R-60 Question and Request for Rear Aspect Sidewinder

[MBot]

I always tought that the R-60 missle is a rear aspect only weapon. Still it can be locked and launched with no problem from a frontal angle in Lock On. The weapon tracks it's target.

Does lomac model some sort of newer version of the R-60 or is it just wrong ?

 

In general it seems to me that Lock On might be a bit too generous in IR lock qualitys. Even all aspect weapons can have problems locking targets from the frontal hemisphere. Just take the AIM-9L as an example ( one of the first all aspect heaters ). Every attemt to lock an AIM-9L from the front of the enemy failed in the Falkland war and every Sidewinder launch was done from the rear. Tough I understand that this happened over 20 years ago and todays IR weapons do better now.

 

 

In that regard I would like to make a little request. It would be cool if a rear aspect only Sidewinder like the Aim-9P ( or L :) ) could be introduced to Lock On. That would open some good possibilitys for late 80s/early 90s settings, where this weapons were still in use ( please correct me if I am wrong ). I think aircombat was a lot more interesting when IR AAMs weren't yet all aspect and maneuvering combat was a lot more important ( oposed to the anoying head-on vica-versa missle duel we experiance now in many encounters ).

[britgliderpilot]

Re: R-60 Question and Request for Rear Aspect Sidewinder

 

I understand that the R60M is an all-aspect missile - but that should be too late a development for Lomac, you're right.

 

 

In general it seems to me that Lock On might be a bit too generous in IR lock qualitys. Even all aspect weapons can have problems locking targets from the frontal hemisphere. Just take the AIM-9L as an example ( one of the first all aspect heaters ). Every attemt to lock an AIM-9L from the front of the enemy failed in the Falkland war and every Sidewinder launch was done from the rear. Tough I understand that this happened over 20 years ago and todays IR weapons do better now.

 

 

In that regard I would like to make a little request. It would be cool if a rear aspect only Sidewinder like the Aim-9P ( or L :) ) could be introduced to Lock On. That would open some good possibilitys for late 80s/early 90s settings, where this weapons were still in use ( please correct me if I am wrong ). I think aircombat was a lot more interesting when IR AAMs weren't yet all aspect and maneuvering combat was a lot more important ( oposed to the anoying head-on vica-versa missle duel we experiance now in many encounters ).

 

The all-aspect Sidewinder was rushed into service in the Falklands - only just. So it was in service in 1982 . . . . just about reasonable.

 

 

I agree, though, that some provision for tail-aspect only heaters would be a good idea for a simulation product - but it's really only of any use in a lengthy Dynamic Campaign with limited missile stocks, or dedicated mission builders . . . . otherwise, there's nothing to stop someone just using the all-aspect missiles all the time.

 

Maybe for v1.2 or ED's "Next Project".

[Alfa]

Hi,

 

The R-60 version in Lock-on is the R-60M, which is an all-aspect missile....and it dates back to the early eighties ;)

 

So no mistakes :)

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[MBot]

Arg. Then additionally to an Aim-9P I request an even earlyer R-60 :)

 

And do you have any opinions on my IR lock quality statement in lomac ? R-60M as an early 80s weapon could still have some issues with this, as the Aim-9L had. Also in regard to the R-27T. As the R-27(E)T needs a lock prior to launch, I find it a bit strange that the missle can be launched against targets 40-50km away in a head-on situation. So IR lock might be a bit optimistic. What do you think ?

 

Btw, I seem to rember I read somewhere that russian planes get a "lock tone" to indicate lock quality of IR missles in 1.1. Is that realy true or did I just dream that ?

[britgliderpilot]

Heh, guess I got my R60 dates wrong . . . .

 

 

Arg. Then additionally to an Aim-9P I request an even earlyer R-60 :)

 

And do you have any opinions on my IR lock quality statement in lomac ? R-60M as an early 80s weapon could still have some issues with this, as the Aim-9L had. Also in regard to the R-27T. As the R-27(E)T needs a lock prior to launch, I find it a bit strange that the missle can be launched against targets 40-50km away in a head-on situation. So IR lock might be a bit optimistic. What do you think ?

