Jump to content

Red Coalition Planes...


Cantankerous

Recommended Posts

IMO, the biggest advantage in the Blue planes is not the missiles, but the situational awareness they afford.

 

 

Not really, just look at the Flanker in stuff like SATAL before the AMRAAM update; if the bandits had 120Bs it was pretty much a fair fight, with the Flankers having the notable range and NEZ of the ER vs the Fire and Forget (but much less range/NEZ) of the 120B, which also had pretty low chaff resistance. Even with 120Cs, despite similar-ish range/NEZ considering how easy they were notch, it was still manageable. Now, the current 120B is pretty much better than the old 120C in every way except in pure Stern WEZ. Its basically impossible to notch without a super accurate RWR, and is more maneuverable than the 9M or R-73. While the SA of blue jets does help, I dont think its the main reason the Flanker isnt very competitive.

 

 

Not in any way saying the missile changes shouldnt have happened, they needed to for realism. Nor am I saying the goal for ED is to balance the Flanker artificially. Just pointing out that it was a lot more balanced before all the AMRAAM changes.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, just look at the Flanker in stuff like SATAL before the AMRAAM update; if the bandits had 120Bs it was pretty much a fair fight, with the Flankers having the notable range and NEZ of the ER vs the Fire and Forget (but much less range/NEZ) of the 120B, which also had pretty low chaff resistance. Even with 120Cs, despite similar-ish range/NEZ considering how easy they were notch, it was still manageable. Now, the current 120B is pretty much better than the old 120C in every way except in pure Stern WEZ. Its basically impossible to notch without a super accurate RWR, and is more maneuverable than the 9M or R-73. While the SA of blue jets does help, I dont think its the main reason the Flanker isnt very competitive.

 

 

Not in any way saying the missile changes shouldnt have happened, they needed to for realism. Nor am I saying the goal for ED is to balance the Flanker artificially. Just pointing out that it was a lot more balanced before all the AMRAAM changes.

 

No, my point is that even if both sides had the exact same missiles, the blue fighters afford more SA. That is undeniable.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, my point is that even if both sides had the exact same missiles, the blue fighters afford more SA. That is undeniable.

 

The F-15 in DCS has less SA. And in singleplayer, even the F-18/16 do not have more SA, since they get fed by AWACS and other fighters, while Su-27 gets fed by AWACS, other fighters and EWR.

 

In the 80s and 90s, practically no blue fighters had as sophisticated datalink as the Su-27. And even in more modern times, practically everything can feed a Flanker, while NATO planes only get fed by AWACS and other fighters.

 

The blue fighters having more SA applies to the fight against 70s-early 80s fighters like MiG-21,23,25 and 29A, since they were designed to be micromanaged by GCI, with the pilots individually only seeing what they needed to.

 

When all missiles are modelled to the same standard (in terms of chaff resistance and drag), our FC3 russian 80s/90s planes will be able to fight 90s 120Bs on more or less even terms. To fight 2000s 120C on even terms, ask 3rd party devs for 2000s Su-30MKI or Su-27SM3/J-11B.


Edited by Max1mus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, my point is that even if both sides had the exact same missiles, the blue fighters afford more SA. That is undeniable.

Well that gap certainly does exist when one compares something as modern as Link 16 to soviet era TLK,

 

 

 

But the gap in game is wider than it aught be as the Su-27 is still missing functions from its data link like peer to peer and fighter to fighter modes that ED refuses to add because its a LOMAC plane sadly.

 

 

I think first and foremost people want an accurate depiction of the current red (and all) planes' capabilities we have in game, as a sim should.

 

 

But also people want to have the plane set of a near peer adversary which is a period correct foe, fore realisms sake

 

 

Would be weird to have a battle of Britain set up with PZL P.11s and I-16s fighting against He-112s and the odd Bf-109g6 if you catch what I mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the gap in game is wider than it aught be as the Su-27 is still missing functions from its data link like peer to peer and fighter to fighter modes that ED refuses to add because its a LOMAC plane sadly.

There is hope. #5

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4288175&postcount=229

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 9/9/2020 at 12:44 AM, Max1mus said:

 

There are no interesting campaigns or popular servers that do this. Even 90s weapons like no 9X, and only AIM-120B would do. But no one wants to run it or create such singleplayer content. And as such the red planes are unplayable.

 

What doesnt help here is that the JF-17 and its missiles are mostly from at least the early 2000s, meaning it would have to be excluded from 80s and realistically 90s scenarios, making such restricted servers even less popular.

