R-27T

[amazingme]

It seems that this missile is not 'fire and forget', despite the fact that it IS an IR missile. In a head-on engagement within 5km they lose track after breaking the lock. Is it working as designed or smth else is at work here? Please, someone, enlighten me..

[RED]

Is your target maneuvering or releasing flares? If so they loose lock because of that and not because you broke the lock. Especially head on is not the best aspect for an IR seeker. I last fired in 1.58 and the 27T does like to go after flares. If you want to test it in 2.5 just fly behind a non maneuvering nor flaring target, shoot and then drop the lock (EO/Radar).

[amazingme]

I just want to know if it's reliable or not by ED design..

[GGTharos]

... and we just want to know the details of the scenario. ED would have asked for the same.

[amazingme]

The scenario(s) is(are) simple.. head-on engagement within 5km. I die, he doesn't, I pop flares he pops flares. This happens almost all the time. I'll make some vids if necessary..

[Drona]

If the bandit pops flares, you can forget about the R-27T tracking.

[amazingme]

Hmm I see.. Is this properly "simulated"?

[Flow]

There is no simple answer, even if you keep posting your question.

Bandit in AB or not ? What is the background (sun...) ? What does the maneuvering look like ? What is the aspect angle when the missiles loses track ? and so on.

A lot goes into IR missile tracking. Like stated above, the 27T is not very flare resistant in DCS.

If this is realistic or not will be very hard to answer as a lot of this information is classified.

[Drona]

We'll never know if it is properly "simulated" as we don't have a real test result of the R-27T to go by. I'm just giving you my in-game experience.

[amazingme]

I know all the aspects of IR missile employment. It DOES NOT happen with AIM-9M for example, on the contrary I might add. I'm a little suspicious that this type of missile is efficient only against a non-manoeuvrable target, as it happens in DCS.

 

Edit: there you go:

Edited March 1, 2018 by amazingme

[probad]

what justification do you have to expect that one of the earliest r-27 versions would have irccm on par with an aim-9m?

[Quadg]

i think the Russians fire one of each. they fire the r-27T first then lock on for the r-27R.

so the target tries to beam or turn away from the R giving the T a better aspect.

 

but i have no idea if the theory works in DCS.

[Flow]

i think the Russians fire one of each. they fire the r-27T first then lock on for the r-27R.

so the target tries to beam or turn away from the R giving the T a better aspect.

 

but i have no idea if the theory works in DCS.

 

The other way around I would say. Keep the target busy evading the R while his RWR is beeping, and send a T right behind as a killer missile :)

[probad]

The other way around I would say.

and you would be wrong

ir missile was shot first because the risk of the seeker getting distracted by a preceding missile's motor was very real.

[Quadg]

firing the T first before radar lock on will let it get a bit closer before the other pilot reacts to the RWR for the R.

if he does not see it coming.

 

but either way should work in theory. for head on engagements.

[Quadg]

@probad

another good point :)

[amazingme]

Dudes, it makes no difference if you shoot an R first, T sucks balls as it is right now. I've been playing Blue Flag since Round 3, and it used to have a good Pk. I recommend to all of you to get in a Flanker and try for yourselves then argue who's who ;)

[GGTharos]

If you both used flares and you got hit, then you've either simply had bad luck, or somehow you're not set up to maximize the seeker's vulnerability to this.

Geometry plays a role also here. I dump AIM-9M's head on all day long.

[Flow]

and you would be wrong

ir missile was shot first because the risk of the seeker getting distracted by a preceding missile's motor was very real.

That makes sense and I stand corrected :)

[Nightwolf]

Also don't forget, simply flaring is not really enough. Your chances of survival often increase if you throttle back, especially pulling out of burner. It makes the flares more tasty for the missiles compared to your own IR signature.

[amazingme]

what justification do you have to expect that one of the earliest r-27 versions would have irccm on par with an aim-9m?

Mkay.. According to the manual, the ET version became operational in 1990 and the shorter range T version became operational in 1983. The AIM-9M became operational in 1982. Now, my logical question here is: the +7 years of development of the T version and especially its seeker made it THIS bad?? I wonder..

[Avimimus]

The R-27T uses essentially the same seeker as the R-73.

 

I used to fire an R-27R to force the enemy defensive, then launch an R-27T once they engaged afterburner or showed me their tailpipe. It was fairly effective back in 1.5x

 

I used to get kills much more often with the T than the R... the R was mainly for setting up the shot.

[probad]

Now, my logical question here is: the +7 years of development of the T version and especially its seeker made it THIS bad?? I wonder..

yeah you dont know.

you have no factual basis for logic to operate off of. you're just running on envy and desire.

you're mad you got punished for trying to trade against a better missile, that's all there is to this thread.

 

maybe try setting up an engagement scenario where you actually stack the cards in your favor next time.

Edited March 1, 2018 by probad

[amazingme]

The R-27T uses essentially the same seeker as the R-73.

 

I used to fire an R-27R to force the enemy defensive, then launch an R-27T once they engaged afterburner or showed me their tailpipe. It was fairly effective back in 1.5x

 

I used to get kills much more often with the T than the R... the R was mainly for setting up the shot.

This is what we all do (used to do) in a Flanker, but now.. with the T going bull even from rear aspect and even when no flares are popped (check my video above).. I'm not sure what to think about this..

And please, try for yourselves then comment here. Much appreciate!

 

S!

[amazingme]

yeah you dont know.

you have no factual basis for logic to operate off of. you're just running on envy and desire.

OK mate, you might be right. Please prove me wrong by trying what I said. Other than that, your opinion is not different than mine.