Why only 2 R27ETs?

[UncleJunkie]

Hi all,

 

Just started flying and I've been using the Flanker as it's a personal favourite of mine and it has great tutorials. Curious as to why you can only load ETs onto the wing pylons? I've discovered the SU27 is at a serious disadvantage in BVR combat due to it's lack of Fox3 ordinance. The best strategy it seems is to hid low and sneak using IRST and 27ETs... except you can only load 2 of them.

 

Is there a real world reason the ETs can't be loaded on the fuselage, or has this been done just to nerf the Flanker?

 

If nerf.. why do they feel the need to weaken the only aircraft incapable of carrying Fox3s?

 

Genuinely curious here.

[Exorcet]

The real plane only carries 2. If you want active missiles, fly the J-11. It's basically a Flanker with R-77's.

[Caster]

4 hours ago, UncleJunkie said:

Hi all,

 

Just started flying and I've been using the Flanker as it's a personal favourite of mine and it has great tutorials. Curious as to why you can only load ETs onto the wing pylons? I've discovered the SU27 is at a serious disadvantage in BVR combat due to it's lack of Fox3 ordinance. The best strategy it seems is to hid low and sneak using IRST and 27ETs... except you can only load 2 of them.

 

Is there a real world reason the ETs can't be loaded on the fuselage, or has this been done just to nerf the Flanker?

 

If nerf.. why do they feel the need to weaken the only aircraft incapable of carrying Fox3s?

 

Genuinely curious here.

FWIW I don't think the R-27ET counts as a fox 3, since it's IR guided it would count as a fox 2. On the other hand I don't think the russians use that classification system anyway.

 

In regards to BVR combat it performs similarly to a hornet with 80s ordinance, although with a lower range. I don't really regard the fox 1s in DCS to be BVR weapons due to their effective envelope being so limited. Wikipedia states an R-27ER to have a range of 70Nm, which definitely is not the case in game, although I'm not in a position to say which is more accurate

Edited May 12, 2021 by Caster
R-27 range

[Flanking Moustache]

This is pure speculation from my side, but I believe it has to do with the seeker head its ability to look around and lock the target before it's launched...

When mounted under wing pylons the seeker has a nice wide and obstruction free field of vision. This isn't the case under the fuselage, especially between the engines nacelles. Radar guided missiles have no problems with these obstructions as they receive commands from the aircraft from which it's launched and don't need to see the target prior to launch, unlike heat seeking missiles such as the 27ET. I believe that's why ETs are only mounted underneath the wings.

 

But again, this is purely my speculation

Edited May 12, 2021 by Flanking Moustache

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, Flanking Moustache said:

This is pure speculation from my side, but I believe it has to do with the seeker head its ability to look around and lock the target before it's launched...

When mounted under wing pylons the seeker has a nice wide and obstruction free field of vision. This isn't the case under the fuselage, especially between the engines nacelles. Radar guided missiles have no problems with these obstructions as they receive commands from the aircraft from which it's launched and don't need to see the target prior to launch, unlike heat seeking missiles such as the 27ET. I believe that's why ETs are only mounted underneath the wings.

 

But again, this is purely my speculation

 

 

Correct and in addition to that:

 

- the IR homing variant can only use rail launchers(APU-470) due to lock-on before launch requirement and therefore only these contain coolant bottles for the missile IR seeker.

 

- rail launchers cannot be used at fuselage stations due to their proximity to the engine air-inlets , just as they obviously can't be used for the Su-27's tandem arranged centerline stations.

 

- the R-27 missile is to large(heavy and draggy) for stations further out on the wing.

 

So this leaves one wing station on either side compatible with the R-27T/ET.

 

The radar guided variant can use both the rail launcher and the ejection launcher(AKU-470) since its lock-on after launch - thus can be mounted on all stations compatible with R-27 missiles(2 underwing and 4 fuselage).

 

 

 

[Max1mus]

2 R-27ETs is plenty and once you get more comfortable with the flanker, you will see that 2 of them is even too much. For fighting NATO aircraft, i like 1 R-77 1 R-27ET 4 R-27ER when in a group, or 2 R-77 1 R-27ET and 3 R-27ER when alone.