 

Thus, the only option is an upgrade of existing FC3 modules: Su-25A->Su-25SM, Su-27S->Su-27SM3, MiG-29S->MiG-29SMT

 

If none of the above are doable, put the PL-12 onto the J-11A. A single J-11A prototype carried PL-12, but it was only put into service on the J-11B. However, 3rd party devs add whatever they want to their modules these days anyway and even ED is selling out (triple mavericks on F-16).

 

They are only doable IF Third Party companies, who aren't under the same strict regulations as ED are, come forward and create those high quality full fidelity modules we are used to.  Deka created the JF-17; RAZBAM are creating the F-15E and Mig-23 - we need more 3rd party companies to come forward an create high standard modules going forward.  HeatBlur could, in reality, create high grade full fidelity modules of REDFOR aircraft, couldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, colin5392 said:

They are only doable IF Third Party companies, who aren't under the same strict regulations as ED are, come forward and create those high quality full fidelity modules we are used to.  Deka created the JF-17; RAZBAM are creating the F-15E and Mig-23 - we need more 3rd party companies to come forward an create high standard modules going forward.  HeatBlur could, in reality, create high grade full fidelity modules of REDFOR aircraft, couldn't they?

 

Even if its possible, it would take way too long from now, many years. Quick, temporary solutions are needed.


Edited by Max1mus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2020 at 9:19 PM, Max1mus said:

In the 80s and 90s, practically no blue fighters had as sophisticated datalink as the Su-27.

 

The USN fighters did, and they were just as 'sophisticated' and as easy to jam.   A squadron of F-15's (the Elmendorf birds) and F-14Ds got Link-16 well before anyone else did (up to then the USN was using Link-4 IIRC)

 

Quote

And even in more modern times, practically everything can feed a Flanker, while NATO planes only get fed by AWACS and other fighters.

 

Link-16 is fed by everything and everyone who has access to the appropriate gateways (if they're using something different from Link-16) including ground forces, and I don't mean SAMs.

 

Quote

When all missiles are modelled to the same standard (in terms of chaff resistance and drag), our FC3 russian 80s/90s planes will be able to fight 90s 120Bs on more or less even terms.

 

The measure of the system at that time was estimated at an exchange ratio of 4-6 flankers per eagle shot down, so I wouldn't call it 'more or less even'.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

The USN fighters did, and they were just as 'sophisticated' and as easy to jam.   A squadron of F-15's (the Elmendorf birds) and F-14Ds got Link-16 well before anyone else did (up to then the USN was using Link-4 IIRC)

 

 

Link-16 is fed by everything and everyone who has access to the appropriate gateways (if they're using something different from Link-16) including ground forces, and I don't mean SAMs.

 

 

The measure of the system at that time was estimated at an exchange ratio of 4-6 flankers per eagle shot down, so I wouldn't call it 'more or less even'.

 

 

One squadron of F-15s meant to patrol Alaska. And i dont think it was Link16. Link4 has a lot of issues, try it out on the DCS Tomcat. Notably, a target limit of 8, and since you also want to know where your friendlies are, that can end up being too little. Even in just 4v4 SATAL, this was a significant problem, since there were also tankers and awacs involved.

 

Tell me about EWRs that fed link16 in the 90s and 2000s. The first time i heard of such a thing was in the late 2010s in Syria, with an EWR at an american military base.

 

I dont understand that last part. What measure? By who? Everyone will make  up fables to boost their equipments popularity.

 

 

The post you quoted was made a while back, since then we have seen some changes. You will find J-11A in DCS now to be in somewhat the same ballpark as 120B/9M-equipped F-15 and F-18/16 with limited AWACS DL. But until the rework of russian missiles is completed and Full-Fi aircraft are affected by jamming (with locks being breakable and their missiles not lofting, unlike now), there will be a notable difference.

 

But thats in some 1990s scenario, most people play in the most modern scenarios without restrictions.

 

The main issue will remain, which is that ED isnt adding anything modern to redfor that could provide an interesting challenge to unrestricted BLUFOR. To get BVR during which they even have to maneuver at all (seriously, you can just leave the stick untouched when fighting R-27/R-77 with 120C and win 100% of the time against even the best pilots, with the exception of nosing down to finish the target in the end, if it survived until then), people need to fight other AMRAAM busses.

