R-27ET right after R-27ER

[Fri13]

You can launch without LA (specifically by overriding) without a lock. According to the manual, it is how you jettison missiles from these rails since there's no other way to do it.

 

So how it is done in the proper order?

I don't now recall the real Su-27SK manual about the order but AFAIK it was suppose to be the only way for jettison.

 

There is many switches for the Launch Authorization mode, for Jettison, unguided launch, fuse setting and emergency jettison.

 

If I remember correctly, some of those were for the A-G weapons and some separately for the A-A weapons, so help is required there little more.

 

 

 

The seeker may or may not be cooled, and given that very generally speaking no one launches heaters without a lock if they can help it, you shouldn't expect it to do anything useful.

 

Same as saying that no one launches AIM-120 without a lock if they can help it (so if not in visual situation there is no other way/time to get a lock on extremely close target with guaranteed proper target), right?

 

Since there are no distractions modeled in-game such as reflections of the sun from various surfaces or clouds

 

That is sad we are having only limited sun, moon and sea sun reflections, but lack everything else. (This is as well affecting the upcoming AV-8B Harrier HUD own FLIR "carrots", as we can't simulate the proper "false-positives" but just get proper "true-positives" for units). Hopefully this is part of the coming FLIR update where all gets a new texture layer for a heat differences.

 

and the missile seeker is always cooled, you can use this missile (and actually, any heat seeker) in a way that it is not used IRL.

 

I count it as limitation in the FC3, but I thought that all others were modeling the seeker cooling periods (or at least I thought so for the Hornet etc). And one manufacturer says:

 

An important advantage of MK-80M compared with most of the "classic" (non-thermal-imaging) IRS is also the possibility of long-term (up to three hours) reliable system operation. Moreover, with some reduction of lock-on range, infrared seeker "Mayak-80M" is able to to well-function for a prolonged period even in the absence of coolant.

 

- Volodymyr Korobov, Deputy Director General For Aircraft Industry And Operations, State Concern Ukroboronprom, Artem. Ukrainian Defense Review, January-March 2017, Defense Express.

 

[Airhunter]

We are not trolling. We have presented official statement from manufactures with proof of a track and pictures showing a non sense guidance with 5sec straight flight for first stage wasting energy for an additional turn. If we show this evidence of official Russian manufacturer source and you all not agreed to an official statement. You also participated been in the thread to debate this weird 5sec and two extra turns in this thread been censored by an Admin without a single evidence that proof the contrary over the official statement. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4455149#post4455149 Those two turns have any sense in an air to air missiles computing interception for a moving target.

 

You all want R-27T behave like an short range R-73 missiles. Manufacturer representative have information about proportional navigation implementation in this longer range missile and you all keep contradicting the official statement. You are not presenting evidences to proof that those two nonsense turns have something to do with the manufacturer statements.

 

Basically, those no sense two turns are killing the performance of R-27T

 

The first stage with 5sec with missile in straight flight trajectory without guidance spend rocket time and increase the curve to after that go for a static position even when that missile was made to face moving air targets in longer range than R-73.

 

The way is implemented this two stage of flight toward nowhere have any relation with a proportional navigation method on lock-on. The lock-on is made by aircraft sensors and the proportional navigation method have been ignored.

 

The 5sec limit straight flight have no reason to be there, neither the turn to a static point after missile left rail. When the missile left the rail after 5sec look for pursuit an specific static point contrary to the enemy Flight trajectory. This is not called proportional navigation method, and with the missile on the air the statement on lock-on with missile on the carrier is ignored.

 

So basically DCS is ignoring the Interception calculation by aircraft sensors. the official manufacturer statement said when missile is on the carrier on lock-on a proportional navigation method is part of this specific R-27T missile.

 

See: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

 

You are assuming the proportional navigation method is accomplished only after the homing head got an IR signal. That’s wrong. The word lock-on is related to aircraft sensors as radar or IRST, those will send the proportional navigation calculation to the missile. You don’t want to accept this and all you want put your personal opinion on top the manufacturer statement.

 

First of all, the manufaturer "statement" is nothing more than a sales brochure describing the general characteristics of the missiles, they don't go into ANY technical detail whatsoever. You keep mentioning "proportional navigation" in every sentence you write, yet you seem to have very little understanding on what it actually is. Proportional navigation is as broad of a term as "infrared" - it basically covers a mathematical method on calculating intercept courses based on distance and angular movement. You do not have any official or forml source with technical details, guidence algorithms or maintenance manuals. Others, including me have provided you with the official base, kinetic flyout charts and graphs for the base and extended range R-27. ED themselves have mentioned a CFD-rework of the R-27 family and various lift and drag coefficient adjustments in the next patch to mitigate some major issues. And I repeat, you do not know how the R-27T/R/ET/ER guides or flies, especially not based on a simple brochure merely mentioning what proportional navigation is. Even in game we have a very simplified FC3 model, not requiring any cooling phases and pre-setting of target parameters. You can absolutely either launch override the missiles and fire it beyond seeker range or cue it to a radar lock. Kinematiaclly speaking you do not want a missiles without thrust vectoring to pull lead straight off the rail, the whole point of proportional navigation is to pull as little lead as possible in the early stages of flight when the motor is still firing and accelerating the missile. Not to mention that the 27T/ET is not meant for maneuvering targets past +8 G's. Every missiles in DCS uses proportional navigation coefficients and methods. Read the last sentence again. If anything YOU are putting a lot of personal opinion and interpretation into a brief statement on the internet by a missile manufacturer. It's not like everyone isn't agreeing that the current variants underperform in DCS and need a rework (which they are going to receive), it just all ends the moment you bring up these accusations and personal interpretation on how exactly the missile should guide and which upgrades for it even exist.