 

Try to find methods that dont force you into the mountains. Once you start cockroaching, youre of little more use than a MiG-21, and a high flying opponent will pick you up regardless. Shoot R-27ER to push unwanted people off and then surprise unaware bandits with sub 10 kilometer R-27ER+R-27ETs. Avoid relying on R-27ET alone since 2 flares and going out of burner, or simply popping flares preventively will entirely nullify that threat. Plus, its a large smoke plume that shouts: "Im here, please kill me"

Edited May 12, 2021 by Max1mus

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, UncleJunkie said:

Is there a real world reason the ETs can't be loaded on the fuselage, or has this been done just to nerf the Flanker?

 

If nerf.. why do they feel the need to weaken the only aircraft incapable of carrying Fox3s?

 

In reinforcement of what Seaeagle said, keeping it simple, the only launcher type capable of carrying the cooling fluid for this missile goes on the two stations on the wings, nowhere else.  It is possibly to carry the R-27ET elsewhere IRL, but only for transit - with an uncooled seeker it won't be very useful.

 

In addition, no one's nerfing anything.  'Nerf' is a balancing term and there's no such thing as 'nerfing' or 'buffing' happening.  Things are done to bring the specific aircraft/missile as close to reality as possible, schedule permitting.

Edited May 12, 2021 by GGTharos

[Schmidtfire]

 

12 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

In addition, no one's nerfing anything.  'Nerf' is a balancing term and there's no such thing as 'nerfing' or 'buffing' happening.  Things are done to bring the specific aircraft/missile as close to reality as possible, schedule permitting.

 
I also suspect that R-27ET seen as the ultimate "stealth weapon" is a DCS thing, with the OLS-27 IRST overperforming a great deal. So using 4x R-27T/ET's on the jet in real life for BVR type of engagements would make very little sense.

[UncleJunkie]

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

In addition, no one's nerfing anything.  'Nerf' is a balancing term and there's no such thing as 'nerfing' or 'buffing' happening.  Things are done to bring the specific aircraft/missile as close to reality as possible, schedule permitting.

 

 

Perfect that's what I was hoping... DCS is billed as a simulation not a game; if there was nerfing going on for the sake of gameplay, well that just wouldn't be a simulator now would it!

 

All the explanations make perfect sense to me.

 

 

10 hours ago, Max1mus said:

2 R-27ETs is plenty and once you get more comfortable with the flanker, you will see that 2 of them is even too much. For fighting NATO aircraft, i like 1 R-77 1 R-27ET 4 R-27ER when in a group, or 2 R-77 1 R-27ET and 3 R-27ER when alone.

 

 

Curious as to why in your loadout you opt for more ERs than 77s?

 

Maybe I just haven't learned how yet, but I'm struggling to defeat 120cs by just cranking. I find I have to pretty much go cold which makes my ERs go stupid.

Edited May 12, 2021 by UncleJunkie

[GGTharos]

7 minutes ago, UncleJunkie said:

Perfect that's what I was hoping... DCS is billed as a simulation not a game; if there was nerfing going on for the sake of gameplay, well that just wouldn't be a simulator now would it?

 

There are things that might still happen for the sake of gameplay, and they have to do with things that might not be as deeply modeled like say ECM and basically you can't even know the effect of it on the other guy really  (this is the part that's classified, unlike people throwing blanked statements that ECM is classified and thus cannot be modeled ).  But things like 'make my plane turn tighter because this thing keeps shooting me down' or 'this plane should shoot AIM-54s/R-33/7's because the other guys have longer ranged missiles ... no. 

 

Same as the F-15C not getting AIM-9Xs just because flankers have R-73s.  It's a 90's or early 2000's eagle so it doesn't get those, or helmet sights etc.

 

Quote

Maybe I just haven't learned how yet, but I'm struggling to defeat 120cs by just cranking. I find I have to pretty much go cold which makes my ERs go stupid.

 

But the 120s will also miss since you've turned away.   Then again that's the entire point, the 120 is there to make your life harder (more specifically, it is the very advantage of having an ARH missile, not to mention it being quite a bit more advanced).  The other guy can come back to attack you before you can, thus getting inside your OODA loop.  You have some opportunities for improving your re-attack cycle and making it tighter (eg don't actually go cold, try to notch or last ditch ortho-roll), at the cost of increased risk.

 

Good job though, it's been a while but usually people will stubbornly try to keep the lock hoping their R-27 will hit ... I'd say usually it's the wrong choice.   Second part to this, you don't have a wingman and wingmen change everything.  Even when you have worse armament.

