R-77 for Sukhoi's

[Esac_mirmidon]

This are the names used by the company constructing and selling them. And the names used for public international arms dealers meetings.

 

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

 

Domestic denominations are not a factor. For example in Spain the F-18 Hornets are C-15's so the most common and safe denominations should be the international marketing ones.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Esac_mirmidon

[Nick Bones]

I wouldn't call free PFM and additional features little attention, the 33 and 29 are going to be getting PFM soon to complete the set. Yes there are things that could be fixed in FC (Flanker client to client datalink i'm looking at you) but I think adding new aircraft would be a step backwards, we're all balls deep into full fidelity these days paying extra for FC again would grate.

 

I strongly disagree, due to it's easy learning curve, combined with still great FM and realistic systems, adding a couple of new planes (not for free obvioulsy) to FC3, such as the f16 IMO would be a great addition to an already outstanding title.

 

But you are right, I was probably unfair when i stated that ED has given little attentions to FC3. The problem is just that they are not going in the direction where i would like them to go, and i get a little frustrated for this reason.

[Dudikoff]

This are the names used by the company constructing and selling them. And the names used for public international arms dealers meetings.

 

These are the recently invented marketing names (like e.g. MiG-33 was once used for the intended export variant of the MiG-29M and Su-35 for the export Su-27M). But, all these missiles started as domestic projects with the manufacturer designations matching those used by USSR or RuAF once accepted for service (e.g. K-77 -> R-77).

 

Again, since the end export variant can differ from the domestic variant, I feel it can be misleading to use these marketing names, even more so when discussing RuAF airplane variants.

 

Domestic denominations are not a factor. For example in Spain the F-18 Hornets are C-15's so the most common and safe denominations should be the international marketing ones.

 

I meant domestic in terms of how it's called in the country which it was developed for which then usually ends up as the common name. So, domestic as in how e.g. FA-18 is a US DoD designation, not a manufacturer's one.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Esac_mirmidon]

I agree with you but still i think marketing or comercial names are more even and common to talk about. If we use domestic names there are a lot of variants through a wide set of weapons examples in different countries.

[Exorcet]

If advanced Su-27's are off the table, there are always less advanced F-15's. I'd buy a DCS F-15A for sure, and then a C as well later on.

 

Online servers concerned with balance could feature F-15A's vs Su-27S's.

[Dudikoff]

I agree with you but still i think marketing or comercial names are more even and common to talk about. If we use domestic names there are a lot of variants through a wide set of weapons examples in different countries.

 

It's definitely not easy to establish a common rule based on these ever changing marketing approaches which contrary to intent behind them, just create more confusion IMHO.

 

E.g. didn't they change the MS-21 airplane name (where MS stands for medium-range airplane in Russian) into MC-21 (where MC has no meaning) as everybody kept reading the originally Cyrillic MC as it is read in Latin? :)

Edited June 8, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Esac_mirmidon]

Nice example.

[Dehuman]

Flanker client to client datalink i'm looking at you

 

Add this, improve the command and inertial guidance of the R-27 along with the TWS modes of the N-001, implement the buddy designation.

 

Then watch the complaints from Eagle drivers come in as their RWRs mislead them.

 

No R-77s required to significantly bolster the Flankers BVR capability. (R-77 are rubbish in DCS currently anyway)

 

Given this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93704 Probably have to wait for an ASM Flanker module for all of that, but so be it.

[gavagai]

If advanced Su-27's are off the table, there are always less advanced F-15's. I'd buy a DCS F-15A for sure, and then a C as well later on.

 

Online servers concerned with balance could feature F-15A's vs Su-27S's.

 

You can get a balanced result by removing the Aim-120 from the mission.

 

But I find that the absence of ground fire and infrared SAMs in multiplayer has much bigger impact on gameplay and tactics than the lack of an R-77 for the Su-27.

[Ice_Cougar]

IIRC didn't the Su-33 used to have R-77s and the "Sunburn" ASM in early LOMAC? I knew it could carry other things like KH-31As, Ps, and another ASM that I can't remember the name of, however due to a lack of funding never received these...I still don't see why some of these couldn't be in the game though. A simple ASM mode where you just fire the missiles on maybe a wind-corrected bearing/heading and they use active radar to find anything in front of them like the RB-04. And seeing that the R-77 is in service, we should at least get to use it. We could get by with the same HUD screens as launching an R-27, just the enemies' rwr doesn't instantly go off until "pitbull".

 

Heck. The R-27R/ER should be able to fly off the rail, close-in with a radio datalink, and the enemy RWR should be receiving a lock but no launch warning until the seeker is within a certain range, but even that isn't in yet.

[GGTharos]

IIRC didn't the Su-33 used to have R-77s and the "Sunburn" ASM in early LOMAC? I knew it could carry other things like KH-31As, Ps, and another ASM that I can't remember the name of, however due to a lack of funding never received these...

 

Not 'due to lack of funding', they were never anything more than a Sukhoi mock-up.

