R-77-1 chances with improved battery and lofting?

[Hodo]

So the current redfor fox 3 is at best a 1980s missile when faced against newer mid and late 90s fox 3 western missiles.   Is there any plans to update the missile?

[bies]

On 1/19/2022 at 7:31 PM, Hodo said:

So the current redfor fox 3 is at best a 1980s missile (...)

The very first basic R-77 variant developement completed in 1994.

There was no AIM-120 or R-77 operational in 1980s. There was a short informational pre-production serie of AIM-120A in 1987 in USAF but still not ready to use. Just saying. 

[Apok]

Seems to be ~80km range and lofting from current war footage.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Apok

[Cmptohocah]

9 hours ago, Apok said:

Seems to be ~80km range and lofting from current war footage.

 

Around 90km max engagement range.

[Ironhand]

On 1/19/2022 at 1:31 PM, Hodo said:

So the current redfor fox 3 is at best a 1980s missile when faced against newer mid and late 90s fox 3 western missiles.   Is there any plans to update the missile?

None that have been revealed to us.

If you want to use the -1, you’ll have to install one of the Flanker mods, the Su-30, I believe. Probably any of the others as well.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Ironhand

[F-2]

On 1/19/2022 at 1:31 PM, Hodo said:

So the current redfor fox 3 is at best a 1980s missile when faced against newer mid and late 90s fox 3 western missiles.   Is there any plans to update the missile?

SD-12 is a redfor missile. It’s not on a plane most redfor players want but it’s absolutely as modern as AMRAAM and it’s specs online seem to show it as comparable to R-77-1 in range.

[Hodo]

On 3/28/2022 at 5:56 PM, F-2 said:

SD-12 is a redfor missile. It’s not on a plane most redfor players want but it’s absolutely as modern as AMRAAM and it’s specs online seem to show it as comparable to R-77-1 in range.

Yeah I know the SD-12 well and the JF-17.  Which is one of the top three modules out there.  

[Etha2007]

I don't think any of the REDFOR modules in DCS operationally carried the R-77-1, so unlikely. Maybe someday, if we get Su-27SM or Su-35.

[Cmptohocah]

7 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

We have MiG-31 which has MiG-31BM external model, but is coded as non-modified one... Perhaps that one could've been the first plane to carry R-77-1.

Furthermore, there is MiG-29S, which of course never used R-77-1, but planes that can carry R-77 can also use 77-1s, though, without access to the 77-1 sophisticated trajectories. Since ED invented its Ka-50 i can't see any reason not to add 77-1 to 29S

I don't think it would help that much as the MiG's radar has a pretty short range.

What we would really need is an Su-35, but that's just a pipe-dream.

[Cmptohocah]

14 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

N019M is good enough for it and should outrange the missile for a 3m² target. But this is just a dream for DCS, missile entered service around 2015. 

From what I know in DCS MiG-29S' radar has a range of around 50km and 77-1 goes up to 90km. 

[Dragon1-1]

90km is the kinematic range, not Rpk. Practical ranges are going to be much shorter. It should perform similarly to the AMRAAM.

[Cmptohocah]

16 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yeah which is wrong as it is identical with the 29A - should be around 80-100km for the 29S.

Ah I see, I had no idea. Yeah that would make a difference indeed. Do you have any documents to back this up? Maybe ED can adjust it to match the real thing.

[Chizh]

On 1/19/2022 at 10:31 PM, Hodo said:

So the current redfor fox 3 is at best a 1980s missile when faced against newer mid and late 90s fox 3 western missiles.   Is there any plans to update the missile?

R-77 (RVV-AE) missile developed into 1990 and limited production till 2015, before the advent of R-77-1.

We have no plan for R-77-1.

[Chizh]

17 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Russian DLZ's aren't like western ones - the top end always has some maneuvering and terminal reserve left. But obviously you aren't hitting anything at that range if it maneuvers.

No. The Russian Max range DLZ means that target fly straight without maneuvering.

[Chizh]

4 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yes it's the same as Rmax but isn't Raero. There is some room for terminal energy.

There is no room actually.

[Cmptohocah]

22 hours ago, Chizh said:

There is no room actually.

Hi @Chizh,

Do you have any more information about this? I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely no margin. The manual instructs to fire one missile at this "Rmax" distance, but if there is no overhead, chances for this missile to hit are almost zero.

[Ironhand]

According to the manual R-Max1 is for targets certain not to maneuver. Even then, somewhere in there, it states to wait until the target is slightly inside that range before launching but that may be due to imprecise range measurement.

 

EDIT:

Quote

5.1.7. Special operating features of the Armament Control System during complete (ППО) and incomplete (НПО) instrument support.

...

When attacking the target in PPO mode, an index (arrow) indicates the current target range on the range scale:

                                    - maximum allowable launch range mark against a target that is certain not to maneuver – R-max1 (ДРмакс1)

                                    - maximum allowable launch range mark for a target that is certain to maneuver – R-max2 (ДРмакс2)

                                    - minimum allowable launch range mark –R-min (ДРмин)

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Ironhand

[Seaeagle]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:56 PM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yeah which is wrong as it is identical with the 29A - should be around 80-100km for the 29S.