 

Btw, I seem to rember I read somewhere that russian planes get a "lock tone" to indicate lock quality of IR missles in 1.1. Is that realy true or did I just dream that ?

 

I remember reading the same thing - I doubt I could find it again at short notice, but it's probably true. I'm looking forward to this :D

 

 

The R27T isn't supposed to be a BVR weapon - didn't we end up concluding at Ubi that it had no datalink, needed a seeker lock before firing, and was just intended as an uber-heater to run down aircraft trying to escape from the fight?

[MBot]

The R27T isn't supposed to be a BVR weapon - didn't we end up concluding at Ubi that it had no datalink, needed a seeker lock before firing, and was just intended as an uber-heater to run down aircraft trying to escape from the fight?

 

Exactly, thats why those BVR IR locks are a bit strange.

[Alfa]

Hi Mbot,

 

The original R-60 missile dates back to the early seventies(IIRC), and was a rear aspect only weapon - the later R-60M version was fitted with an all-aspect IR seeker :) .

 

But you are of course right that this doesnt mean that it is equally effecient in all aspects ;) . All IR seekers are more effecient in rear aspect, where they have a "clear line of sight" to the hot engines of a target aircraft.

 

As the R-27(E)T needs a lock prior to launch, I find it a bit strange that the missle can be launched against targets 40-50km away in a head-on situation. So IR lock might be a bit optimistic. What do you think ?

 

You are right.....it is, to say the least, highly unlikely that an R-27T or -TE could get an IR lock at that range - the figures I have seen say 10-15 km in head-on aspect, while the 40km might be obtainable at rear aspect.

 

Britglider wrote:

The R27T isn't supposed to be a BVR weapon - didn't we end up concluding at Ubi that it had no datalink, needed a seeker lock before firing, and was just intended as an uber-heater to run down aircraft trying to escape from the fight?

 

Yes :)

 

But I believe it(the R-27T/TE) was implemented as having a datalink for midcourse radio correction in Lock-on....i.e. the head-on lock range being limited by radar tracking range/missile kinetics, rather than IR lock range as it should.

 

But this has been corrected in Lock-on 1.1 :) .

 

Cheers.

- JJ.

[britgliderpilot]

Britglider wrote:

The R27T isn't supposed to be a BVR weapon - didn't we end up concluding at Ubi that it had no datalink, needed a seeker lock before firing, and was just intended as an uber-heater to run down aircraft trying to escape from the fight?

 

Yes :)

 

But I believe it(the R-27T/TE) was implemented as having a datalink for midcourse radio correction in Lock-on....i.e. the head-on lock range being limited by radar tracking range/missile kinetics, rather than IR lock range as it should.

 

But this has been corrected in Lock-on 1.1 :) .

 

Cheers.

- JJ.

 

Aha!

 

 

So the BVR R27ET shots are now a thing of the past?

 

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again . . . . BVR in v1.1 will be an entirely different ballgame 8)

[GGTharos]

Moreso in 1.2 probably, too.

 

No, those BVR shots won't be a thing of the past ... if you can ballpark the missile trajectory you could launch it blind and hope it locks on ... BUT ... hit probability will be far smaller since the aircraft may never enter the seeker's view.

[britgliderpilot]

Moreso in 1.2 probably, too.

 

No, those BVR shots won't be a thing of the past ... if you can ballpark the missile trajectory you could launch it blind and hope it locks on ... BUT ... hit probability will be far smaller since the aircraft may never enter the seeker's view.

 

Yes - but will you need to use launch override and aim the missile with your nose angle?

[GGTharos]

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

 

Or possibly the missile can receive initial steering info from the plane and shoot on a collision course and attempt to lock on later. Obviously, if the target maneuvers...wasted missile.

[42nd_eemee]

AFAIK the r27et is a r27 heater with extended range. Why extend a missiles range IF you can launch it only in WVR. Actually there's one situation I can imagine: your opponent is fleeing and is out of the range of your r73. Nevertheless I thought, that the r27t and r27et receive midcourse updates from the launching platform, just as the the r and er. Is my assumption correct, that in 1.1 the t and et don't get updates?