 

I still don't see why some of these couldn't be in the game though.

 

I don't see why my F-15 couldn't carry AIM-54s or PAC-3's, NASA did the first and Raytheon mocked up the latter - oh wait, realism! That's why. Because the real aircraft doesn't and won't have them.

 

And seeing that the R-77 is in service, we should at least get to use it.

 

No you shouldn't ... because the real deal doesn't.

 

Heck. The R-27R/ER should be able to fly off the rail, close-in with a radio datalink, and the enemy RWR should be receiving a lock but no launch warning until the seeker is within a certain range, but even that isn't in yet.

 

It's not in because that's not how things work. Could you please not make things up? This is very obviously made up stuff, there's no hint in the real weapons employment manual that you can use the weapon in this way :)

[DarkFire]

Why don't we have a Su-27SM or at least a clickable Su-27S/MiG-29A,G,S cockpit? I thought this whole game started with the Flanker, yet the Su-27 only has PFM and it's the old S version.

 

What we now know as DCS World did indeed start with the Su-27, however both it and the F-15C have amongst the most refined flight models, if not the most refined, of any DCS aircraft.

[wilky510]

Then watch the complaints from Eagle drivers come in as their RWRs mislead them.

Nope, it'll just be something else from the Flanker pilots. Like F-15 having godmode wings, or R-27ER missiles not having a 150% PK.

 

AIM-7M

vs

R-27R

 

Is the most fun, IMO.

[*Rage*]

ER vs Aim7m vs 530D is where the partys at.

 

In the absence of an upgraded Flanker (SM+) then addition of R77s, from a balance point of view, might work. Except its unrealistic and would involve modding the sim, which im loathe to do.

 

For a 'fair fight' - aside from using the same airframes on both sides (boring) then a restricted loadout works best.

 

Just to recap, service dates-

 

Aim7M - 82

R - 83

ER - 86

530D - 87

120C - 96

Edited June 8, 2017 by ///Rage

[Cmptohocah]

Wait and see when they fix R-27 guidance (if ever), then nobody will even mention R-77 anymore.

 

On every Su-27 discussion I hear the word 'realism' mentioned a lot, and yet R-27 guides like a hand thrown rock - so much for realism, but hey I guess we are already used to this.

[Dudikoff]

Just to recap, service dates-ER - 86

 

Where did you find this data? I thought the ER/ET were late arrivals (e.g. 1990).

[Exorcet]

You can get a balanced result by removing the Aim-120 from the mission.

 

But I find that the absence of ground fire and infrared SAMs in multiplayer has much bigger impact on gameplay and tactics than the lack of an R-77 for the Su-27.

 

Sure, but that won't get me a new DCS module. Agree on SAM's as well. I've no problem with red side swarming with SAM's that blue has to break through or tip toe around.

 

Just to recap, service dates-

 

Aim7M - 82

R - 83

ER - 86

530D - 87

120C - 96

You don't even have to be strict with dates. Just imagine a mission scenario where the AIM-120's available in the theater are defective or grounded for whatever reason (recall the issue with motors freezing).

[Sweep]

(recall the issue with motors freezing)

 

Cold weather scenarios are fun...

 

Low con layer, sure, but ALL THAT THRUST!!!!!!

[Ice_Cougar]

Not 'due to lack of funding', they were never anything more than a Sukhoi mock-up.

 

 

 

I don't see why my F-15 couldn't carry AIM-54s or PAC-3's, NASA did the first and Raytheon mocked up the latter - oh wait, realism! That's why. Because the real aircraft doesn't and won't have them.

 

 

 

No you shouldn't ... because the real deal doesn't.

 

 

 

It's not in because that's not how things work. Could you please not make things up? This is very obviously made up stuff, there's no hint in the real weapons employment manual that you can use the weapon in this way :)

 

Yeah you're correct on all of those (I just gripe about all this stuff because I love the flanker family) :D

 

However if we look in the manual:

Figure 67: R-27ER missile

R-27ER. "Product 470ER" (AA-10C Alamo) is a radar-guided, medium-range missile that is a

modification of the R-27R with a larger motor. The missile has inertial navigation guidance system

with radio correction. For terminal guidance, the R-27ER has a semi-active radar seeker.

 

It does use INS guidance with radio correction, and only uses the radar's CW to perform final stages of guidance. It has been noted on another forum thread and I'd like to see how it would improve BVR performance of the Vympel 27R/ERs

[GGTharos]

This has nothing to do with making up situations that don't exist: Ie. guiding your SARH missile in using some form of SARH mode.

 

The INS and M-Link is there very specifically to deal with the seeker's inability to lock on to its target at the maximum launch ranges. The fire control system does the same exact thing at all times regardless of missile TOF: It generates the M-Link ONLY when in STT, and likewise tuned the missile when you pull the trigger ONLY when in STT.

 

It also doesn't use CW - everything is HSTT with no CW whatsoever - CW is very old news.

