Hyperlobby Server with 80s weapons only

[Pilotasso]

The sidwinder VS Archer academic discussion is a bit pointless in this thread since almost everyone here knows that LOMAC implementation of the AIM-9M is broken anyway. Theres not much you can do with 2 or 4 of them since its nearly useless although I would certainly like the extra options of having 4.

 

I thought of having another missile in its place but giving the f-15 an R-73 capability would give parity, I hate parity. Aside from these 2 missiles theres the mica IR, wich has far greater usueful range than the sparrow and the magic 550 wich I think is as broken as the sidwinder is, both of wich were never used in the f-15. If we only had the Shafrir missiles...

Edited August 19, 2008 by Pilotasso

[A.S]

There will be everytime fine differences what should be or could be.

The main idea was to bring back online fun to "consistent" fights.

The edge between BVR and WVR and the thrill and the nessary tactics with it.

I know pll tend to go the "honoring easy way", what confirms with kinda success in killing and easy downing ala maddog "oops i had a radar, i forgot" , but we believe this is more beauty in its own kind.

 

PS: aim-9 was good enough yesterday to kill a Su-27 in A-10 after a hot merge and few missile exchanges :smilewink:

[Pilotasso]

I agree, the AIM-9 kills a surprising amount of people in A-10 (I have tried myself lately) but thats mainly because once flying in the warhog your so slow the enemies come to you, not the other way arround (as if you had any choice :D ) so it is easier to turn tighter and send one their faces in head to head, not something you want try in a fighter. ;) In that situation you have to chase and do BFM, the sidwinder will not cope with that.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Pilotasso

[RvEYoda]

Hey there is a rumor i found the r-73 numbers ;)

[Teknetinium]

I wish RvE pilots all the best whit the new server and new missions fo Lo community.

Ill jump in to check it out,to be honest I would rather see aim-7 vs R-27ER.

That would be the most fear for all.

and Whining from NATO boys and Communist pigs about aim-120/77/ET to good or to bad would stop.

 

"of topic" is there any records F-15A encounter Su-27S in cold war :)?

[RvEYoda]

Lets not talk ER/amraam/Et in this thread pls, this is 80s ;)

 

 

"of topic" is there any records F-15A encounter Su-27S in cold war :)?

 

something id like to know also

[GGTharos]

By the time the Su-27S was in service, F-15C's were rather prolific, IIRC, and already being fitted with MSIP, giving them a superior avionics suite.

 

F-15A's were probably relegated to the ANG at that point and unlikely to encounter Su-27's.

Edited August 19, 2008 by GGTharos

[Mustang]

PS: aim-9 was good enough yesterday to kill a Su-27 in A-10 after a hot merge and few missile exchanges :smilewink:

 

Don't i know it lol :blush:

[RvEYoda]

We are looking through Mig29 and Su27 manuals

and will provide launch envelopes for these missiles.

 

You will see that wikipedia and that russian air power site

are both VERY wrong many times - in both directions.

 

Example is the r60 which wiki believes is a 8 km max missile, while

in fact there are situations where it has an engagement envelope up to

15 km.

 

r60 and r27 flight envelope graphs from these manuals will be up soon.

Unsure about r73.

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[RvETito]

Some input about the missiles. This is taken straight from export MiG-29 combat manual:

Flight envelope of the R-27R1 against non-maneuvering target depending on aspect, fighter-target speed and alt:

 

 

If someone doesn't understand the diagram I'll interprete it for you. The horizontal axis is the range in increments of 5km. The half circle is the target aspect- far left is aspect 0- pure headon, far right is aspect 180- pure pursuit. Ignore the circles at any 5km, they're just a scale. There are two cases shown- one with solid line (fighter speed 900km/h, target speed 700km/h) and one with stripped line (fighter speed 1100km/h, terget speed 900km/h) both for 3 different flight levels (both fightrer and target are at the same altitude)- 1km, 5km and 10km. So what the diagram says is that the maximum effective range in the second case (closure speed of 2000km/h) in pure headon at 10km altitude against non-manuevering target is 35km. In the first case (closure 1600km/h) it will be 31km. You can make the other numbers yourself ;)

 

Same for the R-60MK, important- this diagrtam shows only launch (energy) diagram, regardless of seeker's lock (interesting numbers, don't you think ;)):

 

 

Some other important text from the manual:

 

 

 

Quick translation (free :D):

 

R-27R1- all aspect, all weather, semi-active air-to-air missile;

 

Technical data:

- target altitude limits- 20m to 25000m

- maximum range:

* headon- 50-60km

* tail-on- 16-18km

- minimum range:

* headon- 1.2km

* tail-on- 0.5km

- maximum target G-load- 8

- maximum target speed- 3500km/h

- maximum target elevation- +- 10km

- time of conrolled flight- 60sec

- starting weight- 253kg

 

Maximum launch ranges depend on target aspect, fighter and target altitude and speed.

 

On Fig.17 is shown the launch envelope of the missile versus non-maneuvering target with zero aiming error, which along with target's maneuvers causes additional loss of kinetic energy. Thus the launch envelope changes as function of the closure rate. The increase of the closure rate at constant fightrer speed leads to increased launch range and the opposite. As a result the launch envelope moves with the target in relation to the diagram for non-manuevering target.

