New move in favor Aim-120? No R-27ER LA while they have it?

[Airhunter]

Kinda funny how the general public and NATO would know about the latest and greatest R-77-1, the previous RVV-AE and chinese counterparts, yet the R-27 remains the most secretive missile to ever have existed with undocumented upgrades no one wants you to know about. Gimme a break. Go find and talk to people who have both fired and serviced these missiles and you'll be a lot wiser. First hand evidence, no internet bullcrap from some random videogame forum.

[Max1mus]

Now R-77 has chaff resistance close to 120B.

 

Thats a very vague answer. Is it using the new code with the lower coefficients (and autopilot) or will the code not change?

 

The current R-77 is reliably defeatable with an unprecise notch and chaff, while without an exact and consistent notch in the same situation (which is impossible on russian planes due to SPO-15) the AIM-120B follows pure RNG, sometimes it will kill you and sometimes it wont, the only player input is to spam more chaff and decrease the speed, and pray for a good dice roll.

 

I hope that Semi Actives get a similar change in their chaff resistance like the AIM-120s did.

 

As you can easily test with 2 players, 4x 120B launched at the exactly same time (At very close distance) against even the best player in a Su-27 or MiG-29A can be survived <5% of the time (With 6x or more 120B, <0.001%) since if the missile grabs chaff is random even if fired at the same time (i.e. 1/4 will almost always hit). The chance of survival decreases exponentially. On one 120B, its 75%, but as you add more it becomes 25%, 10%, and so on, completely independent of the actual maneuver. In 2.5.5, you could survive 100% of the time given the correct maneuver, slow enough speed, and enough chaff.

 

4x R-27ER launched at the same time at close distance can be defeated 100% of the time, since if the target is slow and drops 10 or more chaff the R-27 will reliably go for it (while bandit is outside a notch of the illuminating radar). Im sure it would still be bad (since the R-27 is an old missile), but with the new logic you would never be entirely safe unless you notch the Su-27 radar (and stay in that notch).

 

In my opinion, either all missiles should be consistent in having this luck factor, or all of them should consistently be reliably chaffable under certain conditions, like speed and while peforming certain maneuvers. But different missiles following an entirely different chaff philosophy, as it is the case right now in DCS, is weird.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Max1mus

[pepin1234]

We take only verified information. We do not consider speculations from the Internet.

 

Do you think the information shown by the Russian manufacturer is speculation?

[Airhunter]

Do you think the information shown by the Russian manufacturer is speculation?

 

What information?

[pepin1234]

What information?

 

The guidance description is very clear described by the manufacturer.

 

1- Manufacturer description guidance ER version: missiles pursue their targets in accordance with an update proportional navigation method both in the inertial/radio-corrected flight trajectory phase and in the semi-active homing phase after locking on target en route.

 

2- Manufacturer description guidance ET version: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier.

 

(Is very clear it is updated and lock on by the sensors that will send the updating guidance. In any moment they mentioned the Heat IR head seeker is the lock on sensor...) of course the position of the head seeker will be updated to get the heat IR signal by itself at the last phase. What make think to ED is a lock-on from the head seeker from the rail? Then is not updated for ED and is what the 80s export first batch got. Not updated guidances. Why they wanted be directed from the information found by western in the discovered information of the first export batch of this missile? Instead of look what manufacturer tell and offer now for the same 80 aircraft model.

 

3- The Pandora box here: P/EP version: Управляемые авиационные ракеты класса «воздух-воздух» средней дальности действия Р-27П1, Р-27ЭП1 – унифицированные ракеты с пассивной радиолокационной головкой самонаведения предназначены для поражения радиоизлучающих воздушных целей в любое время суток, в простых и сложных метеоусловиях, в переднюю полусферу, в том числе на фоне различных подстилающих поверхностей, обеспечивая поражение самолетов, ставящих активные помехи РЛС для прикрытия своих самолетов

 

In this last case is very clear explained that missile can be launched from the MiG and Su fighters in any case they mentioned is a last generation aircraft only. It is a passive guidance that only will need direct the passive head seeker to the enemy emission (Radar or ECM).

 

What kind of information they need then...? The warehouse Where they are located?

[Fri13]

I have not seen Vympel say something about modernization officially.

 

On their sites they talk about modernized seekers, and then in some sales speeches and sales media releases they mention same things. No one goes to any details but than they have been improved.

 

So if official means "Give us the seeker specs" then No, they haven't officially released anything about that. And to get someone officially tell more about seeker improvements is No.

 

So it all again falls to that Russia used 40 years old designs that was their main workhorse for aerial defense purposes and nothing was required to be changed in the perfect design.