[pepin1234]

There is an official statement for the guidance method or proportional navigation calculation. The statement is already there. You are an user of DCS so how come you denied what a manufacturer described as official. The distance and angular calculation is made by sensors on board aircraft as radar and IRST. Manufacturer described very well the proportional navigation method is made on the suspension under the carrier. That mean this missile leave the rail with a pre calculated trajectory toward a moving air target, such is not happening in DCS. The missiles is basically useless and you are providing zero evidence other than take the meaning of a concept in a broad way on your personal interest not providing a real simulation to a longer range IR missile with extra proportional navigation as manufacturer described. Is not that I am inventing False information, it is that the information is there and you want to change the concept for R-27T for some reason.

 

See: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

Edited August 16, 2020 by pepin1234

[Fri13]

First of all, the manufaturer "statement" is nothing more than a sales brochure describing the general characteristics of the missiles, they don't go into ANY technical detail whatsoever.

 

Who has claimed so that they go? Not Pepin... You are making such claims, but the original point is still that ED said that they do not know any update for R-27 in the all years time in service, that means it is still the same and old as when it came first time out of the factory.

 

To counter that, the manufacturer says that there has been update. Nothing else is claimed by Pepin.

 

You keep mentioning "proportional navigation" in every sentence you write, yet you seem to have very little understanding on what it actually is.

 

Can you stop personal attacks?

 

Proportional navigation is as broad of a term as "infrared" - it basically covers a mathematical method on calculating intercept courses based on distance and angular movement.

 

That is irrelevant argument, as that has nothing to do with one of the manufacturers claim that R-27 they produce has an 'updated proportional navigation' that is a evidence for ED to consider that there is likely changes done they don't know.

 

You do not have any official or forml source with technical details, guidence algorithms or maintenance manuals.

 

As you want to go to personal, can you point out where Pepin does claim that he has that kind a information, and where does he demand to R-27 missile be updated in very specific manner?

 

Others, including me have provided you with the official base, kinetic flyout charts and graphs for the base and extended range R-27.

 

And are those evidences that R-27 proportional navigation guidance has not been updated?

 

ED themselves have mentioned a CFD-rework of the R-27 family and various lift and drag coefficient adjustments in the next patch to mitigate some major issues.

 

Irrelevant argument, as it does not mention anything about possible navigation method updates that one of the manufacturers say there is. It is not question that how something is updated, but is there a possibility that something is updated. And that question is for the ED to investigate and keep an open mind, instead just keep repeating "No updates, no development, no changes, nothing for decades".

 

So that it is clear, if ED would walk in the office of the manufacturer, get a official confirmation that nothing has been changed and there is an error at their public information, then that is done. The information there is, is not about how something should be changed, it is just evidence to raise new questions that needs answers.

 

And I repeat, you do not know how the R-27T/R/ET/ER guides or flies, especially not based on a simple brochure merely mentioning what proportional navigation is.

 

Please stop Ad Hominems.

 

Even in game we have a very simplified FC3 model, not requiring any cooling phases and pre-setting of target parameters.

 

Good, is it then settled that no one do not want anything be more accurate or more detailed etc. The game is done, we have had FC3 for years, it is fine as is?

 

You can absolutely either launch override the missiles and fire it beyond seeker range or cue it to a radar lock.

 

Can you, in game - in real life? Is it realistic or not? Should there be changes to it?

 

Kinematiaclly speaking you do not want a missiles without thrust vectoring to pull lead straight off the rail, the whole point of proportional navigation is to pull as little lead as possible in the early stages of flight when the motor is still firing and accelerating the missile.

 

And how does that happen? How does the IR seeker know the target range to know that how little it needs to maneuver and for what period of time?

 

Not to mention that the 27T/ET is not meant for maneuvering targets past +8 G's.

 

And who has made claims that it is meant to?

 

Every missiles in DCS uses proportional navigation coefficients and methods. Read the last sentence again.

 

Please open up "and methods" to clarify what you mean.

And does all missiles in reality use PN coefficients same way as in the game?

 

If anything YOU are putting a lot of personal opinion and interpretation into a brief statement on the internet by a missile manufacturer.

 

You have made lots of personal attacks, accusations, interpretations that ain't there from a statements that doesn't even seem to exist.

 

It's not like everyone isn't agreeing that the current variants underperform in DCS and need a rework (which they are going to receive), it just all ends the moment you bring up these accusations and personal interpretation on how exactly the missile should guide and which upgrades for it even exist.

 

Please provide the post where Pepin exactly demands that how something should be changed with specific demands for the guidance and upgrades it has?

[Fri13]

See: The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

 

Let's all roll back a little about what has been said here by various people.

