R-27ER Experiment & Findings

[Guitrz]

Why not make half the missions in the given airquake server have full loadout (a clear advantage for the F-15Cs) and the other half have R-27ERs vs AIM-7s? Seems balanced to me.

 

Or just remove the AIM-120C, then it's pretty much a fair fight.

What do I know, just my 2 cents...

[*Rage*]

Yet I remember a dozen of acmis of inhouse training fights with R vs 7 being extremely close to the point where a slight mistake in the setup or the followup maneuvers could easily cost you the fight.

 

.....I proposed a scenario that is most balanced according to all my of experience.

 

Respectfully, it doesnt matter what you subjectively remember. Too may variables in your inhouse training. We're talking about acceleration, speed and range and for that all that matters are the kinematics of the missile. Here they are again:

 

The drag factor really hits the R-27 family, take a look at these tests and tell me which is the fairest face off.

 

Attacking an aircraft that is moving 30 degrees off the nose.

 

Launch parameters

6000m (20,000 ft)

Mach 0.9

 

R-27R hits at 30km max

AIM-7M hits at 41km (22nm) max

R-27ER hits at 44km max

 

The flyout charts paint the same picture. There is simply no way you can argue that ER vs Aim7 has less parity than R vs Aim7.

 

It would also be historically accurate, for all those people who care about that.

 

With regards to historical accuracy:

 

Early 80s - R/T vs Aim7

Late 80s - ER/ET vs Aim7.

 

Simple as that.

Edited March 2, 2017 by ///Rage

[TAW_Blaze]

Why not make half the missions in the given airquake server have full loadout (a clear advantage for the F-15Cs) and the other half have R-27ERs vs AIM-7s? Seems balanced to me.

 

Or just remove the AIM-120C, then it's pretty much a fair fight.

What do I know, just my 2 cents...

 

As far as I'm aware 104th runs 80s missions every now and then still. But it's hard to sell to the community, people want their slammers.

 

Respectfully, it doesnt matter what you subjectively remember. Too may variables in your inhouse training. We're talking about acceleration, speed and range and for that all that matters are the kinematics of the missile. Here they are again:

 

If you think I'll take your 1 number missile performance indicators over my years of experience than you don't know me at all. I'm not saying you don't have experience, because you probably have more than me. But I know damn well how those missiles stand up against each other.

 

The only thing that would convince me if there was a significant change in missile drag factors in the past 1-2 years which as far as I'm aware there wasn't. I know they did something with the guidance around 1.5 but that's all.

 

With regards to historical accuracy:

 

Early 80s - R/T vs Aim7

Late 80s - ER/ET vs Aim7.

 

Simple as that.

 

I can agree to 50/50 of that.

[*Rage*]

As far as I'm aware 104th runs 80s missions every now and then still. But it's hard to sell to the community' date=' people want their slammers.[/quote']

 

Is it? I really enjoy the 104th missions (not just the sarh ones). Blueflag has run SARH only now for the last 5 or 6 rounds. Similarly Red flag is limiting 120s (Maybe Sarh only in the future?). I think the community has come round. But thats just my interpretation.

 

If you think I'll take your 1 number missile performance indicators over my years of experience than you don't know me at all. I'm not saying you don't have experience, because you probably have more than me. But I know damn well how those missiles stand up against each other.

 

Lol Blaze:megalol:. Theres no arguing with the numbers. There is nothing subjective about this. You keep ignoring them so here they are again for you and everyone else to see.

 

Launch parameters

6000m (20,000 ft)

Mach 0.9

 

R-27R hits at 30km max

AIM-7M hits at 41km (22nm) max

R-27ER hits at 44km max

 

Would it help to post the flyout charts? They prove my point also. We're talking about simple missile acceleration, speed, and range. The numbers are all that matters in this context. Personal feelings from 1-2 years ago just wont cut it.

[TAW_Blaze]

Is it? I really enjoy the 104th missions (not just the sarh ones). Blueflag has run SARH only now for the last 5 or 6 rounds. Similarly Red flag is limiting 120s (Maybe Sarh only in the future?). I think the community has come round. But thats just my interpretation.

 

Good then. I haven't followed blue flag lately.

 

Lol Blaze. Theres no arguing with the numbers. There is nothing subjective about this. You keep ignoring them so here they are again for you and everyone else to see.

 

Except there are no numbers. I hope you are kidding with the 1 number flyout ranges. I'm not seeing any charts and I don't have the time to find them.