 

Getting a ground target capable of defending itself against a single hornet is entirely impossible, i have often enough posted a track of a single F-18 killing 4 fighters and then destroying SA-11, S-300 and SA-15 within about 5-10 minutes, without any support or AWACS. ED said that they "plan" to add a more modern SA-15 aswell as a Pantsir to counter this problem. But i doubt we will see that within our DCS "lifetime".


Edited by Max1mus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

One squadron of F-15s meant to patrol Alaska. And i dont think it was Link16.

 

It was link-16.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Link4 has a lot of issues, try it out on the DCS Tomcat. Notably, a target limit of 8, and since you also want to know where your friendlies are, that can end up being too little. Even in just 4v4 SATAL, this was a significant problem, since there were also tankers and awacs involved.

 

Link-4C is an F-14 thing only, and although better in some respects (secured and a bit more jamming resistance) than Link-4A, it is a pure fighter-to-fighter data-link AFAIK.  The F-14's Link-4C limitation belongs to the F-14.   Even so, 8 targets is not a small amount and no one's forcing you to transmit locations of things that you don't really need to care about.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Tell me about EWRs that fed link16 in the 90s and 2000s. The first time i heard of such a thing was in the late 2010s in Syria, with an EWR at an american military base.

 

You are thinking way too small.  Link-16 connects everything from missile EWRs to AEGIS ships PATRIOT, THAAD, and of course AWACS.   I'm pretty sure the Sentinel radar is plugged in also but frankly, I don't know when it got that capability and the USA doesn't seem big on EWRs that don't fly (At least not in terms of talking about them - they do exist).

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

I dont understand that last part. What measure? By who? Everyone will make  up fables to boost their equipments popularity.

 

 

That was an estimate by the USAF and it wasn't known to the public back then.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

But until the rework of russian missiles is completed and Full-Fi aircraft are affected by jamming (with locks being breakable and their missiles not lofting, unlike now), there will be a notable difference.

 

There won't be any lofting for R-27s but sure, the ECM stuff affects all of FC3.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Getting a ground target capable of defending itself against a single hornet is entirely impossible, i have often enough posted a track of a single F-18 killing 4 fighters and then destroying SA-11, S-300 and SA-15 within about 5-10 minutes, without any support or AWACS. ED said that they "plan" to add a more modern SA-15 aswell as a Pantsir to counter this problem. But i doubt we will see that within our DCS "lifetime".

 

AI needs to be smarter, and countermeasures need to work in a realistic manner - or, well, they need to exist altogether.  It also needs to be able to make tactical decisions and other fun stuff.  None of this is trivial to implement, and I hope one day it will be.  Until then, the only thing you can hope for is just better parameters, but everything will work the same.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

The measure of the system at that time was estimated at an exchange ratio of 4-6 flankers per eagle shot down, so I wouldn't call it 'more or less even'.

 

 

 

Well, those are american guestimations, the very best and most reliable as always, yep. Probably considered Su-27s with R-27Rs only

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2021 at 7:55 AM, TotenDead said:

 

 

Well, those are american guestimations, the very best and most reliable as always, yep. Probably considered Su-27s with R-27Rs only

 

False. Ever wondered why Flankers carried so many sticks? From most accounts in baseline Flankers conducting joint exercises with US 15's and 16's the latter have always come out on top in a pure BVR engagement. It is only WVR where it is a much more even fight, be it heaters or guns only. If the russians believed so much in their missile technology they'd build into pure kinematic performance, radar and LO instead of supermaneuverability. You can absolutely not compare the Alamo like that. It was pretty much outdated the moment it entered service. Even though it probably still remains as one of the best SARH missiles - if a relic of the past. US Platforms since the 70's always had the first look and first shoot advantage. 


Edited by Skysurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 часа назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 

False. Ever wondered why Flankers carried so many sticks? From most accounts in baseline Flankers conducting joint exercises with US 15's and 16's the latter have always come out on top in a pure BVR engagement.

 

 

Any proof? Were 120 simulated? And 27ER/ET?

 

4 часа назад, Skysurfer сказал:

If the russians believed so much in their missile technology they'd build into pure kinematic performance, radar and LO instead of supermaneuverability. You can absolutely not compare the Alamo like that.

 

So, americans didn't believe it their missile technology? Because if they did why did they build hornet?

 

4 часа назад, Skysurfer сказал:

It was pretty much outdated the moment it entered service. Even though it probably still remains as one of the best SARH missiles - if a relic of the past. US Platforms since the 70's always had the first look and first shoot advantage. 