The possible scenarios are these:

 

1) The FCS use sensors in aircraft to detect an target. When pilot selects R-27T/ET variant with a IR seeker, the FCS transmits the target information to the missile so that missile knows where to look and what is the situation (target distance, vector, speed etc all of it that FCS can have). This information is in the missile on the moment it is launched, and it will use that information to calculate the optimal intercept to the target.

 

2) The FCS use sensors in aircraft to detect an target. When pilot selects R-27T/ET variant with seeker, the FCS commands IR seeker to look at X,Y coordinates and tell to try to lock on there. The FCS does not transmit any other information (vector, speed, range etc) than just the minimal (Hey, look at 1'clock high!) and at the launch of the missile, the missile starts using just its knowledge of the target direction to find a optimal intercept to the target.

 

3) ?????

 

So, the question is still, is the missile guidance logic updated in R-27 by some of the manufacturers or not?

Why such update would be required or done overall? What use of it would be to the missile?

 

Now there are mentions about how to launch the R-27T/ET and how not to launch it.

I think we need to wait that the people who say know these things exactly should be given time to reply with the specifics that how in the real aircraft these procedures are done and why. Just so that we can check that what to expect from the game.

And this doesn't mean about flight kinematics or who manufacturer is, but how is the pilot suppose to use the missile in difference scenarios, step by step guide by now the people who say that knows how to do it.

 

And if someone says that "it is correct now as is", then they need to provide evidence for that as well. So if someone say current missile navigation is correct, please provide documentation for it.

 

Meanwhile I would like to know the step-by-step procedure how the R-27T/ET missile is launched in Su-27S in the various scenarios as discussed here. Meaning, in what order and what buttons the pilot need to push to get the missile out.

 

And all remember, there are other people reading these forums in the coming years.

[pepin1234]

This is the manufacturer information provided for R-73:

 

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/raketa_r-73e.html

 

There is absolutely not a single mention of proportional navigation for that description. Why...? Because is a logic understanding this is a short range missile for a close combat so homing head will get IR signal. They even not mentioned lock-on or PN. Because this missile is autonomous from the very first moment leave the rail.

 

Surprisingly the same method of guidance is what we get Currently for R-27T for computing LA. Why...? The Russian fighters take off the combination of R-27R and R-27T in a regular rate to face whatever show up there for longer range and R-73 only for closer combat. So as manufacturer related proportional navigation “on the suspension carrier for a missile tactically launch from longer range in par with R-27R, Then for DCS understanding simulation for this missile is not launched possible in par for a longer range target. There is not enough IR signal at long range so how come suddenly DCS not implement the claimed by manufacturer description “proportional navigation”

 

I have posted the track that show how useless is in DCS use R-27T in par with R-27R. R-27T using two extra turns killing the missile energy. The difference is huge. The waste of energy is terrible.

Edited August 16, 2020 by pepin1234

[AeriaGloria]

Guys, everyone keeps falling for the bait, this is one huge circlejerk without any substance whatsoever. Clearly pepin and Fri are trolling all of you if you all keep falling for it. I suggest some mod to close this thread to avoid further incidents and reports. If said individuals really have something to back up their claims or show they can private message one of the ED developers.

 

First of all... for it even exist.

 

Hard to resist am I right?

 

 

And Pepin, I hardly think a manufacturer description of R-73 leaving out PN means anything at all. Why should I mention the type of algorithm used when all IR missiles use this type of guidance? It’s meaningless. It uses PN. PN is not sent to missile from plane, it’s all inside the missile, and I’m sorry but it’s as good as can be, and you would have every single one of us behind you if you were instead asking for priority of CFD rework, as that will make it not bleed energy so much.

 

It’s not the PN turn that’s unrealistic, it’s the speed bleed, I think your efforts are spent on the wrong thing if this only about energy retention, since no one can point out how the PN is lacking in any way

Edited August 16, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[dundun92]

From the exact source pepin posted:

The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method [b]with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier.[/b] 

So unless anyone has any specific credible evidence to the contrary, it's safe to say no LOAL for the ET.

[dundun92]

Also, your seriously denying that the R-73 has PN? Really pepin?

[pepin1234]

Don’t miss the part: with Lock-on on the suspension under the carrier. With lock-on with aircraft sensors missile get the information to leave the rail using proportional navigation method. Such doesn’t exist in DCS to make possible a successful launch in pair with the R-27T and radar guided version like Su-27 do IRL. In DCS is a waste of time do this tactic as my last track show.

 

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

Edited August 16, 2020 by pepin1234

[AeriaGloria]

Don’t miss the part: with Lock-on on the suspension under the carrier. With lock-on with aircraft sensors missile get the information to leave the rail using proportional navigation method. Such doesn’t exist in DCS to make possible a successful launch in pair with the R-27T and radar guided version like Su-27 do IRL. In DCS is a waste of time do this tactic as my last track show.

 

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

 

Never does it state that locking on the rail means range data is transferred. There is no such thing as the aircraft sensors telling the T how to fly an efficient path, it’s just point and go

 

In real life, I am sure it not always works so well either, just like any tactic. Does not mean something is wrong just because ET is not as efficient. It’s aerodynamically challenged with that round nose cone anyways, the R with pointed nose cone will always go farther.

[pepin1234]

Never does it state that locking on the rail means range data is transferred. There is no such thing as the aircraft sensors telling the T how to fly an efficient path, it’s just point and go

 

In real life, I am sure it not always works so well either, just like any tactic. Does not mean something is wrong just because ET is not as efficient. It’s aerodynamically challenged with that round nose cone anyways, the R with pointed nose cone will always go farther.