 

Aiming is done by the radar, the pilot launches the missile when "LA" command is available. Depending on the situation could be launched either one missile or series of two missiles.

 

After release the missile performs safety meneuver to get away from the launcher for 0.4sec. After this time the guidance system engages and the missile is controlled inertialy with radiocommand correction or without it, in case the seeker has locked the target.

 

The radiocommand correction mode to guide the missile untill it's seeker lock the target is intended to increase the maximum range to targets with reduced radar reflecting surface.

 

R-60MK- all aspect, all time of day, IR passive missile intended to destroy visual targets (attack of afterburning target to be performed from aspect more than 1/4- more then 2 o'clock). Also, the missile could be used against light armoured ground targets (used with unlocked non-contact detonator).

 

Technical data:

 

- target altitude:

* headon shot- 30m- 8000m

* tail-on shot- 30m- 20000m

- maximum launch range:

* headon - 2.5- 12km

* tailon - 1.5- 9km

- minimum launch range:

* headon - 0.6km

* tail-on - 0.3km

- target elevation- +-(1.0+-0.15Ht)<=3

- maximum target G- 8

- time for controlled flight- 23sec

- starting wieght- 45kg

 

NOTE: These are kinetic diagrams of the export versions of the R-27R and the R-60M but they're all the same as the non-export versions of those missiles. The only difference between export and non-export missiles are seekers.

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Tito

[RvEYoda]

Quite visible so, if you want to hit a target with r27 from

50+ km you would need 2 fighters flying mach 2 straight at each other at 66.000 ft!!!

(in this case the r73 might hit from 30+ km ;), ignoring seeker limitations ofc)

 

This is why the full conditions for specified ranges is so important.

To come is comparison with Aim9.

 

For the normal extreme case of 10.000 vs 10.000 mac1 vs mac1 the

R-27R COULD hit 35 km out maximum if the target does not maneuver whatsoever.

 

The R-27T has less range than R-27R, due to more drag because it has a less aerodynamic

nose shape. A good estimate puts it around 30-35 km maximum range at 10.000 m vs 10.000 m mac1 v mac 1.

 

Now here is the Great part, we have real life data on aim9 in these conditions :).

We also have real data on R-27R, and even if we give the R-27T almost the same range as the R-27R,

We can easily say that R73 should not be same range kinematically as R-27.

 

We also have real kinematic Data on R-60.

Example : real r60 Tail chase 2 km max range in the case of 1.000 m v 1.000 m,

shooter 1100 kph target 900 kph.

The real aim9 has 3.5+ km chase range in 1100 v 1100 kph situation with the rest of variables the same,

ALMOST TWICE THE CHASE RANGE. In terms of percentages, the head on range is naturally not affected as much, since

gliding drag becomes more of a factor than actual burn time. However note that r60 could potentially

go as far as 15-16 km at 10.000 m v 10.000 m controlled flight(still using numbers straight from diagrams above).

The Aim9 is longer legged....The only conclusion available for any logic is that it is HIGHLY unlikely

that r73m1 v aim9 range would vary more than 10% (example you would need to fit airbrakes on one of the missiels).

More details to come....

You do the math ;).

 

We wont change aim9->r73 in server, but realize if such a change would be been made,

kinematically range wise it would not be unrealistic.

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[PoleCat]

Congratulations to RVE! Excellent work bringing something really new and different to the HyperLobby LockOn community. The entire 104th salutes your intense efforts, your ingenuity, and your creative prowess. Well done!

 

Out

[Pilotasso]

Good research. ED is aware of this but sadly we will not see a difference till DCS or 1.13

[GGTharos]

It's old stuff, it just needed to get brought up again. ;)

[DarkWanderer]

The only conclusion available for any logic is that it is HIGHLY unlikely

that r73m1 v aim9 range would vary more than 10%

This should be a very strange logic.

Remember that:

1.R-60MK is an export variant with reduced range.

2.Many open sources claim 18-27km maximum range for Sidewinder variants (incl. AIM-9X) - not only Wikipedia; the fact R-73 has 40km is also confirmed in some books "not for all". And this data is anyway more reliable than such conclusions.

 

AIM-9 is a little undermodelled, yes. But it's not a wunderwaffe ;)

 

Anyway, respect for initiative on creating the server.

Edited August 19, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[GGTharos]

This should be a very strange logic.

Remember that:

1.R-60MK is an export variant with reduced range.

2.Many open sources suggest 18-27km maximum range for ALL variants of Sidewinder incl. AIM-9X, while R-73 has 40km - not only Wikipedia. This is an official data and is anyway is more reliable than such conclusions.

 

40km under what circumstances? The physics don't support this in the 'standard' scenarios.