 

Like I said, if there was no drag change in the past 1-2 years then my experience is still valid and I couldn't care less what you think about it or what your charts say. A flyout chart is one thing and how a missile performs in real combat is another.

 

Do explain how if there were no changes to missile drag, how is it irrelevant that a guy who sucks at handling russian avionics can defeat competent 15 drivers in R vs T scenario in neutral face to face BVR fights?

 

My argument is that there is far more room to equal the fight by using proper face to face BVR tactics in R vs 7 fight than when you're trying to fight an ER with your 7. 7 caps out around M3,3 and often less while ER can easily coast above M4 while accelerating substantially better, not to mention the range. Unless the other guy is a complete idiot you can't even attempt to take a face to face fight in this scenario in a duel because the odds are you'll always end up either dead or stuck in the wrong side of a tailchase.

[apocom]

 

Except there are no numbers. I hope you are kidding with the 1 number flyout ranges. I'm not seeing any charts and I don't have the time to find them.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134727

 

It's in German, but the charts are self explaining.

[*Rage*]

Except there are no numbers. I hope you are kidding with the 1 number flyout ranges. I'm not seeing any charts and I don't have the time to find them.

 

Like I said, if there was no drag change in the past 1-2 years then my experience is still valid and I couldn't care less what you think about it or what your charts say. A flyout chart is one thing and how a missile performs in real combat is another.

 

Its not combat. We're comparing missiles that essentially share the same guidance code in DCS so we can discount the chaff/ECCM issues. If you want to compare missiles then you take the pilot out of the equation.

 

Do explain how if there were no changes to missile drag, how is it irrelevant that a guy who sucks at handling russian avionics can defeat competent 15 drivers in R vs T scenario in neutral face to face BVR fights

 

You mean R vs 7 I assume. Its irrelevant because your introducing other variables (e.g. pilot skill, your recollection of how things went etc) where its not needed. The discussion is about comparable missile dynamics. This is very easily tested in a scientific manner. It might mean alot to you because emotion and personal feeling get in the way. But in a scientific comparison you cant ignore the numbers. What youve decribed above is the definition of confounding. Look it up. Post the track and ill show you.

 

My argument is that there is far more room to equal the fight by using proper face to face BVR tactics in R vs 7 fight than when you're trying to fight an ER with your 7. 7 caps out around M3,3 and often less while ER can easily coast above M4 while accelerating substantially better, not to mention the range. Unless the other guy is a complete idiot you can't even attempt to take a face to face fight in this scenario in a duel because the odds are you'll always end up either dead or stuck in the wrong side of a tailchase.

 

eh? I know the ER is better. Im saying its only a little better than a 7M. A 7M is a lot better than an R. Its easier to even the fight if youre starting off with missiles that perform similarly.

[blkspade]

The ER is way out ahead of the 7 in kinetics. Its a Mach 4+ missile vs a Mach 3. The ER hits regularly tops around Mach 4.23 at altitude launched at a slower speed than you'd need in the Eagle to get a 120 that high. The AIM-7 might do 3.5-3.8 in the same scenario. In the right conditions the ER can and has reached an Eagle ahead of pitbull.

[Sweep]

Why not make half the missions in the given airquake server have full loadout (a clear advantage for the F-15Cs) and the other half have R-27ERs vs AIM-7s? Seems balanced to me.

 

Or just remove the AIM-120C, then it's pretty much a fair fight.

What do I know, just my 2 cents...

 

(emphasized part of quote)

 

In terms of balance, I have to agree with removing the 120C, simply based on the ground of countermeasures. Considering a lot of the Flanker community seemingly feels like SARH CCM is borked with no fix in sight, having an AMRAAM that is defeatable with chaff would certainly make the fight fairer. Also, the 120B is somewhat worse in terms of kinematics...Although close in the 120B tends to be lethal as hell.

 

Consider that we have a Flanker and Eagle both from the mid 90s (though missing some things) and removing the C (which is *supposed* to be a C5) does make a lot of sense, both balance and realism wise.

 

Now if ED modeled an AIM-120C3/4... ;)

[TAW_Blaze]

You mean R vs 7 I assume. Its irrelevant because your introducing other variables (e.g. pilot skill, your recollection of how things went etc) where its not needed. The discussion is about comparable missile dynamics. This is very easily tested in a scientific manner. It might mean alot to you because emotion and personal feeling get in the way. But in a scientific comparison you cant ignore the numbers. What youve decribed above is the definition of confounding. Look it up. Post the track and ill show you.