 

I will not argue about range because manufacturer already described R-27T with about 5-10km less range than R-27R. But what we got now is in my personal opinion is unprofessional. See my track and pictures of my last track for more information. The uselessness of R-27ET launched with R-27ER is devastating

Edited August 17, 2020 by pepin1234

[Fri13]

So unless anyone has any specific credible evidence to the contrary, it's safe to say no LOAL for the ET.

 

Again, that would mean it is unrealistic in the DCS to launch a R-27T/ET without lock on the rail, and have it fly without lock-on doing search pattern (or simply looking straight ahead), until the seeker finds something in its search pattern and locks on it and starts measuring the target movement with its seeker (as range is unknown) and then start proportional navigation toward it.

 

And that again brings up the questions of what the real procedures are inside the fighter cockpit to use those weapons.

 

Look at the Su-27S weapons control panel in screenshot I have: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4455376&postcount=176

 

What does each and every switch and button do in relation to the such scenario?

It is made a claim that only way to jettison a R-27T/ET is to launch it. Is it really true?

 

Look at the weapons control panel, is there a "Launcher" section with a lamp labeled "Empty" and button next to it "Jettison"?

 

1. Is it possible that is function to jettison ANY LAUNCHER from the aircraft that is selected? So you use the throttle button to cycle stations, that is symbolized with the green light in weapons panel, and jettison that individual regardless is the launcher empty or not?
   
2. Is that button functional only if the launcher is empty, signaled by the light (so it doesn't jettison launcher if it is not empty)?
   
3. What does the "LA AUTO/MANUAL" switch do next to Master Arms switch? Does it allow pilot to manually set the estimated target range when unknown or use automatically found target distance (using aircraft own sensors or datalink)?
   
4. If you set it "MANUAL", can you launch any weapon without lock?
   

Middle of the panel there is red colored switch with "UNGUIDED LAUNCH". What does that mean?

1. Does that deny guidance emissions to be sent to missile via radar or via FCS so the missile can not be guided, or does it program missile to be launched without it ever activating seeker for guidance? So what way it affects the aircraft guidance systems and/or missile guidance systems?
   

At the bottom right of the panel there are three switches.

• Delay - No Delay
  
• Explosion (with warning lamp) - Safe
  
• Emergency Jettison
  

 

Let's take the most obvious one out first.

What does "emergency jettison" switch do?

1. Does it immediately jettison ALL or just SELECTED pylons?
   
2. In emergency one would think that you need to get ALL out no matter what. So isn't it safe to even assume that it is to do that?
   
3. So what does happen when it is flipped? Does the pilot need to squeeze the weapons release trigger to perform the task, or is it enough to just flip the switch up with press/pull safety guard in it?
   
4. And when that is performed, does the R-27T/ET missiles get launched, while R-27R/ER gets ejected downward?
   
5. Does the launchers get jettisoned as well, or just the weapons?
   

 

Left from it is a switch with "Explosion" and "Safe".

1. Is that relation to a bomb fuzing? So if you do not have it "explosion" then a bomb fuse is not set active and it will just impact the ground as kinematic weight?
   
2. Is it for the emergency jettison that weapons are armed while jettison so they would explode and not be dumb ones?
   
3. Is there a self-destruct for the weapons to be jettisoned that they blow up some time mid-flight?
   

 

Left from it is a switch with "Delay" and "No Delay".

1. What does it do? Must be doing something with the emergency jettison as it is as well in that group.
   
2. Does it delay each individual station jettison for safer means or "all at once" in highest emergency moment?
   
3. Does it set a delay for the fuses so they wouldn't collide with aircraft or something and blow up, but only after safer distance?
   

 

At the left console there are the targeting systems control panel. There is where pilot selects the scan altitude relative to the radar cursor position (so if cursor is at 50 km range then +2 means it is scanning 2 km higher altitude in 50 km range. Moving cursor closer or further keeps the radar always pointing 2 km higher in that) as well scanning cone for left/center/right) etc.

There is a switch with "GUIDE" label with "AUT" and "MAN".

What does that do? It is in the sensors panel so something with the sensors guidance, but is it for itself, for the pilot, for others, to weapons or what?

 

There are many other settings as well, but most interesting is really the sensor selection rotary knob.

• P
  
• NAV
  
• EOS
  
• RDR
  

 

And now one can spot a interesting small detail. It seems it is impossible to use a IRST and RADAR same time. You only select either one of them.

 

There are three other settings as well for a close-combat:

• Vertical Scan
  
• Optical
  
• HMD
  

 

There is no selection that which one pilot use, radar or IRST to perform those as those are automated.

 

How does the pilot select the weapons?

The pilot is free to select from two options:

• Long Range Missiles
  
• Close Range Missiles
  

 

That control switch is in the stick. It doesn't program any of the systems but just selects between BVR and WVR missiles.

The targeting system modes are set by that panel at let console.

In DCS that is impossible.

 

So combination with the switch on stick and the button on throttle to switch stations/weapons, the pilot controls what weapon is selected for use. In DCS these are automated, so when you lock something, the system selects for you the R-73 or R-27R or R-27T just by some order that shouldn't happen. If the pilot keeps stick switch in BVR mode, the R-73 will never be selected or be offered. If the switch is in WVR mode (close combat) then R-27 missiles are not available.