[Chizh]

Kinda funny how the general public and NATO would know about the latest and greatest R-77-1, the previous RVV-AE and chinese counterparts, yet the R-27 remains the most secretive missile to ever have existed with undocumented upgrades no one wants you to know about. Gimme a break. Go find and talk to people who have both fired and serviced these missiles and you'll be a lot wiser. First hand evidence, no internet bullcrap from some random videogame forum.

No speculation please.

We have enough information about the R-27 missiles and there are SMEs who are familiar with it.

[Chizh]

Do you think the information shown by the Russian manufacturer is speculation?

What information are you talking about? Give me a link please?

[Fri13]

There are no signs that the Russian Air Force has been purchasing R-27 missiles for many years.

 

That the Russian Air Force is not buying doesn't mean there is no manufacturing.

They likely have such warehouses of the passing missile that they can keep them for service until they all gets just shot down as training missiles or something.

 

Since 2015, a new active R-77-1 has been in production. The old R-27s is now only exported.

 

Yes, something to be exported doesn't mean there no more production.

Of course someone can find out that all the exports are nothing more than Russia AF emptying their huge warehouses for lower price, to "make more space for R-77-1".

[Fri13]

This is not entirely true. The missile does not receive any coordinates or parameters of target movement. In the aircraft is simulated the corresponding position of the target and missile in space and two angular position are transmitted to the missile seeker to be directed to the target. No any digits.

 

I remember that when guiding R-27 the radar didn't maintain estimation where missile is (at range) but only kept track of target and updated the IP relative changes periodically to the missile when it changed enough.

 

But as the radar has no capability to send information to R-27 as "Activate Seeker" it does need to understand that where the missile would have a change to capture the target when activated.

 

Before launching the missile the pilot chooses the target size: large, medium, small, depending on this selection, the missile seeker is activated at a certain range. For a big target - bigger range, for a small target - closer range.

 

Some evidence sources informs about after seeker activation the missile has anymore a 30 seconds battery lifetime, so activation at max 25 km range (likely the "Large target" for RCS 3m) is guaranteed. That is confusing claim (that 30 seconds) as I remember that in DCS the missile seeker went active max 1/3 of the flight has passed (2/3 left to target)?

[Fri13]

First hand evidence, no internet bullcrap from some random videogame forum.

 

Is it a "first hand evidence" in your opinion when a person walks to a manufacturer official museum, gets a tour there and asks some technical questions that gets vague, but yet answers without going too much to technical details?

 

How about the same person walks to a celebration event, discuss with a weapons systems officer and gets again vague, but confirming answers without going too much to details?

[pepin1234]

What information are you talking about? Give me a link please?

 

Of course this production line is Russian made. All information there is for export weapons... I notice they designate the R-27 family with number 1 at the end, that should be because this line is not build with Ukrainian hardware for export only as before and have been improved.

 

All the A-A missiles they produce: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/

 

R-27ER1 and R1: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27r1-_r-27er1.html

 

R-27ET1 and T1: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27t1-_r-27et1.html

 

R-27EP1 and P1: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27p1-_r-27ep1.html

 

RVV-MD (improved R-73 with ~75 degrees): http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/raketa_rvv-md.html

 

and more...

Edited August 7, 2020 by pepin1234

[Fri13]

Kinda funny how the general public and NATO would know about the latest and greatest R-77-1, the previous RVV-AE and chinese counterparts, yet the R-27 remains the most secretive missile to ever have existed with undocumented upgrades no one wants you to know about. Gimme a break.

 

Want to talk about Lock-On, Flaming Cliffs 1, 2 and 3 features?

Lots of information has been for long time very much inaccessible for various reasons.

 

We can even look at various other things, and you do not find information at all so easily from larger and even more obvious things that general public knows and later on even the military specialists were unfamiliar.

[BlackPixxel]

I remember that when guiding R-27 the radar didn't maintain estimation where missile is (at range) but only kept track of target and updated the IP relative changes periodically to the missile when it changed enough.

 

You can see it on the images I posted. They show what the datalink packets look like.

 

It is sending a vector that is the absolute change as well as a vector that is the rate of change. This is done because sending the absolute change with a fast moving target would consume much more bandwidth. With this method only smaller numbers have to be sent, and less bits are required.

 

These datalink messages will constantly update the initial position of the target that was given to the missile when it was launched.

 

When datalink is used, the missile is flying in a stabilized coordinate system, where it is using its inertial sensors and gyros to track its own position, and the datalink to update the position of the target.

[Airhunter]

The guidance description is very clear described by the manufacturer.