 

It might not be scientific but it is what it is in the game. You can get all kind of charts for a race car yet it's not gonna really tell you how it drives on the track.

 

And since none of you have bothered to tell me the drag model was changed I assume it wasn't ( and I've been following things closely enough to be confident it wasn't).

 

It doesn't really matter what kind of charts you show me because I've had ample experience to know how it worked a year or two back and since it did not seem to change it probably behaves just the same. In my opinion real tests between competent drivers is of much higher value than a bunch of charts. Of course pilot decisions affect it, but you act like I don't factor this in when I review acmis. You either agree with this or not, I don't really care. I'm neither surprised or offended since you also seemed to be so confident that an ER is the biggest dummy missile ever yet in my experience (both old and very recent) it is one of the bigger threats a flanker can put up. IR missiles on their own do nothing in a face to face fight, if the guy sees you you have to combine them with ERs else he'll just laugh at you.

 

Obviously you can theorycraft how a weapon system should be used effectively against another based on comparing different charts but figuring out how that all translates into the real thing is another story.

 

Its easier to even the fight if youre starting off with missiles that perform similarly.

 

What do you think I'm arguing about? That's exactly what I'm saying, except in my experience R vs 7 is a much closer match than an ER vs 7. Not that it looks like we'll ever agree :P

[Frostie]

(emphasized part of quote)

 

In terms of balance, I have to agree with removing the 120C, simply based on the ground of countermeasures. Considering a lot of the Flanker community seemingly feels like SARH CCM is borked with no fix in sight, having an AMRAAM that is defeatable with chaff would certainly make the fight fairer. Also, the 120B is somewhat worse in terms of kinematics...Although close in the 120B tends to be lethal as hell.

 

Consider that we have a Flanker and Eagle both from the mid 90s (though missing some things) and removing the C (which is *supposed* to be a C5) does make a lot of sense, both balance and realism wise.

 

Now if ED modeled an AIM-120C3/4... ;)

 

+1 Sweeper

120B suffer the chaff multiplier unlike 120C which rejects chaff to the power of yahtzee.

 

C3 afaik is the next version after B but with clipped wings and improved warhead. The eccm improvements came in with the C5.

[Frostie]

The ER is way out ahead of the 7 in kinetics. Its a Mach 4+ missile vs a Mach 3. The ER hits regularly tops around Mach 4.23 at altitude launched at a slower speed than you'd need in the Eagle to get a 120 that high. The AIM-7 might do 3.5-3.8 in the same scenario. In the right conditions the ER can and has reached an Eagle ahead of pitbull.

 

While the R-27R struggles to hit mach 3.

 

Do explain how if there were no changes to missile drag, how is it irrelevant that a guy who sucks at handling russian avionics can defeat competent 15 drivers in R vs T scenario in neutral face to face BVR fights?

 

My argument is that there is far more room to equal the fight by using proper face to face BVR tactics in R vs 7 fight than when you're trying to fight an ER with your 7. 7 caps out around M3,3 and often less while ER can easily coast above M4 while accelerating substantially better, not to mention the range. Unless the other guy is a complete idiot you can't even attempt to take a face to face fight in this scenario in a duel because the odds are you'll always end up either dead or stuck in the wrong side of a tailchase.

If pilot A in an Su25 can shoot down pilot B in an F-15 that equals parity of platforms?

 

What you're saying is that having a

slightly longer ranged and faster missile (ER) vs AIM-7 is unfair

but having a

much longer ranged and faster missile (7) vs R27R is fair.

[TAW_Blaze]

While the R-27R struggles to hit mach 3.

 

 

If pilot A in an Su25 can shoot down pilot B in an F-15 that equals parity of platforms?

 

Seriously?

 

What you're saying is that having a

slightly longer ranged and faster missile (ER) vs AIM-7 is unfair

but having a

much longer ranged and faster missile (7) vs R27R is fair.

 

Expect in my experience R does about the same as a 7 just a little bit slower and a little bit draggier. On the other hand ER flies circles around a 7.

 

But really I'm done with this it's a completely pointless discussion again. We should create a russian AIM-7 and put it on both sides.

[*Rage*]

Expect in my experience R does about the same as a 7 just a little bit slower and a little bit draggier. On the other hand ER flies circles around a 7.

 

Your experience is subjective. We have experience too. Except we can back it up with missile test data to prove it. If you keep pretending its not there it wont go away.

Edited March 2, 2017 by ///Rage

[Frostie]

Expect in my experience R does about the same as a 7 just a little bit slower and a little bit draggier. On the other hand ER flies circles around a 7.