Edited May 12, 2021 by GGTharos

[Exorcet]

34 minutes ago, UncleJunkie said:

 

Curious as to why in your loadout you opt for more ERs than 77s?

 

I can't totally answer that question, but if you're flying on DCS version 2.5, the ER was updated in DCS 2.7 to be more realistic which increased its speed and range. The R-77 hasn't had this update yet and that leaves the ER as have significantly better range in some situations, and when at close range, it closes in on the target much faster if fired at altitude.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

3 hours ago, UncleJunkie said:

 

Curious as to why in your loadout you opt for more ERs than 77s?

 

Maybe I just haven't learned how yet, but I'm struggling to defeat 120cs by just cranking. I find I have to pretty much go cold which makes my ERs go stupid.

 

Because of two things, it allows you to take turn signaling shots vs the AIM-120 by virtue of its speed energy retention and range. And the NEZ makes it easier to kill running bandits within 8~10km ASL.

 

You want to go into SP and learn the ranges of the AIM-120, See what shot can be defeated by cranking or going cold.

Next you want to learn how to push off an AMRAAM carrier, usually you will shoot at the midpoint of Rmax 1 and Rmax 2 with the R-27ER with a decent amount of alt it doesn't really work below like 1000m. Then you crank (to nearly max gimbals) and dive (to the deck pretty much at full speed, the dense air slows the enemy missile down considerably) and support the missile until half of the range that you shot. (Example shoot at 40km support till 20)

 

This shot isn't exactly meant to kill him but should kill him if he attempts to crank through it. You can unsupport the missile and focus exclusively on defense if the bandit goes cold or fully starts beaming. It has gotten the desired reaction.  The enemy is no longer able to support his wing man/friend ahead.

 

Now here should you have a wingman to counter an F-15/16/18s defensive L&L tactics both of you can pincer the remaining bandit and use the local superiority gained to kill the out of position bandit.

 

You can press the flanking bandit from the pincer in EO without alerting him until you can take that 10~8km ET or ER kill shot, because in a wide enough pincer he can only deal with you guys one at a time

 

It can look something like this

 

  

As a Fox 1 limited aircraft (for the most part) you can not take 1v1 fights but that's ok since all BVR is Many vs Many a fight of better positioning

 

[Oceandar]

I personally curious how EOS and IR missiles would perform in DCS after ED make weather and clouds interfering with EOS and IR sensor.

[DarkFire]

Also worth noting that the R-27ET is probably the ultimate tail-chase missile since its engine has such good specific impulse. You essentially get a less maneuverable R-73 with the same seeker head but much longer range and higher speed.

[Max1mus]

No. For running targets, use R-27ER. you can add an ET on top, but the ET alone not only lacks behind in range, but also allows the target to pop 2 flares and recommit.

[Skysurfer]

Simple. Because the T/ET in real life sucks and is fairly limited in terms of launch conditions. 

[Skysurfer]

18 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Because of two things, it allows you to take turn signaling shots vs the AIM-120 by virtue of its speed energy retention and range. And the NEZ makes it easier to kill running bandits within 8~10km ASL.

 

You want to go into SP and learn the ranges of the AIM-120, See what shot can be defeated by cranking or going cold.

Next you want to learn how to push off an AMRAAM carrier, usually you will shoot at the midpoint of Rmax 1 and Rmax 2 with the R-27ER with a decent amount of alt it doesn't really work below like 1000m. Then you crank (to nearly max gimbals) and dive (to the deck pretty much at full speed, the dense air slows the enemy missile down considerably) and support the missile until half of the range that you shot. (Example shoot at 40km support till 20)

 

This shot isn't exactly meant to kill him but should kill him if he attempts to crank through it. You can unsupport the missile and focus exclusively on defense if the bandit goes cold or fully starts beaming. It has gotten the desired reaction.  The enemy is no longer able to support his wing man/friend ahead.

 

Now here should you have a wingman to counter an F-15/16/18s defensive L&L tactics both of you can pincer the remaining bandit and use the local superiority gained to kill the out of position bandit.