 

1- Manufacturer description guidance ER version: missiles pursue their targets in accordance with an update proportional navigation method both in the inertial/radio-corrected flight trajectory phase and in the semi-active homing phase after locking on target en route.

 

2- Manufacturer description guidance ET version: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier.

 

(Is very clear it is updated and lock on by the sensors that will send the updating guidance. In any moment they mentioned the Heat IR head seeker is the lock on sensor...) of course the position of the head seeker will be updated to get the heat IR signal by itself at the last phase. What make think to ED is a lock-on from the head seeker from the rail? Then is not updated for ED and is what the 80s export first batch got. Not updated guidances. Why they wanted be directed from the information found by western in the discovered information of the first export batch of this missile? Instead of look what manufacturer tell and offer now for the same 80 aircraft model.

 

3- The Pandora box here: P/EP version: Управляемые авиационные ракеты класса «воздух-воздух» средней дальности действия Р-27П1, Р-27ЭП1 – унифицированные ракеты с пассивной радиолокационной головкой самонаведения предназначены для поражения радиоизлучающих воздушных целей в любое время суток, в простых и сложных метеоусловиях, в переднюю полусферу, в том числе на фоне различных подстилающих поверхностей, обеспечивая поражение самолетов, ставящих активные помехи РЛС для прикрытия своих самолетов

 

In this last case is very clear explained that missile can be launched from the MiG and Su fighters in any case they mentioned is a last generation aircraft only. It is a passive guidance that only will need direct the passive head seeker to the enemy emission (Radar or ECM).

 

What kind of information they need then...? The warehouse Where they are located?

 

That's literally so vague? No one is arguing that the PN guidence is correct in DCS, this, amongst a proper aerodynamics model based on CFD is much needed. However, unless you can show me a picture, report or first hand account of any active seeker (EP) versions being fielded in any notable numbers this, amongst other advertised variants are just proof of concept. There were tests conducted and it turned out to be shit, hence the pursuit in R-77-1 and subsequent variant development. There is liteally no evidence, neither from the manufacturer, nor from first hand accounts that the R-27 family got any notable upgrades since the 90's (surely not from the Ukrainian plant, which got shut down by now) - they simply don't have the money for it, based on their countries GDP. There is very little point is pursuing upgrades to a heavy, late 80's fox-1 design, while a much more promising platform, namely the R-77 and its modern variants are way more promising, especially when it comes to new AESA seekers and integration into the Su-57 (granted in ht next 5-10 years or so). What's the point in co-developing two active missiles if one of them is clearly the better choice? I know former engineers from the Artem plant in Kyiv, if you really insist I can maybe convince them to give you a general rundown on the production and general technology of this said missile. The R-27 these days is a cheap export fox-1, probably the best fox-1 you can get out there if you don't consider the R-33. It still doesn't change the fact that it is a fox-1 in 2020 and gets absolutely curbstomped by modern fox-3's, stealth, ECM, etc. The 27T/ET on the other hand can be dangerous, just as any other fox two if you don't see or expect it. It's seeker however is still the limiting factor, not being FPA, not having modern, digital processing for CM rejection. During adverse weather ops or in a look down scenario it can be very unreliable and have a poor seeker lockon range. So as always, it depends, especially if you factor in rather prominent MWS and DIRCM systems.

 

As far as claims of those upgrades and modern seekers go, you should always take stuff on the internet with a grain of salt and try to diferentiate proof of concept from reality.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Airhunter

[pepin1234]

That's literally so vague? No one is arguing that the PN guidence is correct in DCS, this, amongst a proper aerodynamics model based on CFD is much needed. However, unless you can show me a picture, report or first hand account of any active seeker (EP) versions being fielded in any notable numbers this, amongst other advertised variants are just proof of concept. There were tests conducted and it turned out to be shit, hence the pursuit in R-77-1 and subsequent variant development. There is liteally no evidence, neither from the manufacturer, nor from first hand accounts that the R-27 family got any notable upgrades since the 90's (surely not from the Ukrainian plant, which got shut down by now) - they simply don't have the money for it, based on their countries GDP. There is very little point is pursuing upgrades to a heavy, late 80's fox-1 design, while a much more promising platform, namely the R-77 and its modern variants are way more promising, especially when it comes to new AESA seekers and integration into the Su-57 (granted in ht next 5-10 years or so). What's the point in co-developing two active missiles if one of them is clearly the better choice? I know former engineers from the Artem plant in Kyiv, if you really insist I can maybe convince them to give you a general rundown on the production and general technology of this said missile. The R-27 these days is a cheap export fox-1, probably the best fox-1 you can get out there if you don't consider the R-33. It still doesn't change the fact that it is a fox-1 in 2020 and gets absolutely curbstomped by modern fox-3's, stealth, ECM, etc. The 27T/ET on the other hand can be dangerous, just as any other fox two if you don't see or expect it. It's seeker however is still the limiting factor, not being FPA, not having modern, digital processing for CM rejection. During adverse weather ops or in a look down scenario it can be very unreliable and have a poor seeker lockon range. So as always, it depends, especially if you factor in rather prominent MWS and DIRCM systems.