 

 

Really? Since when aim-7 can lock enemy aircraft before its carrier is being shot at by 27ER?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

..You can absolutely not compare the Alamo like that. It was pretty much outdated the moment it entered service. Even though it probably still remains as one of the best SARH missiles - if a relic of the past. US Platforms since the 70's always had the first look and first shoot advantage. 

 

Unless I am badly mistaken, Russian air force is using a version 2 of the R-27ER, now days in Syria, and from what it seems the missile range is classified. 

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

Any proof? Were 120 simulated? And 27ER/ET?

 

 

So, americans didn't believe it their missile technology? Because if they did why did they build hornet?

 

 

Really? Since when aim-7 can lock enemy aircraft before its carrier is being shot at by 27ER?

 

Here's one quote from an Ukrainian Flanker pilot after the Clear Sky exercise with the California ANG in 2018.

 

"The maneuvering capabilities of the Flanker are excellent, of course. For example, during air combat maneuvering training at the Clear Sky 2018 exercises—with the F-15C Eagles of the 144th Fighter Wing of the California Air National Guard—we won in three out of four engagements. Naturally, you need to survive long enough to close to visual range, because the Eagle’s electronic equipment and armament are much better. Ukraine has factories that manufacture air-to-air missiles, but we are not quite at the level of modern technology. We need fire-and-forget missiles, because illuminating a target with your radar after launch (with semi-active radar homing) is now a relic of the past. The Russians have the R-77 missile with active homing, while our R-27 is still semi-active."

 

Source: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/fighter-jet-fights-both-sides-180975834/

 

Forgot about the Tomcat and Phoenix combo? Especially the 54C was very capable against all size targets. The 15 will also see a Flanker first and have the first AMRAAM shot - against any AIM-7 the ER obviously has the clear advantage if you get the first shot - literally what it was designed for. Not talking about the SU-30 or 35 here, purely S/P Flanker as was appropriate for that timeframe comparison. The Hornet is a strike fighter and carries the 120C/D - which more than changes and makes up for the lack of pure kinematic performance. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

Unless I am badly mistaken, Russian air force is using a version 2 of the R-27ER, now days in Syria, and from what it seems the missile range is classified. 

 

Nope. Those are the same missiles from the late 80's and were built in Ukraine, which broke ties and supplies with Russia after its independence in 91. There is no evidence of any further developments of the Alamo apart from various concepts by some 3rd party Ukrainian defense companies, which were mainly meant for export. The last customers of the R-27 family were the Indians and the Polish, acquiring the last batch before the plant in Kyiv closed down. The chinese also bought a licence for the R27ER to manufacture it themselves, but have since moved away from SARH and developed their own very capable active missiles like the PL12 and 15. The only known upgrades were done to the T/ET and its seeker as well as the R-73, which still is the bread and butter WVR missile and very capable in its newer iterations.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-made-russia’s-deadly-r-27-missile-so-good-173300


Edited by Skysurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

Nope. Those are the same missiles from the late 80's and were built in Ukraine, which broke ties and supplies with Russia after its independence in 91.

 

Russia is now able to build its own R-27 missiles, and has been testing new upgraded variants in Syria.

There are articles about that, and there are even some pictures of those new missiles.

 

https://iz.ru/882783/aleksei-kozachenko-aleksei-ramm/v-boi-idut-stariki-istrebiteli-vooruzhat-raketami-dlia-duelei

 

Russian_military_aircraft_at_Latakia%2C_


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

Nope. Those are the same missiles from the late 80's and were built in Ukraine, which broke ties and supplies with Russia after its independence in 91. There is no evidence of any further developments of the Alamo apart from various concepts by some 3rd party Ukrainian defense companies, which were mainly meant for export. The last customers of the R-27 family were the Indians and the Polish, acquiring the last batch before the plant in Kyiv closed down. The chinese also bought a licence for the R27ER to manufacture it themselves, but have since moved away from SARH and developed their own very capable active missiles like the PL12 and 15. The only known upgrades were done to the T/ET and its seeker as well as the R-73, which still is the bread and butter WVR missile and very capable in its newer iterations.

 

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25209/India_Buys__218M_Worth_R_27_Missiles_For_Its_Su_30MKI_Fighters#.YG2wlEVR3AQ

"A contract has been signed with Russia for the acquisition of R-27 air-to-air missile to be fitted on the Su-30MKI combat aircraft fleet of the IAF," government sources were quoted as saying by ANI on Tuesday.