[britgliderpilot]

AFAIK the r27et is a r27 heater with extended range. Why extend a missiles range IF you can launch it only in WVR. Actually there's one situation I can imagine: your opponent is fleeing and is out of the range of your r73. Nevertheless I thought, that the r27t and r27et receive midcourse updates from the launching platform, just as the the r and er. Is my assumption correct, that in 1.1 the t and et don't get updates?

 

Your assumption is correct.

 

And so is your conclusion on the use of the R27ET.

 

 

Apparently the datalink on the R27-R variants is improved now, too . . . . so you can break lock, and when you regain lock the missile will try to continue guiding to the relocked target.

[Starlight]

I have always been curious about IR systems on Soviet aircraft. I agree with the data told by JJ Alfa; my sources say that AA-8 is a rear aspect IR homer entered in service about in 1975 while the AA-8(M) was an all-aspect which entered service about in 1984. (but wasn't really confirmed until the late eighties, there was probably some confusion with the AA-11 Archer)

 

I'd like to know more about that BVR IR missiles, because since their earliest ones, for each missile the Soviets did a IR version and a radar version (also for AA-3 Anab, AA-5 Ash, AA-6 Acrid, AA-7 Apex). I'm curious on how could work a BVR-IR missile built in the 60s for interceptors like the Tu-128 and the Mig-25.

 

And I was also interested to know something more about the IR seeker of the Mig-23 for example. There were sources that gave its range at about 80-100 km (in the last MLD/P versions). I understand that IR performance may significantly change with weather, but that seems quite ludicrous.

Ludicrous because the IRST on the Mig-29 has a far shorter range, while being much more modern.

And ludicrous because in the seventies much of the military research in the USSR was not done by scientists, but by KGB, if you know what I mean (by admission of some KGB officers, it's not my personal opinion). And in the seventies the IRST was dropped from NATO aircraft because it was felt useless and it didn't work so well (F-4 and F-14 had their IRST deleted from their earlier versions)

 

could anyone tell me something about that?

[BIOLOG]

Actually in RL if R-27R looses lock, it's gone.... Coming from MiG-29 pilot...

[Octav]

Actually in RL if R-27R looses lock, it's gone.... Coming from MiG-29 pilot...

Hm... depends on a lot of things - usually it's not gone - and this is from the manual and a pilot...

If the situation is critical, and you loose lock during terminal SAR guidance, the missile can use the radar's emission in scan mode to home on the target - but because this isn't a continuous illumination mode, it has a much lower PK. And if it manages to fly outside the radar's scan pattern, it's gone...If you loose lock during the inertial guidance part, all you have to do is to re-lock the target.

 

Now back to the original post - the R-60M, whilst credited to have an all-aspect seeker, has some limitations in the frontal hemisphere - it needs the target to be in afterburner, to get a stable lock - in max dry thrust, you may not get a lock, and to get a lock, the seeker must be informed by the weapons system to expect a front aspect target - either automatically, when you have a distance to the target in the system (from the radar or laser designator) or manually, via the ZPS/PPS switch. If you set the switch to the wrong position, you have a problem.

 

Octav

 

P.S. Regarding the MiG-23's EOS, I don't know for sure the specs for the ML/D, but the one installed on the MF had at best a range of 10 km, on a non-afterburning target. Let's say that you could expect up to double that, for an afterburning target, but no way 100 km - let's be serious...

[Avimimus]

Heh, guess I got my R60 dates wrong . . . .

 

 

[quote="MBot"

The R27T isn't supposed to be a BVR weapon - didn't we end up concluding at Ubi that it had no datalink, needed a seeker lock before firing, and was just intended as an uber-heater to run down aircraft trying to escape from the fight?

 

All versions of the R-27 have a data link (even the SARH ones).

On board seekers are used only for terminal flight.

[Alfa]

 

All versions of the R-27 have a data link (even the SARH ones).

On board seekers are used only for terminal flight.

 

The R-27R/-RE SARH versions are to ones to have a datalink - IR versions R-27T/-TE do not :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[MBot]

It might be true indeed, that every R-27 has the datalink hardware physicaly installed. But long time ago we came to the conclusion that the thermal R-27 don't use it.

