Hyperlobby Server with 80s weapons only

[DarkWanderer]

Let's assume I meant "prior to".

[RvEYoda]

naturally I mean range only

R73 is clearly superior in the very short range arena, mainly due to tvc.

 

55km for r73m1, yeah right. Very logical when R27R has mximum kinematic

range on mach2 closure at 10.000 m co-alt : 35 Km !! (once again source is mig29A manual)

Fyi Lockon also models it at this range for R-27R :)

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Pilotasso]

Kinetics has to do with other things than raw range.

 

And darkwonderer reading your posts makes me think you dont know what a heat seeker missile is or what is for, even less what is capable...55Km range?!

[RvEYoda]

Well I tried with "kinematically, range wise", but we can rephrase this to

Range only.

[X-man]

Russia withdrawing from Poland. Very nice pics! :)

 

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27/1051180/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27/1325749/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-27UB/1043510/L/

 

On the matter of a/c ratios. Even though the ratio might have been 7:8:2, no one would ever deploy just 2 aircraft to a battlefield. Naturally you'd deploy a squadron or not. So the ratio argument is a bit flawed. Now, we're not flying IRL and I understand for balancing purposes it works really well with the ratio :)

 

Keep up the good work RvE :D

Edited August 19, 2008 by X-man

[159th_Viper]

Russia withdrawing from Poland......

 

 

What's Happening with the leftover Cheese?

 

 

 

Cool Pics :thumbup:

[X-man]

Notice, it's the 159th withdrawing :P

[DarkWanderer]

And darkwonderer reading your posts makes me think you dont know what a heat seeker missile is or what is for, even less what is capable...55Km range?!

Read GG's, he stated 40km for Sidewinder ;)

 

Well I tried with "kinematically, range wise", but we can rephrase this to

Range only.

I've just spent about an hour digging various documents on AIM-9 modifications. And here's the result: with no dependence on seeker modification, it's range is limited by 18 km. But! Installing the TVC and consequently reducing size of air control surfaces (=>improving aerodynamics) on AIM-9X improves it's range in more than 2 times, while the motor - Hercules Mk36 - is almost the same as in M variant. The R-73 has had this advantage (TVC) initially. Moreover:

 

AIM-9M: mass: 86kg. warhead: 4.5kg d/D: 127/560mm

R-73 RMD-2: mass: 110kg. warhead: 7.3kg d/D:170/510mm

(Length is almost the same; d=diameter; D=external diameter=wingspan)

 

We see, that R-73 has lesser wingspan (and from the pics - wing area) (=lesser drag) and larger engine (=more impulse). So, no wonder that it's range is superior than the concurent's. And the same drill (with little correction) applies to RVV-AE vs. AMRAAM.

I hope, this explains my position.

[RvEYoda]

Read GG's, he stated 40km for Sidewinder ;)

 

 

I've just spent about an hour digging various documents on AIM-9 modifications. And here's the result: with no dependence on seeker modification, it's range is limited by 18 km. But! Installing the TVC and consequently reducing size of air control surfaces (=>improving aerodynamics) on AIM-9X improves it's range in more than 2 times, while the motor - Hercules Mk36 - is almost the same as in M variant. The R-73 has had this advantage (TVC) initially. Moreover:

 

AIM-9M: mass: 86kg. warhead: 4.5kg d/D: 127/560mm

R-73 RMD-2: mass: 110kg. warhead: 7.3kg d/D:170/510mm

(Length is almost the same; d=diameter; D=external diameter=wingspan)

 

We see, that R-73 has lesser wingspan (and from the pics - wing area) (=lesser drag) and larger engine (=more impulse). So, no wonder that it's range is superior than the concurent's. And the same drill (with little correction) applies to RVV-AE vs. AMRAAM.

I hope, this explains my position.

 

Man I appreciate your effort to dig up information but,

a number like 18 km does not say much.

 

We need to know EXACT launch conditions, and we already have

the speed profile of the missile, we can easily determine its range,

and I tell ya it is far better than 18 km. Look two pages back, on the

page with aim9L(older than 9m) and amraam competitor.

Please examine this declassified information carefully and you will see!

You will see 9L could quite confidently fly 15 nm without reaching speeds

where it no longer is controllable, IF you give it the right condition.

 

The same things are presented in the Mig-29 manual scans.

You will note the aim9 ending up with a 3.5-4 km chase range in the

same conditions that the R60 does 2 km chase....

Imagine the impact this has on a head on shot 10.000 m v 10.000 m

where r60 has 16 km(M1.1+M1.1) range(R-27R is 35km), and aim9L is MUCH superior in range to R60.

Unless the r73m1 (first released version is what we talk about here!) has the same range as R-27R

it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be more than just slightly longer legged than 9m

 

 

It's all about what condition, and the page there you link to is a development history,

but does not really go into where the numbers are taken from.