[Vatikus]

You don't even have to be strict with dates. Just imagine a mission scenario where the AIM-120's available in the theater are defective or grounded for whatever reason (recall the issue with motors freezing).

Or simply numbers ... i.e. during '99 Kosovo air campaign , there was a shortage of aim120, so there were mixed formations of f15c with aim7.

[Ice_Cougar]

This has nothing to do with making up situations that don't exist: Ie. guiding your SARH missile in using some form of SARH mode.

 

The INS and M-Link is there very specifically to deal with the seeker's inability to lock on to its target at the maximum launch ranges. The fire control system does the same exact thing at all times regardless of missile TOF: It generates the M-Link ONLY when in STT, and likewise tuned the missile when you pull the trigger ONLY when in STT.

 

It also doesn't use CW - everything is HSTT with no CW whatsoever - CW is very old news.

 

Wow. RIP flanker fans then...I never knew that. So you've mentioned these things weren't in the

real weapons employment manual

. Is it possible for me to view it? I'd love to read it.

[frixon28]

[quote name=///

Aim7M - 82

R - 83

ER - 86

530D - 87

120C - 96

[/quote]

 

From the Su-27 DCS Flight Manual....

R-27R. "Product 470R" (AA-10А Alamo) is a radar-guided, medium-range "air-to-air" missile that went into operational service in 1987.

 

The R model did not come into service until 87, so obviously the ER did not come into service in 86. Please don't believe everything you hear, this is how misinformation gets started. It was stated also in a data table that the ER did not enter service until 1990, so pretty much for a cold war scenario you can just about forget that the ER even existed due to logistical reasons

 

Perhaps you got the R confused with the T Model??

R-27T. "Product 470Т" (AA-10B Alamo) is a medium range "air-to-air" missile and became operational in 1983. This version of the R-27 uses an infrared seeker. The R-27T must have infrared seeker lock on the target before launch.

 

The manual did not state the date of the ER's range but it stated about the ET...

R-27ET. "Product 470ET" (AA-10D Alamo) is a medium range "air-to-air" missile and became operational in 1990.

 

I never knew the how big the difference between the range of the R & ER truly were...

The R has a max effective launch range of 30-35km while the ER max effective launch range is 66km

Edited June 9, 2017 by frixon28

[GGTharos]

Wow. RIP flanker fans then...I never knew that.

 

Why RIP? Thermal sight isn't sneaky enough? Combine it with poor AWACS, and you get to have a lot of fun. :)

Flanker fans have it a lot better in this game than they either realize or want to admit.

 

See, there's fun posts like:

Wait and see when they fix R-27 guidance (if ever), then nobody will even mention R-77 anymore.

 

On every Su-27 discussion I hear the word 'realism' mentioned a lot, and yet R-27 guides like a hand thrown rock - so much for realism, but hey I guess we are already used to this.

 

... Can you imagine what a guidance fix will do to 120s? Most people don't realize that with a guidance fix, the 120 will instantly out-range 27ERs in any situation that isn't a straight run to target. You won't be able to drive them into the ground by pointing your nose down, either. Of course I'd love to see some neat stuff get implemented like real reasons to support your missile: At least to Pitbull, better yet all the way in to increase ECCM.

Doing the 'snake' head-on would have little to no effect. Split-S' would be the wrong way to evade anything but a slow slammer (that would probably be more general, split-S should be a poor defensive maneuver against most 80's/90's missiles), and proper evasion should be emphasized. But that's hard to accomplish and even harder to train PLAYERS to do - instead they will complain, as the do now, that it's all too hard and they can't dodge anything.

 

And I can't blame them, no one has taught them anything :)

 

 

So you've mentioned these things weren't in the . Is it possible for me to view it? I'd love to read it.

 

I believe it's available on the DCS website in the user files. I could be wrong though. And I'm incorrect in calling it the weapons manual - it is the operator's manual which includes certain details about weapons employment.

Edited June 9, 2017 by GGTharos

[*Rage*]

From the Su-27 DCS Flight Manual....

R-27R. "Product 470R" (AA-10А Alamo) is a radar-guided, medium-range "air-to-air" missile that went into operational service in 1987.

 

The R model did not come into service until 87, so obviously the ER did not come into service in 86. Please don't believe everything you hear, this is how misinformation gets started. It was stated also in a data table that the ER did not enter service until 1990, so pretty much for a cold war scenario you can just about forget that the ER even existed due to logistical reasons

 

Perhaps you got the R confused with the T Model??

R-27T. "Product 470Т" (AA-10B Alamo) is a medium range "air-to-air" missile and became operational in 1983. This version of the R-27 uses an infrared seeker. The R-27T must have infrared seeker lock on the target before launch.

 

The manual did not state the date of the ER's range but it stated about the ET...

R-27ET. "Product 470ET" (AA-10D Alamo) is a medium range "air-to-air" missile and became operational in 1990.

 

I never knew the how big the difference between the range of the R & ER truly were...

The R has a max effective launch range of 30-35km while the ER max effective launch range is 66km

 

The manual is wrong. Its full of mistakes.