For launching missiles, pilot will flip the folding trigger down in stick, as the trigger itself only overrides autopilot when hold down and returns back when released. The cannon is switched with a small cannon trigger in the folding trigger, so you can not fire and release weapons same time.

 

Does the cannon trigger automatically activate a special targeting modes depending A-A or A-G switch on the weapons control panel (next to master arm)? At least it will inform there when missiles or gun is used in there (and you set the cannon limiter there, programmed lead or fixed or just boresighted reticle). And same place might allow gunpods automatic angle corrections control too (programming for CCRP, fixed for CCIP and boresighted to forward).

 

Now, all these are on the LEFT side of the cockpit. Meant to be used with left hand. So while your right hand is on stick to fly aircraft and launch weapons, your left hand can be off from the throttle to make quickly adjustments to these systems on left. So you handle radar there and you handle the IRST there. You switch from BVR mode to WVR mode. You select do you use radar or do you use IRST for targeting, or are you navigating. (Someone can explain what the "P" symbol/letter means under the NAV mode, is it somekind boresight or?).

 

So what does the right hand do as well when not busy to fly the aircraft? (Again, excellent autopilot options, where with press of a button in stick and you are in level flight, and in emergency situations it will not just level you but it will recover you from the dangerous situation to IIRC 1500 meters above terrain. So if you are to blackout or otherwise in emergency, press that button on stick and computer flies you to safety).

At the right side you have various targeting options, datalink management, target sharing, frequencies, programming etc.

There you can set modes like are you the flight commander, a flight leader or a wingman.

Etc.

Lots of stuff there about targets and cooperation between pilots. Basically everything that is there is missing from DCS, if not counted that one sets the lead and wingmen in mission editor.

 

So, if someone has a target data available, and wants to use a R-27T/ET against them.

How it is really done in a real aircraft for a guide or unguided launch?

It is interesting that there seem to be a three ways to jettison a R-27T/ET but only one way to launch it at the target.

 

And IF the radar or IRST can't be used in together, then how can one launch a R variant first (for a longer range) and then flip to IRST, disabling the radar use and use IRST to find a target again for a T variant just to wait target to get close for a launch authorization?

Didn't the pilot just trash the R variant by switch to IRST?

Does the radar lose target data when switching to IRST?

If one is to use a T variant for a first launch, they need to wait target to get close to get a lock with IRST and then have a launch authorization. And now they have effectively killed all the means and purposes to use a R variant of missile for its longer range capabilities.

Considering that real pilots has said that T is used for offensive purposes as ell in BVR use, it is little difficult when it is always painted as only a "tail-chaser" or "close range missile".

 

Or are those just "Sensor of Interest" selections, with specific targeting modes, while the radar and IRST are automatically performing searches and target acquisitions when they are turned On (own switches in the panel)?

[Fri13]

Never does it state that locking on the rail means range data is transferred. There is no such thing as the aircraft sensors telling the T how to fly an efficient path, it’s just point and go

 

How so "no such thing"?

All the fancy seekers and autopilot sections and it is "just point and go" like a R-60?

All the fancy sensors in aircraft and it is "just point and go"?

 

In real life, I am sure it not always works so well either, just like any tactic. Does not mean something is wrong just because ET is not as efficient.

 

It doesn't either mean it is correct in DCS or how sure you are.

 

It’s aerodynamically challenged with that round nose cone anyways, the R with pointed nose cone will always go farther.

 

That no one can deny as it is in official specifications as well that it has aerodynamic range.

But always going for the idea that it is just for "tail-chase" scenarios or some "little longer range than a R-73" is just oddity.

[AeriaGloria]

How so "no such thing"?

All the fancy seekers and autopilot sections and it is "just point and go" like a R-60?

All the fancy sensors in aircraft and it is "just point and go"?

 

 

 

It doesn't either mean it is correct in DCS or how sure you are.

 

 

 

That no one can deny as it is in official specifications as well that it has aerodynamic range.

But always going for the idea that it is just for "tail-chase" scenarios or some "little longer range than a R-73" is just oddity.

 

R-27ET is one of my favorite weapons, I’m always the person saying it’s great in more then tail chase scenario.

 

And what I mean is that as far as anyone can tell the interaction between IR missiles and the pylon is for coolant, caging, and changing position of seeker. If there was proper evidence of it transferring onboard sensor data beyond position such as range to IR missiles and the IR missile thus changing its flight trajectory to be more efficient, I would be ready to believe it, but I haven’t seen any, it tells the IR missile where to point, and that IR missile is going to go after it the same regardless of range. I know Pepin would say the line in the brochure about lock with planes own sensors implies a range and trajectory hand off, but I think they are one of the only people reading that as anything other then the system slaving the IR seeker axis to EOS or Radar.

 

I know we all want a new build missile to add capabilities if it were added to a vanilla Su-27SK, we are getting R-73-RDM-2, and R-27/R-77 just received a tweak, but new missile API is where your hope should be. It will likely perform better in turns with less energy bleed, isn’t that what you want? To get closer to the performance of the R-27 would have?

