R-27ER Experiment & Findings

[*Rage*]

+1 for this

 

I'm flying the F-15 and I rarely bring AAMRAAM's anyway.

 

In my opinion Rage is correct. ER's are very very bad. To the point it's not even funny fighting against them anymore. Cause you know you are going to make the merge 99% of the time. And the only way they kill me is because of my dam impatience and cockiness. And because i'm playing with them half the time trying to see if i can merge with AIM-7 or TWS them with AIM-9. Or sometimes i feel like practicing my gun skills and i just go for it without any fear for ER's.

 

Something needs to be done. We are losing players this way. Very good players.

 

Its good to see the message getting through.

 

ED...are you listening?!

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2996517&postcount=14

 

More ER buttery creamy goodness:megalol:

[Sweep]

Walls of text talking about nonsense Su27 tactics that are only a bandaid because it's SARH missiles are so broken. Taking 144 flares and 6 archers and flying/notching into the weeds is not realistic nor effective neither in real life nor in DCS. Not for a plane designed as a high altitude air superiority fighter.

 

If you can't identify that there is something fatally flawed in this modelling....

 

(Chaff Meme video I)

 

(Chaff Meme video II)

 

...then you have no business talking about air combat. SARH missiles are broken far, far more than anything else. As usual the Eagle pilots are desperate to defend the status quo with toothless SARH missiles (AIM7M included) because they have an effective alternative in the Amraam. Perhaps the answer is to fly SARH MP only till people get it?

 

In the meantime, to everyone else I say take it from a squad that has been flying the Su27 competitively for 10+ years. If and when the SARH missile ECCM is fixed DCS air combat will be far more realistic and fun.

 

The chaff memes are strong with this one.

 

Notching/dragging to the merge works well enough. (and is very realistic...)

 

The videos aren't great evidence of what you're claiming (see below), but rather just a good way to perpetuate the chaff meme and stir the pot.

 

SARH missiles are not broken "more than anything else" - The real problem is more visible when looking at SARH in the air quake environment as done in this thread, though.

 

The problem is EW modeling. That's jamming, that's chaff, that's seekers, that's aircraft RADAR. Acting like the problem is limited to SARH alone serves one purpose: Making your fight more enjoyable for you. That shouldn't be a goal placed alongside making the game more realistic nor should it be treated as a realism concern.

 

Anyway, this is going to be a yearly tradition on here, right? "'Mid Winter Chaff Complaint Thread 2018', coming to a forum near you in 340 days!"

 

:megalol:

[Ragnarok]

FC3 power must to little chill out in the upcoming modules. FOV for missiles intentionally unlocked to see all.

 

Balance of the power!!! :thumbup:

[Frostie]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2996517&postcount=14

This is funny.

If this was real life aircraft wouldn't carry missiles they'd carry countermeasure pods instead.

[Esac_mirmidon]

+1

[captain_dalan]

Does this ER performance only effect human flyers? Or is it present in single player as well? Cause when i fly against Flankers or Fulcrums in single missions, i routinely get shagged if don't go to the notch and start kicking chaff. And on occasion (if really close, say 3-4 nautical miles) even that might not help. If i just fly to them, i get wacked 9 times out of ten, no matter if i jam, or counter measure, or how fast my closure is.

[Falcon_S]

Strange thing to me is that when ER will miss:

 

- If we watching missile on Tacview we will see that missile follow the interception path (that`s ok) with some ''normal'' G for that path. Suddenly G value rises to ~11-14G although missile still does not change direction. After that max G missile turns to the chaffs.

 

Why missile that does not change direction have high G?

 

I think that the missile should first to try turns for growing G.

 

If you do not understand me just imagine that we (pilots) have blackout before we pull the stick. :D

[Capn kamikaze]

Strange thing to me is that when ER will miss:

 

- If we watching missile on Tacview we will see that missile follow the interception path (that`s ok) with some ''normal'' G for that path. Suddenly G value rises to ~11-14G although missile still does not change direction. After that max G missile turns to the chaffs.

 

Why missile that does not change direction have high G?

 

I think that the missile should first to try turns for growing G.

 

If you do not understand me just imagine that we (pilots) have blackout before we pull the stick. :D

 

At the speeds missiles fly at for most of their flight it won't take much of a turn to cause 11-14G.

[FlightControl]

What would help with public servers (Air quake) have better multiplayer battles? If the mission just reset every hour and have real mission objectives to complete to win for the side, something like you need to protect the A10's kill something etc. With the F/A18 coming this would include SEAD of course + protect.

 

Or is the only way to create a good realistic multiplayer battle, is to organize virtual squadrons to join such a battle like the one above.

 

Just looking into what Moose could do here, I know it can fill the spots if needed with AI when not in use to fill the world and make it more alive.

 

Dave, if you need help let me know.

 

FC

[Capn kamikaze]

Instead of not allowing AMRAAMs why not fly the MiG-29S, and then you have the R-77 to play with.

 

If you insist on not having AMRAAMs, then it would seem fair to at least ban the extended range R-27's and IR versions aswell, and turn it into an R-27 vs AIM-7 fight.

[sea2sky]

I'm surprised people still use ER's. Even if improved you would still rely on your opponent's EWR being off or being unable to execute a simple missile avoidance maneuver. Flanker's best weapon is ET and R-73.

[*Rage*]

Instead of not allowing AMRAAMs why not fly the MiG-29S, and then you have the R-77 to play with.

 

If you insist on not having AMRAAMs, then it would seem fair to at least ban the extended range R-27's and IR versions aswell, and turn it into an R-27 vs AIM-7 fight.

 

Again, if you had any experience using those missiles you would know why thats a non starter.

[Cik]

Instead of not allowing AMRAAMs why not fly the MiG-29S, and then you have the R-77 to play with.