 

You can throw an AIM-9M 40km away too if you launch it at mach 3 ;)

 

Further, AFAIK exports tend to remove ECCM, not ... range. The rocket is still the same in pretty much any export out there - at the least, I've not heard of any export missile having a significantly different rocket motor than a domestic missile. Seeker - yeah, motor - no. It's a 45kg missile ... it weighs 15 kilos more than the amount of fuel present in sidewinder, and 11kilos more than what's in the R-73. It's not made to go terribly far.

 

Based on the SAME physics that predict the AIM-9M and R-60, and R-27R ranges with reasonable accuracy compared to real life data, you can't chuck an R-73 40km away unless you launch it out of a railgun (... or a mach2 aircraft at 15000m altitude. Your pick.)

 

Edit: Scratch the mach 2. 15000m will do it ;) And guess what ... sidewinder gets the same kinematic range under the same circumstances.

 

AIM-9 is a little undermodelled, yes. But it's not a wunderwaffe

Try grossly undermodeled. Less than half the range? 2/3rd's of the actual speed? ;) I wouldn't call that a 'little' undermodeled. Edited August 19, 2008 by GGTharos

[DarkWanderer]

You can throw an AIM-9M 40km away too if you launch it at mach 3

R-73 will have 55+km in such conditions. Don't slant.

 

Also : at the moment I have a book "Su-27. The history of a fighter" in hands, which i've got directly from the director of the KnAAPO moscow representative office. It states, that the mass production of Su-27 began in 1986. Nothing about 1990.

Will try to find numbers.

Edited August 19, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[GGTharos]

I'm not slanting. You are - see above.

 

As for the Su-27 and 1990, after looking around, there was a note somewhere about the Su-27 becoming the RuAF's 'standard fighter' in 1990 - I have no idea what that statement means.

 

More importantly, there was some other note that I couldn't verify - about 67 Su-27's being stationed in Poland during the Cold War.

 

At the same time, the USAF had about 90 eagles stationed in Europe. So in terms of 'day one' of WW3, the numbers of both aircraft are comparable.

 

R-73 will have 55+km in such conditions. Don't slant.

 

Also : at the moment I have a book "Su-27. The history of a fighter" in hands, which i've got directly from the director of the KnAAPO moscow representative office. It states, that the mass production of Su-27 began in 1986. Nothing about 1990.

[RedTiger]

I could start a thread on this forum about what my favorite type of cheese is and by page 10 we'd be discussing something involving radar azimuth or parasitic drag.

[DarkWanderer]

I'm not slanting. You are - see above.

Want it or not, R-73 has got larger range than AIM-9 series up to 9X.

 

As for the Su-27 and 1990, after looking around, there was a note somewhere about the Su-27 becoming the RuAF's 'standard fighter' in 1990 - I have no idea what that statement means.

I too.

 

More importantly, there was some other note that I couldn't verify - about 67 Su-27's being stationed in Poland during the Cold War.

That info is correct. To the end of 1989 159GIAP has 38 or 39 planes, 582IAP - 36, both divisions were stationed in Poland. So - 75 total, 5-10 of which could be 2-seated UB variant.

 

So... Are you still sure about "7 F-15 - 2Su-27" proportion? ;)

[GGTharos]

I knew better as of a few days ago, and I knew better about R-73 a long time ago ;)

 

RT, your cheese is overmodeled! ;)

[DarkWanderer]

I could start a thread on this forum about what my favorite type of cheese is and by page 10 we'd be discussing something involving radar azimuth or parasitic drag.

Try to discuss AIM-9 on cheese fans forum...

[Pilotasso]

Want it or not, R-73 has got larger range than AIM-9 series up to 9X.

 

While the R-73 is without a doubt kineticaly superior lets not carry away.

 

Firstly You dont know AIM-9X perfomance because its still classified.

 

Secondly even with the AIM-9M correctly modeled into LOMAC it would be so vastly superior to the current AIM-9 and closer to the R-73 to a degree that you wouldnt change the normal use of a heat seeker in practical terms at BFM if you could swich one for the other. And thats not what is hapening right now.

[RvEYoda]

why do you say r73 is clearly superior in range?

By not reading the sources posted what you are claiming is that

r73m1 (model 1) has the same kinematic range at high altitude as R-27T.

Whether it is slightly superior or equal is yet to be determined.

 

The manuals are in this post, info on envelopes on

all missiles. Dont say logic is wrong before you look at the sources!

Dont use wikipedia as source. Wiki thinks r60 has 8 km max range while in

fact it is well over 10km, closer to 16 km at 10.000 v 10.000 scenario. (source mig29 manual

look in this thread!!!!)

 

And the export model is only limited in seeker, not kinematics as I've been informed.

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

I would argue that it is kinematically superior, but not in range. Range is important, but people seem to be getting stuck on it as 'proof' of R-73's superiority.

 

The R-73's kinematic advantage lies in making the short range envelope 'fatter' ... in other words, its high OBA ability allows you to get first shot in a turning fight. It also allows you to take that shot at a higher off-bore angle than sidewinder at the same distance - say 500m - and still hit.

 

I don't see the problem people see in the sidewinder ballistically matching the R-73. They're the same class of missile with similar characteristics - except for the high OBA arena, where the R-73 is very -clearly- superior.

 

why do you say r73 is kinematically superior?