 

As far as claims of those upgrades and modern seekers go, you should always take stuff on the internet with a grain of salt and try to diferentiate proof of concept from reality.

 

seem to me you want to dictate as a standard of proof documentation for Russian weapons what we have seen with Aim-9X in video tests and documentation/pictures. This is absolutely unaccepted. The manufactured represented company of Russia for export weapons is what you see in that site. and because you want to dictate a specific standard for documentation you want to limit the Russian weapons developing in DCS on your own way... That is really deep...

Edited August 7, 2020 by pepin1234

[DD_Fenrir]

seem to me you want to dictate as a standard of proof documentation for Russian weapons what we have seen with Aim-9X in video tests and documentation/pictures. This is absolutely unaccepted. The manufactured represented company of Russia for export weapons is what you see in that site. and because you want to dictate a specific standard for documentation you want to limit the Russian weapons developing in DCS on your own way... That is really deep...

 

And what proof do you have that the AIM-9X is modelled in the way you suggest?

 

You don't. You know absolutley NOTHING about what data ED was given by their contracted military partners.

 

Kind of a precedent for the data to back your opinions on most things, apparently.

[Coxy_99]

None of us know what data ED have so........... Just post cats right?

[Chizh]

Thats a very vague answer. Is it using the new code with the lower coefficients (and autopilot) or will the code not change?

 

The current R-77 is reliably defeatable with an unprecise notch and chaff, while without an exact and consistent notch in the same situation (which is impossible on russian planes due to SPO-15) the AIM-120B follows pure RNG, sometimes it will kill you and sometimes it wont, the only player input is to spam more chaff and decrease the speed, and pray for a good dice roll.

 

I hope that Semi Actives get a similar change in their chaff resistance like the AIM-120s did.

 

As you can easily test with 2 players, 4x 120B launched at the exactly same time (At very close distance) against even the best player in a Su-27 or MiG-29A can be survived <5% of the time (With 6x or more 120B, <0.001%) since if the missile grabs chaff is random even if fired at the same time (i.e. 1/4 will almost always hit). The chance of survival decreases exponentially. On one 120B, its 75%, but as you add more it becomes 25%, 10%, and so on, completely independent of the actual maneuver. In 2.5.5, you could survive 100% of the time given the correct maneuver, slow enough speed, and enough chaff.

 

4x R-27ER launched at the same time at close distance can be defeated 100% of the time, since if the target is slow and drops 10 or more chaff the R-27 will reliably go for it (while bandit is outside a notch of the illuminating radar). Im sure it would still be bad (since the R-27 is an old missile), but with the new logic you would never be entirely safe unless you notch the Su-27 radar (and stay in that notch).

 

In my opinion, either all missiles should be consistent in having this luck factor, or all of them should consistently be reliably chaffable under certain conditions, like speed and while peforming certain maneuvers. But different missiles following an entirely different chaff philosophy, as it is the case right now in DCS, is weird.

I just ran a missile combat performance assessment based on 10 identical tests. The targets are 4 Su-25s with a full range of countermeasures. I calculated the total number of missiles expended by 4 fighters to destroy 4 targets.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pXGOwbjMZsDnug_wizU4rE-5DXu9jCJ5vx8eJK7g0_c/edit?usp=sharing

 

As a result, the required number of missiles to destroy 40 targets.

AIM-120C = 60

AIM-120B = 66

R-77 = 68

AIM-7M = 100

 

For R-27ER I was unable to complete the tests due to a crash. I'll do it later.

But in my estimation, its efficiency is higher than the AIM-7M.

[Chizh]

Of course this production line is Russian made. All information there is for export weapons... I notice they designate the R-27 family with number 1 at the end, that should be because this line is not build with Ukrainian hardware for export only as before and have been improved.

 

All the A-A missiles they produce: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/

 

R-27ER1 and R1: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27r1-_r-27er1.html

 

R-27ET1 and T1: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27t1-_r-27et1.html

 

R-27EP1 and P1: http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/rakety_r-27p1-_r-27ep1.html

 

RVV-MD (improved R-73 with ~75 degrees): http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/rakety_klassa_-vozdukh-vozdukh/raketa_rvv-md.html

 

and more...