 

But really I'm done with this it's a completely pointless discussion again. We should create a russian AIM-7 and put it on both sides.

 

I don't agree that ER is fair set up but likewise I don't agree with this in grained community notion that R vs 7 is somehow alright. The later is just as bad, actually worse than the first.

For me R v 7 < ER v 7 = 120C v ER < 120B v ER.

 

In your experience Blaze i'd say your F-15 opponents payed way too much respect to the R-27R because currently in DCS it is diabolical.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Frostie

[Haukka81]

Real life AIM-120 may not care chaff , least you need crazy amounts of it ;)

[TAW_Blaze]

I don't agree that ER is fair set up but likewise I don't agree with this in grained community notion that R vs 7 is somehow alright. The later is just as bad, actually worse than the first.

For me R v 7 < ER v 7 = 120C v ER < 120B v ER.

 

In your experience Blaze i'd say your F-15 opponents payed way too much respect to the R-27R because currently in DCS it is diabolical.

 

I could see a scenario where we run R vs 7, ER vs 7, and ER vs 120B in randomly rotating cycles to represent early 80s, late 80s, and mid 90s situations. Or maybe this is already happenning, I haven't paid attention to mission loadout limitations recently.

[Sweep]

Real life AIM-120 may not care chaff , least you need crazy amounts of it ;)

 

Well, 120A/Bs might care for chaff + jamming of some sort. Unfortunately the sim doesn't go into enough detail for such things to matter much.

 

Hence my 'support' of the current CM model...If it's not "OP chaff/crappy seekers = missile defeated", it's "all sorts of CM combinations = missile defeated"

[Capn kamikaze]

If modeled correctly there is no way in hell that the AIM-7M vs R-27ER is anywhere near an even match.

 

What we need is ED to get on with sorting out the missiles, instead of this incessant bickering and calls for turning it into airquake.

[*Rage*]

I could see a scenario where we run R vs 7' date=' ER vs 7, and ER vs 120B in randomly rotating cycles to represent early 80s, late 80s, and mid 90s situations. Or maybe this is already happenning, I haven't paid attention to mission loadout limitations recently.[/quote']

 

I think the R vs 7M has gained traction. I see this as an early 80s scenario. I'd like to see more late 80s scenarios (to include the 530D) as mentioned before. It's an equally plausible historical scenario. At least until the missiles are fixed.

 

Anyway why no online MP anymore?

Edited March 2, 2017 by ///Rage

[TAW_Blaze]

I think the R vs 7M has gained traction. I see this as an early 80s scenario. I'd like to see more late 80s scenarios (to include the 530D) as mentioned before. It's an equally plausible historical scenario. At least until the missiles are fixed.

 

Anyway why no online MP anymore?

 

I graduated in summer and I'm quite wrapped up at work. I'm not at home for the most part and my flight gear is there and I'm having a really tough time getting through this winter. Honestly I've been surfing on the border of being sick since the end of november, sometimes under the wave.

 

Anyway, I want to apologize to both you and Frostie for being completely unreasonable. I tried my best not to offend or attack either of you but I know in the end I kind of just made an ass out of myself. I still believe what my experience tells me, but should've taken a different approach to the discussion.

 

When I do get back to flying I'm gonna start testing loads of stuff though, I have soooo many ideas. :)

[Dudikoff]

In your experience Blaze i'd say your F-15 opponents payed way too much respect to the R-27R because currently in DCS it is diabolical.

 

IIRC, some Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots reported that they found the R-27R had an unexpectedly short range so perhaps it should be like that.

 

http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/index_e.html

Edited March 2, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Sweep]

If modeled correctly there is no way in hell that the AIM-7M vs R-27ER is anywhere near an even match.

 

What we need is ED to get on with sorting out the missiles, instead of this incessant bickering and calls for turning it into airquake.

 

:thumbup:

[Dudikoff]

If modeled correctly there is no way in hell that the AIM-7M vs R-27ER is anywhere near an even match.

 

Is there any reliable data on the AIM-7M performance ? I thought those are still classified?

[Capn kamikaze]

You would have to judge for yourself, there is info out there on both missiles, the general figure given for the AIM-7M is about 50km being its max range, some sources are slightly higher, some are slightly lower, there is also info out there about the R-27R and ER, with figures for the R of about 70-80km, and the ER of about 120-130km.

 

So take that for what you will, but remember the R-27 is a larger missile, with a bigger motor, but not much heavier, so it's highly likely it will have longer burn time and thrust so a longer range is pretty much assured.