IRL, the pilot only gets the launch autorisation for a R-27T if it has a solid IR lock. So if the missle has to be locked on target before the launch, there is no point to have a datalink.

But as the R-27 has a modular construction, the R and T only differ in seeker head. So it could be possible that the R-27T carrys "death " datalink equipment. Where is Alfa... ?

 

Edit: Lol, Alfa is already here :)

 

 

Btw, Bump for rear aspect Sidewinder :)

[Sharpshooter]

Is the datalink also removed from the R-24T ? My sources indicate that the only IR missile with Datalink is the R-40T Acrid carried on the Mig-25 and Mig-31.

 

Also I`ve noticed that the R-33E performance is very bad, it hardly hits a fighter plane, even if it is in level flight, the only thing the fighter pilot has to do is dispense some chaff and the missile will be decoyed. So much for the powerful radar of the Mig-31 and it´s predilected weapon. But I´m saying this with no source backup.

 

I´ve noticed that ARH missiles trigger RWR alarms on both NATO(R-77) and Russian Aircraft(AIM-120C). According to my sources and Falcon 4 ARH missiles guide on Datalink until they go Active and then they can be detected by the RWR. Still the question is if the RWR on Russian Aircraft will be triggered because the RWR(SPO) will detect an airborne radar and not a typical signal fighter radars send to targets for guiding SARH missiles. On the other hand F-15C RWRs will detect an active missile radar an will crearly display it on the RWR (I think the F-15Cs RWR is advanced enough to do that, F-16s RWRs can).

 

Moreover if the R-27R and R-27RE have Datalink, wouldn´t they guide on Datalink, and then when the missile is close enough the Fighter Radar will send a signal, so the SARH missile could guide directly to the target ? This will trigger the enemy`s RWR only when fully necessary(ie the missile needs more constant updates so that it can hit the target accurately) and will give him very short notice and thus possibility to evade the missile.

 

Regarding IR missiles, I heard someone say that some Russian Aircraft have IR missile warning but none of the flyable Russian Aircraft seem to have it. I heard that it detects the changes the missile does to the atmosfere or something like that. How true is this ?

 

I want to ask if the Russian IR missiles now emit a tone only when they have a positive heat source where they can guide on or they emit a tone that becomes more high pitched when receiving a more potent eat signal, just like the AIM-9 in Falcon4.

 

I´d like to point out that the Helmet Mode with the R-73 is not working right. I´ve seen in a video how a Russian pilot moves his head and then the EOS sensor moves with his head(not really smooth BTW). So the helmet adcquisition mode is limit by the EOS sensor. I see that this limit is respected when trying to lock, but once it is locked it does not respect the EOS gimbal limits anymore.

 

Pardon me if I´m going way offtopic but I´d like to point out that when using EOS mode, and you lose a lock, the radar tries to acquire the target. This is listed as a feature, but isn´t the EOS sensor whole purpose to be stealthy?. If the radar is turned on, your cover is blown and then you are screwed.

 

Thanks for Reading :)

[britgliderpilot]

Most of your questions are answerable by those who have played v1.1 - I haven't, but I do know the answer to this one:

 

 

Regarding IR missiles, I heard someone say that some Russian Aircraft have IR missile warning but none of the flyable Russian Aircraft seem to have it. I heard that it detects the changes the missile does to the atmosfere or something like that. How true is this ?

 

The quote was in the Flanker 2.0 manual - and that particular quote was copied into the Lomac manual as part of the great copy/paste fiasco.

 

 

It WAS a feature in Flanker 2.x, but was removed for realism purposes in Lomac.

 

 

 

Some good questions there, though.

[gustav]

Pardon me if I´m going way offtopic but I´d like to point out that when using EOS mode, and you lose a lock, the radar tries to acquire the target. This is listed as a feature, but isn´t the EOS sensor whole purpose to be stealthy?. If the radar is turned on, your cover is blown and then you are screwed.

 

Thanks for Reading :)

 

Is this the case now in Lock-on (that drop of EOS lock activates the radar)? If this is true i think it should be removed (the stealth issue). The other way around is fine though of course (radar lock drop, switch to eos lock).