Why? - AFAIK the N019M uses the same antenna, emitter and analogue signal processor as the baseline N019, while only the digital data processor was upgraded( in part to support the extra SNP-2 mode for R-77 employment). All I have seen on this are some vague claims of very modest range improvement in the order of some 5-10% increase supposedly due to improved S/N ratio/increased processing power.

Quote

It's in the 9.13 tactical manual found on their file section. 

The 9.13 uses the same N019 radar as the baseline 9.12, so how is a manual for the 9.13 relevant for the 9.13S and its N019M radar?

[Seaeagle]

6 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

A bit more than this, also according to first hand pilot accounts why use the radar. It is actually night and day from the original N019 in terms of reliability and probability of detection.

That is not the N019M of the MiG-29S being described though, but rather a more recent upgrade proposal called N019M1, which as the text says, involves replacement of multiple components. The MiG-29S we have in DCS used the original N019M from around 1991-92, which was a very modest upgrade to the N019 and e.g. didn´t have any air-to-ground modes at all.

[Seaeagle]

1 minute ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Point being there should be a detection range increase when compared to the 29A. Even if it's only 15% for most targets.

Possibly yes, but I have never been able to find any real documentation for the original N019M and I can well imagine that this is the reason why ED is reluctant to make range adjustments for it in DCS. At the very least there would need to be something tangible to support the claim of increased radar range, such as a change to the antenna design/technology, or/and new emitter of increased power or something like that, but as I mentioned earlier, that did not appear to be the case - only a new data  processor and an extra "add-on" mode specifically for employing the R-77.

[okopanja]

16 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

At the very least there would need to be something tangible to support the claim of increased radar range, such as a change to the antenna design/technology, or/and new emitter of increased power or something like that, but as I mentioned earlier, that did not appear to be the case - only a new data  processor and an extra "add-on" mode specifically for employing the R-77.

Radar model when it comes to a range in DCS is nothing but single numeric value, so there is no rocket science change involved into increasing the range. Likely they do have the documents supporting the correct values, but we are all aware that this is sensitive topic on one side, and company decision to keep feature freeze on FC3. The hope is that first limitation will be obsoleted at some point and that company will review its decision in future: 1/3 of the market is not something to be ignore for longer time.

As for the R-77-1 and newer N019M1, the information appears to be already disclosed one way or another by the same state actor. It is only to expect that foreign factors have already meticulously collected any leaked information or failed missile example in the woods of Ukraine, so it must be assumed that R-77-1 is already a compromised missile. Likely they will need to replace/upgrade it in not so distant future.

As for N019M1, clearly with 2/3 of the needed volume this is something that can be fitted even on older air-frames.

Edited July 18, 2022 by okopanja
minor edits

[Seaeagle]

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Radar model when it comes to a range in DCS is nothing but single numeric value, so there is no rocket science change involved into increasing the range.

You missed the point - namely that its not a matter of whether they can change it, but rather whether there is sufficient evidence that it should be changed. 

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Likely they do have the documents supporting the correct values,

I seriously doubt that - in fact I seem to remember Chizh once saying exctly that they didn´t have much info on the N019M.

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

 and company decision to keep feature freeze on FC3.

That is of course another possible reason 

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

As for the R-77-1 and newer N019M1, the information appears to be already disclosed one way or another by the same state actor.

It is only to expect that foreign factors have already meticulously collected any leaked information or failed missile example in the woods of Ukraine, so it must be assumed that R-77-1 is already a compromised missile. Likely they will need to replace/upgrade it in not so distant future.

As for N019M1, clearly with 2/3 of the needed volume this is something that can be fitted even on older air-frames.

You are talking about two different things - introducing the R-77-1 as a new weapon in DCS and modifying an existing aircraft entity.

In the first case there is only trivial information available  on the R-77-1 and you could argue that there would be little reason for ED to "wing it", when the current Russian planes of 80ies and 90ies "vintage" in DCS don´t support it.

In the second case, it dosn´t matter whether an N019M1 would physically fit into the sim´s 1991 MiG-29S - as far as I am concerned an aircraft in DCS should have the radar that the real aircraft has.

 

 

 

 

[okopanja]

22 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

In the second case, it dosn´t matter whether an N019M1 would physically fit into the sim´s 1991 MiG-29S - as far as I am concerned an aircraft in DCS should have the radar that the real aircraft has.

Mig-29SM with N019M1E, real aircraft in operational use, upgraded from old airframes. Google for more details.

 

[Seaeagle]

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

Mig-29SM with N019M1E, real aircraft in operational use, upgraded from old airframes. Google for more details.

 

Do we have MiG-29SM in DCS? - no we don´t. 

So what you are saying is that you want another MiG-29 version than the one we have - fair enough but that has nothing to do with making realism changes to the existing one.  

Edited July 18, 2022 by Seaeagle

[Seaeagle]

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Not really. Anyone who has even a basic understading of radar will know how much better processing alone can improve detection range - as an example APG68 family (retained same transmitter/receiver section with the same antenna. AWG-9 to APG-71 transition retained a lot of the AWG-9 components and antenna with digital processing. Peak power is only a small part of the equation and often not increased due to high cooling demands and electrical loads.

Not really what?. I didn't say improved signal processing alone couldn't account for better range performance. What I said was that in absense of documentation for the actual performance, you are going to have a hard time pursuading ED to make any changes. You could perhaps have a case if the composition of the radar was changed significantly, but since it pretty much remains the same, there is nothing tangible to work with.