 

You can press the flanking bandit from the pincer in EO without alerting him until you can take that 10~8km ET or ER kill shot, because in a wide enough pincer he can only deal with you guys one at a time

 

It can look something like this

 

  

As a Fox 1 limited aircraft (for the most part) you can not take 1v1 fights but that's ok since all BVR is Many vs Many a fight of better positioning

 

 

Also, this only works in a 2v1 where the sole Hornet goes Banzai and has no SA or radar mech. Take 120C's into play as well as a two ship and the ER stands no chance - unelss both parties just notch and chaff and it ends in a merge scenerio or stalemate. It is way more complex than if he/they does X do Y.

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Skysurfer said:

 Also, this only works in a 2v1 where the sole Hornet goes Banzai and has no SA or radar mech. Take 120C's into play as well as a two ship and the ER stands no chance - unelss both parties just notch and chaff and it ends in a merge scenerio or stalemate. It is way more complex than if he/they does X do Y.

 

A 1v2 inside enemy missile NEZ is a very bad position, no matter what you are flying. Also be careful when you use the word "merge". The fight continues even within 10 kilometers, BVR missiles will easily work from as close as a few hundred meters.

 

But either way, going from guaranteed defeat to "stalemate" is quite an improvement. 120Cs and link16 are 2000s equipment, the DCS flankers are non modernized and shine in a 1990s environment. Obviously youre at a disadvantage.

 

But there is nothing else you can do. Against excellent pilots, you will need either an equal number of modernized Flankers (Su-30MKI, MK2), or a superior number of our DCS variants.

 

In short, its still harder to beat Su-27s using these sorts of tactics than ones hiding in the mountains with OLS. For the latter, you simply climb and shoot them until theyre dead.

 

And for those tactics, loadouts with more than 2 R-27ET are not viable. Especially given how in DCS, it will refuse to lock a hot F-16 well within 10 kilometers.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Max1mus

[Cmptohocah]

1 hour ago, Skysurfer said:

Simple. Because the T/ET in real life sucks and is fairly limited in terms of launch conditions. 

Would be great if you could provide more info about this claim. 

[Max1mus]

23 hours ago, UncleJunkie said:

 

Maybe I just haven't learned how yet, but I'm struggling to defeat 120cs by just cranking. I find I have to pretty much go cold which makes my ERs go stupid.

 

 

Crank and dive.

Do an initial rollover after shooting, point the aircraft and then stay wings level as you dive. That will help with chaff rejection of the R-27, it has to do with the ground clutter supression. Make sure it is not a shallow dive, but a hard one at maximum gimbals in full burner, to the deck. The indications in the HUD will help you with not exceeding the radar gimbals.

 

Unfortunately, with how many tools the flanker has, there are too many opportunities to make mistakes. This starts with the loadout selection on the ground. To this day, way too many people equip their plane with insanely stupid loadouts like 4 R-77 and 2 R-27ET. The advantage of the AMRAAM bus is that there is only one weapon, and the box of tools is smaller. So even the most inexperienced pilot is more likely to choose the correct loadout, start at high altitude, scan the airspace.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Max1mus

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

 

A 1v2 inside enemy missile NEZ is a very bad position, no matter what you are flying. Also be careful when you use the word "merge". The fight continues even within 10 kilometers, BVR missiles will easily work from as close as a few hundred meters.

 

But either way, going from guaranteed defeat to "stalemate" is quite an improvement. 120Cs and link16 are 2000s equipment, the DCS flankers are non modernized and shine in a 1990s environment. Obviously youre at a disadvantage.

 

But there is nothing else you can do. Against excellent pilots, you will need either an equal number of modernized Flankers (Su-30MKI, MK2), or a superior number of our DCS variants.

 

In short, its still harder to beat Su-27s using these sorts of tactics than ones hiding in the mountains with OLS. For the latter, you simply climb and shoot them until theyre dead.

 

And for those tactics, loadouts with more than 2 R-27ET are not viable. Especially given how in DCS, it will refuse to lock a hot F-16 well within 10 kilometers.

 

 

Agreed. Especially the last bit which you see so much of in your average online server. Only issues with NEZ's in DCS is that ou can fairly easily notch just about every missile at any range right now (esp. once chaff comes into play). Like 90%+ reliability. But it is what it is. 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

3 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Also, this only works in a 2v1 where the sole Hornet goes Banzai and has no SA or radar mech. Take 120C's into play as well as a two ship and the ER stands no chance - unelss both parties just notch and chaff and it ends in a merge scenerio or stalemate. It is way more complex than if he/they does X do Y.

