasn't the point of the test.

 

Really the only point of the test was to see what sort of profile the missile would follow when launched from comparatively long range and high speed against an actual target as opposed to free launched as in the first test I did. If as GG said the R-27 missiles use some form of PN for guidance then so be it, I just wanted to see what it would do... :)

 

I see. But what about the azimuth angle between you and the target? Since you said you were flying level I assumed you had a rather big angle (20-30 degrees possibly) which could easily cause a pushover like you described.

 

EDIT: I obviously meant ELEVATION fml I wasn't paying attention to what I was typing

Edited July 11, 2016 by <Blaze>

[JunMcKill]

I see. But what about the azimuth angle between you and the target? Since you said you were flying level I assumed you had a rather big angle (20-30 degrees possibly) which could easily cause a pushover like you described.

 

EDIT: I obviously meant ELEVATION fml I wasn't paying attention to what I was typing

 

Watch this video from 36:50, is very similar to Darkfire shot, the F-15 were at 35,000 feet full military and the MIG-23 at 1,000 feet close to deck, and was a perfect shot! three MIGs down!

 

[DarkFire]

I see. But what about the azimuth angle between you and the target? Since you said you were flying level I assumed you had a rather big angle (20-30 degrees possibly) which could easily cause a pushover like you described.

 

EDIT: I obviously meant ELEVATION fml I wasn't paying attention to what I was typing

 

Ah, yes that was indeed the case. I was up at 10,000m and the target was down at 1,500 so the down angle was significant. In fact it became so extreme due to the fact that I ploughed onward at M2.2 that I wondered if the first missile missed due to the target going beyond the radar gimbal limit.

 

Based on what I know now, i.e. that the R-27 missiles use what appears to be a rather simple PN form of navigation, I likely wouldn't have launched at anything like that altitude difference, and of course for a more successful launch would probably have fired at just under Rtr instead of at just under Rmax.

 

For some reason I assumed that the extra altitude would have been beneficial in terms of energy conservation for the missile, but it appears that due to the navigation behaviour of the missile that the opposite is in fact the case. I might try the test again actually under more reasonable conditions...

[TAW_Blaze]

Watch this video from 36:50, is very similar to Darkfire shot, the F-15 were at 35,000 feet full military and the MIG-23 at 1,000 feet close to deck, and was a perfect shot! three MIGs down!

 

This is only good at long range shots where cruising at high altitude will significantly boost missile range, however because of guidance issues it doesn't work in the game at all.

 

Do this close to medium range and your missile will either lose the target or have a god awful terminal angle.

 

Ah, yes that was indeed the case. I was up at 10,000m and the target was down at 1,500 so the down angle was significant. In fact it became so extreme due to the fact that I ploughed onward at M2.2 that I wondered if the first missile missed due to the target going beyond the radar gimbal limit.

 

Well since you fired at like 60 km it's possible the angle was not as big as I thought before but I'd say you're better off trying to put your nose down and making sure the missile is going to start flying towards the target because if not it'll just immediately waste a lot of energy doing exactly that. This is especially important at normal DCS ranges because at that your missile will dump so much energy it'll actually never hit the target.

 

or some reason I assumed that the extra altitude would have been beneficial in terms of energy conservation for the missile, but it appears that due to the navigation behaviour of the missile that the opposite is in fact the case. I might try the test again actually under more reasonable conditions...

 

It's all a matter of understanding the guidance behind, I haven't flown for a while but I'm pretty sure not even the 120 can loft in any form of reasonable profile.