  The Russian missiles with an extended range would give an added capability to the Su-30MKIs to take on enemy aircraft at long ranges, they said."

 

https://en.topwar.ru/178568-ukraina-sobralas-jeksportirovat-aviacionnye-rakety-r-27.html

"The representative of the exporting company proudly stated that Ukraine independently manufactured all the components of the missile, from the homing system to the solid fuel engine."

 

https://old.defence-ua.com/index.php/en/news/236-ukraine-to-develop-a-new-missile-derived-from-the-r-27-technology

"SJSHC "Artem" is a Kiev-based company which is specialist in manufacturing and upgrading R-27 missiles. The Company’s current product portfolio includes R-27 missiles in various modifications, including R-27R, R-27ET, R-27UR and R-27UT-RT."

 

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/major-russian-contract-for-r-77-1-air-to-air-missiles

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

Russia is now able to build its own R-27 missiles, and has been testing new upgraded variants in Syria.

There are articles about that, and there are even some pictures of those new missiles.

 

https://iz.ru/882783/aleksei-kozachenko-aleksei-ramm/v-boi-idut-stariki-istrebiteli-vooruzhat-raketami-dlia-duelei

 

Russian_military_aircraft_at_Latakia%2C_

 

 

Interesting find. However, it kind of seems like russian propaganda to me. The R27 design is old and has clear flaws (central control fins in order to accomodate the modular, fixed wing propulsion section) + was found to not perform well when paired with an active seeker (not saying that this couldn't have changed with more compact and modern electronics) - my only question is, given the analogue nature of the missile why waste money and development resources on this when you have the R-77-1 and its successors which are currently in development? Seems pretty vague and odd but interesting if true, notheless. 


Edited by Skysurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25209/India_Buys__218M_Worth_R_27_Missiles_For_Its_Su_30MKI_Fighters#.YG2wlEVR3AQ

"A contract has been signed with Russia for the acquisition of R-27 air-to-air missile to be fitted on the Su-30MKI combat aircraft fleet of the IAF," government sources were quoted as saying by ANI on Tuesday.

  The Russian missiles with an extended range would give an added capability to the Su-30MKIs to take on enemy aircraft at long ranges, they said."

 

https://en.topwar.ru/178568-ukraina-sobralas-jeksportirovat-aviacionnye-rakety-r-27.html

"The representative of the exporting company proudly stated that Ukraine independently manufactured all the components of the missile, from the homing system to the solid fuel engine."

 

https://old.defence-ua.com/index.php/en/news/236-ukraine-to-develop-a-new-missile-derived-from-the-r-27-technology

"SJSHC "Artem" is a Kiev-based company which is specialist in manufacturing and upgrading R-27 missiles. The Company’s current product portfolio includes R-27 missiles in various modifications, including R-27R, R-27ET, R-27UR and R-27UT-RT."

 

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/major-russian-contract-for-r-77-1-air-to-air-missiles

 

Ok? Thanks for the links I guess. There are some contradicting sources on who exactly India bought the last batch from but my point stands notheless for the non so recent past. Those might even be missiles from an old stock, which were in storage.  The 77-1 and subsequent developments are obviously entirely Russian - in fact the PL12 has a lot of russian DNA in it.

 

https://www.defence24.com/polish-air-force-acquires-missiles-for-the-mig-29

 

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/16532/Ukrainian_Polish_Consortium_To_Supply_40_R_27P1_Missiles_For_Polish_MiG_21_Jets#.YG21FegzZPY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 минуту назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 

Here's one quote from an Ukrainian Flanker pilot after the Clear Sky exercise with the California ANG in 2018.

 

"The maneuvering capabilities of the Flanker are excellent, of course. For example, during air combat maneuvering training at the Clear Sky 2018 exercises—with the F-15C Eagles of the 144th Fighter Wing of the California Air National Guard—we won in three out of four engagements. Naturally, you need to survive long enough to close to visual range, because the Eagle’s electronic equipment and armament are much better. Ukraine has factories that manufacture air-to-air missiles, but we are not quite at the level of modern technology. We need fire-and-forget missiles, because illuminating a target with your radar after launch (with semi-active radar homing) is now a relic of the past. The Russians have the R-77 missile with active homing, while our R-27 is still semi-active."

 

So you ARE comparing R-27 to Aim-120C. Well, that's wise, yep.