Edited August 17, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Cmptohocah]

From the exact source pepin posted:

The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method [b]with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier.[/b] 

So unless anyone has any specific credible evidence to the contrary, it's safe to say no LOAL for the ET.

 

I understood it like this:

 

Airplane: hey "T" do you see that target over there?

R-27T: yup, I see it with my own eye.

Airplane: ok, let me check the range for you... target is in range, you are good to go!

R-27T: thanks for your help, I will see you latter!

[Fri13]

And what I mean is that as far as anyone can tell the interaction between IR missiles and the pylon is for coolant, caging, and changing position of seeker.

 

How much do we know about the protocol and the connection between the FCS, Seeker and the AP?

 

If there was proper evidence of it transferring onboard sensor data beyond position such as range to IR missiles and the IR missile thus changing its flight trajectory to be more efficient, I would be ready to believe it, but I haven’t seen any, it tells the IR missile where to point, and that IR missile is going to go after it the same regardless of range.

 

And that is the mystery question here, why you wouldn't give a distance information to a (any) missile before the launch?

 

I know Pepin would say the line in the brochure about lock with planes own sensors implies a range and trajectory hand off, but I think they are one of the only people reading that as anything other then the system slaving the IR seeker axis to EOS or Radar.

 

So basically Russians built a little larger R-60 variant from the T version. Right?

 

I know we all want a new build missile to add capabilities if it were added to a vanilla Su-27SK, we are getting R-73-RDM-2, and R-27/R-77 just received a tweak, but new missile API is where your hope should be. It will likely perform better in turns with less energy bleed, isn’t that what you want? To get closer to the performance of the R-27 would have?

 

The flight modeling is one thing, the seeker capabilities is another thing, but third thing is as well the guidance logic. And that as well requires to understand what the platform launching the missile does to help that missile kill the target, how it can be launched and what is the procedure to perform the launch.

 

I am puzzled now about should we remove the capability of launching R-27T/ET without it locked on target on the rail, or not to remove. As if the missile can be launched without lock, and it locks on something after launch, then it is by all the definitions a LOAL and not just LOBL. So simply put the R-27T/ET seeker should go completely dead/blind on the moment it gets launched without confirmed lock as it should never find any targets and lock on them.

[HWasp]

In my opinion it does not make any sense to have this heated discussion for 20 pages, when the most basic issues are not yet fixed with the R-27 family.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3887106&postcount=263

 

That post by FoxAlfa clearly shows the main issue:

 

R-27 has 4 times more speed loss compared to an Aim-7 in a turn while pulling less AoA ang G. 4 times difference!!!

 

Also:

 

 

Could an ET do that in DCS? I doubt it... And the flight path of the real missile is far from perfect.

 

So I'd suggest that we concentrate on the following instead of guidance details and unknown upgrades: Aerodynamic properties and chaff/flare resistance should be in the same ballpark with the already upgraded western missiles.

 

Until the missiles are modeled to completely different standard, there really is nothing to talk about.... Looking forward to the next patch.

Edited August 17, 2020 by HWasp

[pepin1234]

Basically, in DCS doesn’t exist the option to do the Russian tactic of IR/SARH. Because they wanted make R-27ET guidance same as R-73. Wrong. If you wait until IR homing head get IR signature first , that is a suicide move to get closer until 10-15km... sound like a joke for a BVR missile. Is obvious they are interpreting the “proportional navigation method” as dumb as possible.

 

First, when been in range doing override, after missiles leave rail make a 5sec straight flight to nowhere. Really...? Why...? No need for extra increase the angular turn for the first turn. If you make an impartial and deep analysis of this action in real combat you will see this as a devil and nonsense simulation. This missile already leave the rail with the homing head pointing the target position so why DCS want a limited 5sec to waste time on rocket energy, after that, missile turn on pursuit to a static floating position on the air. Really dumb.

 

A progressive range computing equation on range finder for a T-72 Tank from 70s is smarter than what DCS simulate for R-27ET. This DCS homing head gimbal equation for a moving air target is a nonsense.

Edited August 17, 2020 by pepin1234

[HWasp]

Rants like that will get you nowhere...

[Fri13]

That post by FoxAlfa clearly shows the main issue:

 

R-27 has 4 times more speed loss compared to an Aim-7 in a turn while pulling less AoA ang G. 4 times difference!!!

 

It was good work that FoxAlfa made for it.

 

If you look the results Aim-7m was able to have ~30-40% higher turn rate with ~55% shorter turn radius, pulling 3x times AoA (thus much much larger drag) with a much lower speed loss ( 9% vs 39%).

 

So I'd suggest that we concentrate on the following instead of guidance details and unknown upgrades

 

Well, this thread is about how to launch a T right after R and what should happen when doing so.

So it is about guidance details that what happens in those moments, and if there is a problem in the guidance or in the method to launch the combo in that idea, it is about it.

We can't discuss further from the possible unknown updates, as likely anyone of us will get any more information about it for next 20-30 years.

 

Aerodynamic properties and chaff/flare resistance should be in the same ballpark with the already upgraded western missiles.

 

Can't do assumptions just by "should be in same ballpark" when already the chaff/flare modeling in DCS is very simple.

 

Until the missiles are modeled to completely different standard, there really is nothing to talk about.... Looking forward to the next patch.