 

If you increase engine thrust by 30% and weight also by 30% you gain no extra top speed

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

Read GG's, he stated 40km for Sidewinder ;)

 

Which I mentioned for obvious reasons ;)

 

I've just spent about an hour digging various documents on AIM-9 modifications.

 

Good:

 

And here's the result: with no dependence on seeker modification, it's range is limited by 18 km.

 

This is correct for a head-on, non-maneuvering situation when the missile is launched at 0.9M or so. About the same speed for the target - altitude of 10000m.

 

But! Installing the TVC and consequently reducing size of air control surfaces (=>improving aerodynamics) on AIM-9X improves it's range in more than 2 times, while the motor - Hercules Mk36 - is almost the same as in M variant. The R-73 has had this advantage (TVC) initially.

 

The TVC did not make any difference - what makes a difference, like y ou correctly speculated, is indeed the fin size.

Here's something else that makes a difference - let's carry on ...

 

Moreover:

 

AIM-9M: mass: 86kg. warhead: 4.5kg d/D: 127/560mm

R-73 RMD-2: mass: 110kg. warhead: 7.3kg d/D:170/510mm

(Length is almost the same; d=diameter; D=external diameter=wingspan)

 

The AIM-9M carries a 9 kilo warhead ... it's some 20lbs ... not 10lbs ;)

 

The AIM-9M also carries approximately 30kg of propelland with a specific impulse of 218 (At whatever parameters, I forget) while the R-73 carries 34kg of propellant, at an unknown SI (but you can claim it's higher than sidewinders, in fact I personally believe it is)

 

Here's the trick: The R-73 is wider, and thus at least as draggy as sidewinder with its big fins.

The Sidewinder has a better propellant/overall mass ratio, so it will accelerate faster, and reach a higher speed - but being lighter will also cause it to decelerate a little faster.

 

Both missiles are effectively in the SAME CLASS.

 

 

We see, that R-73 has lesser wingspan (and from the pics - wing area) (=lesser drag) and larger engine (=more impulse). So, no wonder that it's range is superior than the concurent's.

 

 

.... And for the same reasons, this is also incorrect. The The RVV-AE has a better fuel-mass ratio than AMRAAM-A (subsequent AMRAAM motors were improved to some degree), but it is not at /all/ less draggy. Wider body = more area = more drag.

 

Again ... both of THOSE missiles are, once more, in the SAME CLASS. At least as far as propulsion goes - they are both very comparable.

 

And the same drill (with little correction) applies to RVV-AE vs. AMRAAM.

I hope, this explains my position.

[DarkWanderer]

The AIM-9M carries a 9 kilo warhead ... it's some 20lbs ... not 10lbs

Agree, a misprint. But the less weight left to fuel.

 

The same things are presented in the Mig-29 manual scans.

Do you have the same range-aspect graph for AIM-9 of any modification? F-16 manuals are declassified.

 

Wider body = more area = more drag.

Wider body=more powerful engine in this case. A toy Minuteman with a petard inside should be able to reach Moscow from California by your logic.

In linear approximation - range is directly proportional to linear size (if other proportions are constrained). If you want - you may ask someone to calculate more precise, but I can predict the result.

 

Both missiles are effectively in the SAME CLASS.

R-73 RMD-2 was positioned as "intermediate-class" missile in the later 90-s ;)

Edited August 19, 2008 by DarkWanderer

[GGTharos]

There was an actual, factual speed profile of the AIM-9L posted earlier in this thread. It is from a research paper that was testing AMRAAM-type fins on a sidewinder body ... so you can see what a difference those makes, not to mention the AIM-9L actual speed profile, which shouldn't be -much- different from AIM-9M (the M might be a bit faster but .. only a bit).

 

If you look at this graph, you will find Rmax at 20000' for sidewinder is 18km, like you state. Go up to 10000m (33000') and Rmax becomes 24km.

 

And I used the exact same math to compute R-73 range ... it's what you'd call 'the same'.

Edited August 19, 2008 by GGTharos

[RvEYoda]

Do you have the same range-aspect graph for AIM-9 of any modification? F-16 manuals are declassified.

 

you can make one from the speed profile, it requires some calculation

but the head on and tail on situations are especially simple.

 

I have not read f-16 manuals for missile performance graphs or case specific engeagement envelopes.

If you could provide such that would be great.

 

Using the doc from Motorola which provided the amraam competitor (earlier in the post) :

If you use the speed profile at 20.000 feet you will see max range is 18 km ;) head-on at previously mentioned closure rates non-maneuvering.