41 минуту назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 

Forgot about the Tomcat and Phoenix combo?

What does a long range a2a missile has to do with medium range one?

41 минуту назад, Skysurfer сказал:

Especially the 54C was very capable against all size targets.

Yeah, sure, that's why it was sent to the junkyard

41 минуту назад, Skysurfer сказал:

- against any AIM-7 the ER obviously has the clear advantage if you get the first shot - literally what it was designed for.

So, shocker! F-15 had weaker missiles compared to flanker up until Aim-120 (Probably even B) entered service in sufficient numbers

41 минуту назад, Skysurfer сказал:

 The Hornet is a strike fighter and carries the 120C/D - which more than changes and makes up for the lack of pure kinematic performance. 

 

But if the americans believed it their missiles they would've made it energetical, not maneuverable, wouldn't they?XD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

 

So you ARE comparing R-27 to Aim-120C. Well, that's wise, yep.

What does a long range a2a missile has to do with medium range one?

Yeah, sure, that's why it was sent to the junkyard

So, shocker! F-15 had weaker missiles compared to flanker up until Aim-120 (Probably even B) entered service in sufficient numbers

But if the americans believed it their missiles they would've made it energetical, not maneuverable, wouldn't they?XD

 

 

What else are you going to compare the R-27 to (specifically ER)? The AMRAAM entered service roughly one year after the R-27 and the B model did not take long to enter IOC and high rate production. Th 27ER wasn't exactly available in the thousands from the start either. And sure, there was a short time period where the ER was much superior agianst AIM-7 platforms, a design which originated in the 60's. You can absolutely compare long range missiles with medium range missiles if they are intended for the same type of targets - the same way you will compare a R-27ER to an AIM-7M which clearly have a fairly large gap in their effective range. It's simply what you'd face in combat. The Tomcat and Phoenix had a LONG service history and were ultimately retired because of costs and the fact that after the collapse of the soviet union and advancements in EW and ship based defense systems it was no longer required. This does not change the fact that the Tomcat had the most powerful radar and the longest range A2A missile from the 70's up to the early 2000's. Just the way it was and there is no reason to argue against that. 

As far as aircraft deisgns go, ideally you want both - just look at the Tomcat, Eagle and F-22. All of them have a very large flight envelope performing equally well in BVR and WVR ACM combat. Same applies to the Flanker-E and now Su-57. So I really don't see your point? Supermaneuverability and post stall maneuverability are great and in the 80's still had their value - it's simply a difference in doctrine and mentality, one side relies on superiour tehcnology and electronics as their primary means of engagement, the other party is still "stuck" in the WWII gladiatorian dogfight era and belives this is what truly wins fights. Both are not totally right or wrong in that regard obviously. But this is another rabbit hole do go down to and would require a profound knowledge of history and combat doctrine during the cold war era.

 

Thus I really don't get what you are trying to say here with broken english except maybe cherry-pick scenarios and slim timeframes to make your argument more valid? I think we sort of de-railed this thread now anyway and if you like to continue this discussion and maybe get your point across better feel free to DM.


Edited by Skysurfer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skysurfer said:

Nope. Those are the same missiles from the late 80's and were built in Ukraine, which broke ties and supplies with Russia after its independence in 91. There is no evidence of any further developments of the Alamo apart from various concepts by some 3rd party Ukrainian defense companies, which were mainly meant for export. The last customers of the R-27 family were the Indians and the Polish, acquiring the last batch before the plant in Kyiv closed down. The chinese also bought a licence for the R27ER to manufacture it themselves, but have since moved away from SARH and developed their own very capable active missiles like the PL12 and 15. The only known upgrades were done to the T/ET and its seeker as well as the R-73, which still is the bread and butter WVR missile and very capable in its newer iterations.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-made-russia’s-deadly-r-27-missile-so-good-173300

 

I saw it on one of the Su variants deployed in Syria. It's the "Combat Approved" series which can be found on YT and there you can clearly see a mark saying "R-27ER2" and when the journalist asked about the range, the answer was that it's classified. Looking through the videos now, trying to find it.


Edited by Cmptohocah

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

I saw it on one of the Su variants deployed in Syria. It's the "Combat Approved" series which can be found on YT and there you can clearly see a mark saying "R-27ER2" and when the journalist asked about the range, the answer was that it's classified. Looking through the videos now, trying to find it.

 

 

Would be nice if you can find the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...