 

Yes, the next patch will likely make some minor changes, I am waiting to see FoxAlfa (or someone else) to repeat that test procedure in the AIM-120 and R-27 part (and compare to previous ones) and then again when R-27 receives the CFD based calculations. That will be the day many will either be happy, or really let down, as anything can go even worse.

 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dcs-world-by-eagle-dynamics/aim-120-development/10163912437185341/

Comparing as well that ED data to this: http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf one can find differences in the missiles lofting capabilities at low altitude, as well maximum range performances and launch capabilities. But this is not about AIM-120 so much, so someone can make a new thread about it.

 

What I am waiting even more is actually the updates for A-G and SAM weapons. As it is time that SAM gets update as well, but based to what ED said:

 

Let us discuss how we now model air-to-air missiles in DCS, with the AIM-120 as the example. This is planned for all our air-to-air-missiles.

 

As I hope that they will continue working with rest. A better for AGM-65, Vikhr, Ataka, 9M33-series etc etc. And then especially update the SAM systems guidance logics and CCM capabilities and so on.

While that R-27ET launch as SAM can be impressive, the more impressive is really what actual SAM systems should be able to do with far more capable systems.

 

If/When the SAM systems gets more effective, it would force quickly the fighter pilots to get back up in high. As quoting ED:

 

So, fly high and remember to pitch up the aircraft to 15-20 degrees to give you another 5-10% of range increase!

 

And that can make the R-27 missile more capable when all pilots are needed to go flying higher. The days for the old "hide behind mountain and pop-up to launch a R-27ET" false tactic should be well behind us.

[Fri13]

First, when been in range doing override, after missiles leave rail make a 5sec straight flight to nowhere.

 

If one does the LA override, then it should mean in LOBL situation that seeker does not know where the target is and should fly straight. Even if the aircraft sensors can track the target, the missile wouldn't.

 

This missile already leave the rail with the homing head pointing the target position so why DCS want a limited 5sec to waste time on rocket energy, after that, missile turn on pursuit to a static floating position on the air.

 

If LOAL is impossible, then the LA override should mean the missile will fly straight out without ever locking to anything ever. So it can't either then turn to anything as it does not know where the targets are.

 

A progressive range computing equation on range finder for a T-72 Tank from 70s is smarter than what DCS simulate for R-27ET. This DCS homing head gimbal equation for a moving air target is a nonsense.

 

Well, it was great idea to track the tracks rotation speed and turret heading to compensate for a own tank movement for the firing, but it still don't do good if target moves as well closer same time. Problem was as well that when you were in the mud or ice and tracks started to slip, the system was less accurate. But again being practical, one doesn't have such a difference in the ranging accuracy between lazing and firing that such things really would matter, until you are firing a high arch HE shells from long range, where every measured meter matters. I am more impressed about the T-72 stabilization system, wonderful compared what west had for very long time, until Leopard 2 came out and actually offered better performing stabilization.

 

It is just crazy that one can walk to a good library and read books from 50's and 60's about different implementations about navigation, guidance and target search functions in various industries, and there are far more complex and effective ways to solve the problems that DCS is currently having in it. So thinking that any missile seeker designer would be doing so sloppy work at so complex subject, is insult to those who hired all those engineers, physicist and mathematicians to solve a problem; How to get a missile near a moving target at far distance beyond visual range?

 

If we compare todays engineers to engineers who worked on these projects in 60-80's period, they ain't more stupid than us. The difference are that we have advanced computers to do calculations and modelings faster, and we have capabilities to far better manufacturing processes and materials.

 

It is interesting that based to many claims and results, MK-80 seeker (overall R-27 seekers) is just bad, and the autopilot modes etc in the R-27 are just awful. But then again the idea that R-27 has never required updates is creating lots of questions that why not?

As why the missile over 30 years in production never received any updates, when the whole industry everywhere has been producing upgrades, new designs, new everything!

Even the AK-47 has gone through multiple upgrade programs in the same time period!

 

If we combine those two, it is the worst missile ever designed, ever manufactured and ever fielded. Or is it?

 

So the idea "Attention! Pilots, look at this new R-27 missile family, we have multiple seekers and all, the missile can fly this and this distance and this is our new main missile for BVR combat against all targets in any weather etc. But, this one variant is only to be used in WVR combat because it can't really lock anything or find a way to the target...."

 

It would be just amazing...

[pepin1234]

If one does the LA override, then it should mean in LOBL situation that seeker does not know where the target is and should fly straight. Even if the aircraft sensors can track the target, the missile wouldn't.

 

Not the case for R-27ET. The missile know the position of that locked-on target because already have the homing head pointing to that target, this information is received from onboard sensors at that launch moment, just missing the IR signature because the distance and target aspect/AF etc. Ones the manufacturer claim for a proportional navigation feature that PN mean a pre-calculated trajectory do exist “on the suspension under the carrier” (see manufacturer info) That mean this missile got an interception flight with that homing head on search for the IR signature on his way on this pre calculated flight.

 

Could be possible they wanted to add new features for a new incoming module not confirmed yet. As they never did a solid confirmation for that. We can assume they will leave R-27ET without PN.

[Ironhand]

Again, that would mean it is unrealistic in the DCS to launch a R-27T/ET without lock on the rail, and have it fly without lock-on doing search pattern (or simply looking straight ahead), until the seeker finds something in its search pattern and locks on it and starts measuring the target movement with its seeker (as range is unknown) and then start proportional navigation toward it.