 

And as for the initial post. I would also like to see the addition of the rear-aspects only ir missilles just because some dogfighting could be more fun. :D

[Sharpshooter]

Concerning the topic I feel that AIM-120 early versions should be considered. According to this source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html AIM-120A was the one deployed in 1991 in small quantities and was not fired during the War. It was not until late 1994 that AIM-120B was deployed and AIM-120C earlier version where first deployed in 1996. Futhermore AIM-120C has about 7 subversions, and the earliest should be considered the ones modeled in LOMAC. Since from version to version the AIM-120 has been considerably improved, several versions should be modeled in LOMAC especially for earlier conflicts against missiles such as R-27R and R-27T. Otherwise Su-27 and MIG-29A are in big disadvantage against AIM-120C fitted F-15Cs. At least I reccomend modelling AIM-120 A, B and an early C version, considering that the C version is way better than the B and A versions according to my source.

[MS_Wolverine]

This is with regard to the disussion going on about the R-27ET and radar/EOS team-work. Well, if Avimimus is correct. The R-27ET has a data link. IF you remember it right, BVR mode locks the targets using the radar, or STT as the F-15 pilots like to call it.

 

Now, when you fire an R-27ET, it is getting the co-ordinates of the target from the targeting aircraft. This means that the missile is getting guidance from the aircraft... not tracking itself yet. This is COMMAND guidance. If you lose lock on the target, the missile gets "timed out" and switches to INERTIAL guidance. This means that the missile follows the path according to last known target position, speed and heading. If you resume lock again, the missile returns to COMMAND guidance. Now, when the missile is in range (15 KM for the R-27ET) for it's on-board IR seeker, it breaks the datalink and starts tracking the target itself... passively.

 

The coupling of the EOS and the Radar. As my fellow player SharpShooter wrote "... you are screwed.", I believe he is right in some regards. He is wrong in some others as well. Have you ever thought about this? Russian aircrafts chiefly use SARH missiles, with the exception of some. Now, as you already know, SARH missiles need guidance from the targeting computer. Now, let's suppose you managed to lock up an F/A-18A at a distance of 48 km. You fired an R-27ER when he was at 45 and waited for the missile to hit. Now, of course, missiles are faster than aircrafts but you may not be so slow either. The F/A-18A pilot was skilled and started beaming you... what do you do now? Well, the EOS helps you here... the EOS switches on it's laser range finder and starts tracking the enemy. As you may remember, every 3 pulses of the IR laser range-finder and followed by a radar pulse. This radar pulse gets a much accurate reading as compared to the laser range-finder. Plus, when the radar is able to lock, it switches on... automatically. Thus, we see that the coupling of the EOS and radar mean that the enemy is "screwed"... not you.

 

Regarding the discussion on adding some rear-aspect IR missiles, well... I believe that they are obsolete! Lock On is "Modern Air Combat"... rear-aspect IR missiles are a thing of the past now.

 

SharpShooter is correct about the AMRAAMs though. I, too, believe that the US aircrafts should get a much wider range of missiles. Actually, an F-15E would have been more "fun" than the F-15C.

 

Also, I do not think that there are ways to detect an IR missile launch. Flanker 2.5 even showed an A-G radar in the Su-27! So, it was quite wrong... in many respects. Plus, to detect changes in the atmosphere to detect missile launch, the aircraft would need a radar... a radar which never switches off... this would just add weight and really get the pilot "screwed"!!

 

I would like to add a piece of news here... talking of missile launch warning systems and radars, did you people know of the Su-47 and the R.x missile? The Su-47 Berkut features a rear-looking radar and the ONLY rear-firing missile... the R.x. What this means is this... you get behind a Su-47 planning to "riddle" the pilot. But suddenly, he shoots a missile behind... at you!! The R.x will also be added to bombers and some fighter/bombers.

 

The link for the AMRAAM was nice. Thank you. :)

[Dmut]

We discussed it long time ago - both R-27T and ET don't have a datalink.

These rockets are locking targets while sitting on pylons, and then fly directly to the targets, using proportional method of targeting. If they launched without a target lock ("maddog" mode) then they fly toward to first detected target. After missile has been launched from pylon, it doesn't receive any course or target corrections.