At 33.000 (which is tested vs other missiles) that number extends to around 22-24 km. This is very impressive compared to the

35 km of R-27R, 16 km for R-60. Frightening. Not much room to place the R-73 to be very much stronger than aim9...I mean,

the missile has to have considerably less range than R-27T, why would we otherwise have R-27T missiles from the same manufacturer as r73? ;)

Edited August 19, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

The real difference here is this: Both AIM-9M and R-73 are home-all-the-way heaters.

 

They will NEVER, except in the most perfect of circumstances, achieve their ballistic Rmax, or anything close to - because those little control surfaces are at work /all/ the time.

 

The R-27R fares better because it can use more advanced navigation thanks to the radar signal, plus lofting.

 

 

The numbers I am presenting above are STRICTLY ballistic.

[RvETito]

Reminding what this thread is for- the F-15 in RvE '80s server will remain with 2 Sidewinders and it will not get R-73. MiG-29 remains with 2 R-73s, as well as the Su-27. This is how the server goes and will go, so far the feedback is more than positive.

[Dunkan Aidaho]

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.

Let's make this clear. Su-27 became mainstream aircraft before she officially added to USSR arsenal. How that is possible? Well it's almost national tradition:)

 

Su-27 was already operational since 1984 but has no ECM till 1990.

[RvEYoda]

Let's make this clear. Su-27 became mainstream aircraft before she officially added to USSR arsenal. How that is possible? Well it's almost national tradition:)

 

Su-27 was already operational since 1984 but has no ECM till 1990.

 

Hmm?

No ECM?

If you can find a good source on that and post it, there will

be an update for 80 server payload ;)

[Dunkan Aidaho]

Hmm?

No ECM?

If you can find a good source on that and post it, there will

be an update for 80 server payload ;)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=516378&postcount=18

It seems that those pods on test planes was just dummies.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Dunkan Aidaho

[RvEYoda]

can you please tell us a little about this airwar.ru site? where it gets this stuff from ? It would be good to know, because I know some flanker pilots in the server would be pissed without ECM :P.

[A.S]

FINAL VERSION of Campaign

 

be patient for further details like a totally new STATS concept and Missionrotation- and Severmanaging program.

 

[RvEYoda]

Ok it looks like we have found a stats host :).

Stats page however will not be up until at least 2 weeks.

This is because the person we are working with wont be available

(vacation) until then :P.

 

 

 

How will stats work?

 

While you can click a link on stats page to sort stats by K/d like any other server,

we will however pick a different sorting as default.

 

Stats will be based on 3 things.

From each mission you will get a score from :

 

1. How much time you contributed to the winning team

 

2. what is your kill points - deaths? (kill points are not the same as kills, example killing a mig29A is less worth than killing an f-15.)

You cannot get negative points. If Kill points-deaths < 0, then it is simply set to 0 for you for that mission.

 

3. How many bonus oblectives have you completed. This can be something like taking out enemy airlifts or

choppers as a fighter, or a SEAD/DEAD/other strike missions as Su25/A10. If you are good then these missions

will greatly outweigh '1' and '2'. Note though that the most valuable bonus objectives may be literally impossible

to reach without a coordinated strike and escort package.

Your total stats will be the sum of all contributions from all missions

divided by your total flight hours on server

 

--> The person with highest average score per flight hour will have the highest stats on the board.

 

 

 

We have made sure so that people :

 

Cannot Sit on runway and wait for stats. (doesnt work, will lower your stats to idle)

 

Cannot Switch to winning team last second and hope for stats (wont help you)

 

Cannot kill all targets while the server is empty (even though this itself IS hard)

Edited August 21, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[nscode]

Let's make this clear. Su-27 became mainstream aircraft before she officially added to USSR arsenal. How that is possible? Well it's almost national tradition:)

 

Su-27 was already operational since 1984 but has no ECM till 1990.

 

If I remember correctly, it had internal ECM from the start, but it wasn't very effective.

[RvEYoda]

Server update.

Today the server software crashed for the first time online.

immediately we tried to reproduce the error offline.

The first attempt was successful.

 

A bug was then found in an untested part of the newly

added stats logging module.

 

The bug was fixed and tested OK. Downtime was 20 minutes.

[Dunkan Aidaho]

can you please tell us a little about this airwar.ru site? where it gets this stuff from ? It would be good to know, because I know some flanker pilots in the server would be pissed without ECM :P.

airwar.ru collected many well-writed articles from competent writers in patriotic mood. You need to be careful while interpreting given information - desired things is oftenly presrnted as real here, but not otherwise.

This means that the presented quotation should be spelled in this way: "There are no ECM on Su-27 till 1990. ECM was added to Su-27 after 1990."

How long this "after"? This is another discussion:)

[Dunkan Aidaho]

If I remember correctly, it had internal ECM from the start, but it wasn't very effective.

I wasn't heard about this feature for T-10, nor T-10S.