 

And that again brings up the questions of what the real procedures are inside the fighter cockpit to use those weapons.

 

Look at the Su-27S weapons control panel in screenshot I have: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4455376&postcount=176

 

What does each and every switch and button do in relation to the such scenario?

It is made a claim that only way to jettison a R-27T/ET is to launch it. Is it really true?

 

Look at the weapons control panel, is there a "Launcher" section with a lamp labeled "Empty" and button next to it "Jettison"?

 

1. Is it possible that is function to jettison ANY LAUNCHER from the aircraft that is selected? So you use the throttle button to cycle stations, that is symbolized with the green light in weapons panel, and jettison that individual regardless is the launcher empty or not?
   
2. Is that button functional only if the launcher is empty, signaled by the light (so it doesn't jettison launcher if it is not empty)?
   
3. What does the "LA AUTO/MANUAL" switch do next to Master Arms switch? Does it allow pilot to manually set the estimated target range when unknown or use automatically found target distance (using aircraft own sensors or datalink)?
   
4. If you set it "MANUAL", can you launch any weapon without lock?
   

Middle of the panel there is red colored switch with "UNGUIDED LAUNCH". What does that mean?

1. Does that deny guidance emissions to be sent to missile via radar or via FCS so the missile can not be guided, or does it program missile to be launched without it ever activating seeker for guidance? So what way it affects the aircraft guidance systems and/or missile guidance systems?
   

At the bottom right of the panel there are three switches.

• Delay - No Delay
  
• Explosion (with warning lamp) - Safe
  
• Emergency Jettison
  

 

Let's take the most obvious one out first.

What does "emergency jettison" switch do?

1. Does it immediately jettison ALL or just SELECTED pylons?
   
2. In emergency one would think that you need to get ALL out no matter what. So isn't it safe to even assume that it is to do that?
   
3. So what does happen when it is flipped? Does the pilot need to squeeze the weapons release trigger to perform the task, or is it enough to just flip the switch up with press/pull safety guard in it?
   
4. And when that is performed, does the R-27T/ET missiles get launched, while R-27R/ER gets ejected downward?
   
5. Does the launchers get jettisoned as well, or just the weapons?
   

 

Left from it is a switch with "Explosion" and "Safe".

1. Is that relation to a bomb fuzing? So if you do not have it "explosion" then a bomb fuse is not set active and it will just impact the ground as kinematic weight?
   
2. Is it for the emergency jettison that weapons are armed while jettison so they would explode and not be dumb ones?
   
3. Is there a self-destruct for the weapons to be jettisoned that they blow up some time mid-flight?
   

 

Left from it is a switch with "Delay" and "No Delay".

1. What does it do? Must be doing something with the emergency jettison as it is as well in that group.
   
2. Does it delay each individual station jettison for safer means or "all at once" in highest emergency moment?
   
3. Does it set a delay for the fuses so they wouldn't collide with aircraft or something and blow up, but only after safer distance?
   

 

At the left console there are the targeting systems control panel. There is where pilot selects the scan altitude relative to the radar cursor position (so if cursor is at 50 km range then +2 means it is scanning 2 km higher altitude in 50 km range. Moving cursor closer or further keeps the radar always pointing 2 km higher in that) as well scanning cone for left/center/right) etc...

I’m at work and can’t answer everything due to both limited knowledge and time. But, as far as the PVI-10PE2 is concerned:

 

1) the “Empty Launchers” window/ light indicates when the unguided rocket launchers are empty. The “Discard” switch is to jettison the empty launchers.

2) the Launch Authorized: Auto-Manual switch determines whether the SUO issues the Release Authorized instruction automatically or is forced to do so manually.

3) the Uncontrolled Launch switch (middle of panel) with detent (a pressure switch) is used for the uncontrolled (emergency) launch of guided missiles from their launch pylons.

4) the Emergency Release switch ( bottom right of panel) is used for emergency release of weapons from either ejector pylons or bomb rails.

5) the Detonation-No Detonation switch is used to initialize the fuse of a bomb during emergency release if set to “detonation”.

 

Further:

 

6) the Close-Range/Long-Range Combat switch on the stick is used to select the type of missile for close range combat, given the presence of other weapons (long-range missiles, for example).

7) the Alternative Suspension button on the throttle block is used to manually reselect weapons of varying types on stations 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10.

 

Edit: BTW, the expected target range is entered via a slider on the throttle block. Target lock and discard a located there as well.

 

On the SUV ( left hand panel):

 

8 ) the Targeting: Auto-Manual switch in Auto gives control of the cursor’s center to someone outside the aircraft (ground automatic control system for example). Manual allows the pilot to control the cursor and manually enter the range.

9) the “P” (P, Nav, EOS, Radar) is actually Pi0. You target a visible target directly with the infrared missile’s homing head.

 

And at this point I have to get back to pretending to work.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Ironhand

[FoxAlfa]

 

2) the Launch Authorized: Auto-Manual switch determines whether the SUO issues the Release Authorized instruction automatically or is forced to do so manually.

 

The one thing I couldn't figure out does the switch also disable auto-STT from TWS or not... since that would be nice thing to have.