 

If you insist on not having AMRAAMs, then it would seem fair to at least ban the extended range R-27's and IR versions aswell, and turn it into an R-27 vs AIM-7 fight.

 

R77 is also junk. FYI, AIM-7 significantly outranges R/T and AFAIK the range is about parity with (E)R.

 

most servers that actually bother to enforce reasonable restrictions on loadout drop ET but not ER, because even with the range "advantage" they are still useless.

[DarkFire]

To my mind range as we experience it now is less of an issue (but does obviously need to be fixed) than the RNG nature of chaff effectiveness on SARH missiles.

 

Artificially short range is less of a problem because it effects all missiles equally, being a product of across-the-board excessive drag values, whereas 4-6 SARH launches all going stupid within seconds of coming off the rails is horribly unrealistic, as has been convincingly argued on this forum many times.

 

Fix that and we'd be a decent way towards the realism ideal that DCS subscribes to.

[*Rage*]

Darkfire is the Yin to my Yang:)

[Scarrface]

To my mind range as we experience it now is less of an issue (but does obviously need to be fixed) than the RNG nature of chaff effectiveness on SARH missiles.

 

Artificially short range is less of a problem because it effects all missiles equally, being a product of across-the-board excessive drag values, whereas 4-6 SARH launches all going stupid within seconds of coming off the rails is horribly unrealistic, as has been convincingly argued on this forum many times.

 

Fix that and we'd be a decent way towards the realism ideal that DCS subscribes to.

 

Totally agree with this, im more concerned about the chaff rather than the range.

[Capn kamikaze]

Again, if you had any experience using those missiles you would know why thats a non starter.

 

Again, you're presuming I don't.

 

It seems all you want to do is reduce DCS down to air quake.

 

"Balance" has no place in a simulation, but if you must have it there is little point in unbalancing it the other way, all banning the AIM-120 without banning the R-77 also will do is create a situation where everyone will load up with 77's T's and TE's, and go only passive for the first launch, and then use the 77's in closer, then more whinging will occur, but from the other direction.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Cap'n kamikaze

[Capn kamikaze]

R77 is also junk. FYI, AIM-7 significantly outranges R/T and AFAIK the range is about parity with (E)R.

 

most servers that actually bother to enforce reasonable restrictions on loadout drop ET but not ER, because even with the range "advantage" they are still useless.

 

Outright range is not usually that useful anyway, if you're launching at Rmax against anything but a bomber or a transport then you kind of deserve to miss, that extra boost is more useful at much shorter ranges, to keep its KE up, and my experience with the AIM-7 vs the ER is not what you seem to have had, against a co-altitude co-speed enemy they are usually launched long before I can launch an AIM-7 and feel I have a good chance of it at least reaching the other guy with a decent amount of energy left, even if it doesn't actually result in a hit, only if I have a large speed advantage at launch then the AIM-7 can go further.

[*Rage*]

Again, you're presuming I don't.

 

It seems all you want to do is reduce DCS down to air quake.

 

"Balance" has no place in a simulation, but if you must have it there is little point in unbalancing it the other way, all banning the AIM-120 without banning the R-77 also will do is create a situation where everyone will load up with 77's T's and TE's, and go only passive for the first launch, and then use the 77's in closer, then more whinging will occur, but from the other direction.

 

 

I would ban the R77 too for obvious reasons. I never suggested otherwise. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Edited March 1, 2017 by ///Rage

[Capn kamikaze]

Sure.

[Sweep]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

(...)

It seems all you want to do is reduce DCS down to air quake.

 

"Balance" has no place in a simulation (...)

 

[Frostie]

Instead of not allowing AMRAAMs why not fly the MiG-29S, and then you have the R-77 to play with.

 

If you insist on not having AMRAAMs, then it would seem fair to at least ban the extended range R-27's and IR versions aswell, and turn it into an R-27 vs AIM-7 fight.

 

Are you suggesting removing ARH, which is pretty much the general notion around but for the sake of balance remove 27ER because it outranges AIM-7 while the fact that AIM-7 greatly outranges 27R is irrelevant.

Please more F15 pilot wisdom needed for this thread.:)

[metzger]

Leave guns only or for the perfect balance why not leave them all weaponless :D

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[TAW_Blaze]

Are you suggesting removing ARH, which is pretty much the general notion around but for the sake of balance remove 27ER because it outranges AIM-7 while the fact that AIM-7 greatly outranges 27R is irrelevant.

Please more F15 pilot wisdom needed for this thread.:)

 

ER vs AIM-7 is about is badly balanced as AIM-120 vs ER is. In that scenario it's a complete 180 from the current playfield where 15s have to try and force merges because in a face to face fight you simply can't go against the ER, unless you're an idiot who will gamble on the ER going dumb all the time (which it doesn't). I'm not saying the current playfield is fair, but reversing it with a completely idiotic and historically nonexistant scenario is quite silly. Unless of course you want 15 drivers to suffer a bit. :D

 

27R+T vs AIM-7 is a fairly balanced fight. AIM-7 might be slightly better in kinematics but it's easily overcome by pilot skill.

[Capn kamikaze]

ER vs AIM-7 is about is badly balanced as AIM-120 vs ER is. In that scenario it's a complete 180 from the current playfield where 15s have to try and force merges because in a face to face fight you simply can't go against the ER, unless you're an idiot who will gamble on the ER going dumb all the time (which it doesn't). I'm not saying the current playfield is fair, but reversing it with a completely idiotic and historically nonexistant scenario is quite silly. Unless of course you want 15 drivers to suffer a bit. :D

 

27R+T vs AIM-7 is a fairly balanced fight. AIM-7 might be slightly better in kinematics but it's easily overcome by pilot skill.

 

What he said.