What should I see here?

[Fri13]

What kind of information they need then...? The warehouse Where they are located?

 

Sometimes ED (and some others) demand information that is irrelevant.

 

Like example the IFF system. Almost anyone can right now walk in a good library and pick up various books about the topic, and understand fairly deeply that what is the IFF system purpose.

 

One possibly can even participate their military open training camps about air-defense systems etc, and learn far more about IFF systems than DCS currently has.

If someone spends, lets say a one day fully to do a research about IFF systems, they should come to conclusion that IFF system can be implemented almost perfectly in the DCS.

 

The challenge is that no one than very strictly chosen personnel can have access to the IFF technology and its functionality in a military level. That is the "black box" of the whole thing that is one of the highest grade military secret there is.

But you don't need to know anything about the black box to simulate a correctly functioning IFF system as we know what is expected to happen for input and output of that black box. We just don't know what happens in reality inside, just that what is expected.

 

We do not need to have any such information that would be a military secret or anywhere close to the real IFF system. No algorithms, no frequencies, no codes, nothing even remotely close. Anyone can build their own IFF system with the principles that there is well known about it (and far more). And DCS would have quickly a completely properly working IFF system to all units, all nations etc. Different variations could be made to simulate properly different systems and such, so that we can simulate proper situations and challenges.

 

So the problem is that some people just can not accept that one doesn't need to know military secrets or some information to properly simulate needed/wanted features.

 

And IMHO ED should move little more toward a "acceptance" than "rejection" in many various evidences. Like the R-27P, there is evidence it to exist, but we can't get it because one evidence is hanged upon that there is no photograph of it to be launched etc.

Yet we know almost everything about it at the same limited level as we do about R and T models.

[Fri13]

For R-27ER I was unable to complete the tests due to a crash. I'll do it later.

But in my estimation, its efficiency is higher than the AIM-7M.

 

You misunderstood that, the R-27ER destroyed all at once, with single crash.... :megalol:

[Airhunter]

seem to me you want to dictate as a standard of proof documentation for Russian weapons what we have seen with Aim-9X in video tests and documentation/pictures. This is absolutely unaccepted. The manufactured represented company of Russia for export weapons is what you see in that site. and because you want to dictate a specific standard for documentation you want to limit the Russian weapons developing in DCS on your own way... That is really deep...

 

What do you even mean by this? The 9X Block I we have in game also hugely underperforms and there is MORE than enough public data and research papers on the fundamentals of this particular and various other FPA HOBS missiles. What site are you refering to? I am in no way trying to limit russian weapons in DCS nor any development when it comes to more realistic missiles and flight dynamics in general. I just see silly people on here who think they know stuff they don't know. Why is this R-27 thing such a mystery? TLDR is, yes, we need an aerodynamics and guidence rework and no there are no upgraded versions in existence as of 2020, none. There are concepts and export variants that are trying to find funding and enough customers, which they haven't managed to far for some "reason" (which should be pretty obvious at this point). The very basics of the scientific method is to poke holes in a statement or theory, adhering to all the available data from all sources. Anyone claiming there are active R-27's with digital or AESA seekers are just trolls who want something to beat the AMRAAM in the multiplayer flying. I'm all for the R-27 receiving the same treatment as the AMRAAM and Sparrow but reality is, even if this narrows down the Pk gap between those two it'll still be vastly inferiour given the same launch parameters. Some people on here claim they know more about Tomcat engines than a former 4000 hour Tomcat pilot and member of the flight safety board. Funnily I see the exact same people spewing nonsense in here and various other threads, all based on their google search history.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Airhunter

[Airhunter]

Yet we know almost everything about it at the same limited level as we do about R and T models.

 

So both the RuAF and UAF pilots I talked to are lying, eh? Artem in Kyiv is lying too and clearly pulled off the biggest secret in arms history? What's the seeker called then if we know everything about it and how does it work in terms of RF-bands and target accquisition? Clearly you know it for a fact.

[pepin1234]

What should I see here?

 

If you make that question. Then you find that information irrelevant for any implementation in DCS? The information for guidance is very interesting compared with what we got in DCS, specially the T and ET version. Also the R-27P is something confirmed by the armament industry of Russia (I would need to make a research for that to send you the information already made public) and media as you can se the export company show them for export. I am wrong with that...? Or they are speculating with fake weapons? I guess not, do you? I guess if the Patriot system become a module for sale you will need to remove the Kh-58 anti-radar missiles cuz suddenly we can find a lack of proof and information for a passive anti-radar head seeker. they are my guesses. Not take me wrong.