I gave the OP a timeline of what usually happens in a DCS Airquake server like GS/104th etc, where people are not usually flying in a coordinated manner on coms with one another to illustrate the thinking and problem solving needed.

 

I can not tell him what to do with every possible outcome since so much is situational.

 

Should they both go cold his flanker flight could simply get clear get high and press the enemy 2 ship. What I said isn't exclusively about back pedaling

 

Against 4.5 gen teen series planes slinging the AIM-120C5 with 9X MIDS etc the Soviet era flanker naturally doesn't really win. Its outclassed by plane anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/4th more effective than it over all. At some point in an exchange the Flankers need to judge if they will soon get an opening on the enemy 2 ship to secure a kill and if not bug out. But that's a 2 v 2.

 

You can't exactly win there with even mistake margins with a legacy platform (by comparison) but you can make life hard.

You do get more options when you start doing mixed force encounters with say F-14 / F-16 / JF-17 joining the opfor side depending the server

 

It is though much more of an even fight with only 1980s or 1990s weapons and its a shame so few servers still exist with these restrictions

Edited May 13, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Cmptohocah]

How about 8v8 situation, for example? 8 Flankers with with ECM on, against 8 Slammer carriers.

When the 27s start flanking sneaking and so on. It would get messy pretty quickly and this is the kind of environment where the Flanker thrives, with its EOS and ETs. 1v1 is or 2v2 is kind of simple scenario where the Flanker has a clear disadvantage, but scale it up a bit and you have a very capable machine, even though you can only engage one target at a time with SARHs.

[Max1mus]

4 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

How about 8v8 situation, for example? 8 Flankers with with ECM on, against 8 Slammer carriers.

When the 27s start flanking sneaking and so on. It would get messy pretty quickly and this is the kind of environment where the Flanker thrives, with its EOS and ETs. 1v1 is or 2v2 is kind of simple scenario where the Flanker has a clear disadvantage, but scale it up a bit and you have a very capable machine, even though you can only engage one target at a time with SARHs.

 

That 8v8 is fair against 120Bs, though even a 2v2 is already winnable here. No against 120Cs and link16. It does not matter how many planes you add. They will break through your 8 ship with ease, and just preventively flaring a little bit will defeat any possible ETs. If you manage to solve that problem by running back to long range SAMs (probably failing whatever ovjective you had), their short range AIM-120C shots are still more deadly than you firing every single missile on your plane at them at once. And thats if they have to attack. If you have to attack and gain air superiority in their airspace... Good luck.

 

I would not argue flankers benefit from more chaos. I think in general, planes with 15-20 years older missiles, radars and engines will benefit from chaos, since there is more room for "random" things to happen, mitigating the disadvantages. Think about it, what scenario would you pick as a MiG-21 pilot, 2v2 or 40 vs 40? But the superior aircraft can eliminate that factor with relatively low amount of organization, comparable to the level at which some real world squadrons operate.

 

It would be a different story if DCS had 2000s Su-27 or Su-30. You would get more missiles, thrust vectoring, better radars to make those missiles more effective, better RWR, better archers, better actives (PL-12) and even better jammers than what the slammer busses have if ED ever models that in more depth.

 

PS:

ECM in DCS actually helps enemy player-flown F-16, F-18, F-14. Only use it against SAMs.

 

Also, dont sneak in a group fight. If you have an opportunity, you can press with radar off, but you can not hide from multiple fighters in a spread.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Max1mus

[Skysurfer]

40 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

It would be a different story if DCS had 2000s Su-27 or Su-30. You would get more missiles, thrust vectoring, better radars to make those missiles more effective, better RWR, better archers, better actives (PL-12) and even better jammers than what the slammer busses have if ED ever models that in more depth.

 

 

 

All valid points but even the 27SM or 30SM wouldn't be that more lethal in BVR since their main limiting factor are still the relatively old semi-active missiles. (77-1 or RVV-SD being more of a 120B equivalent with some high maneuverability as one of the design criteria). There's no way around that. Sure better radar and maybe better T/W (if even) can help to an extent but will never be on paar with 120C equipped 15's or most Link 16 jets in general. And then the Archer threat is mostly mitigated or matched by the 9X as well as counter hobs.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Skysurfer