How did the R-23/24 T missile function?

[addman]

So the regular R-23/24R variant was completely radarguided but I'm having some problem finding specifics with regards to the T-variant. From what I gathered it required radar-lock to launch and then it went into IR-mode but could you launch at same distances as the R-variant or did it have shorter track/launch-range? Was just reading up on the Mig-23 ML variant and found this interesting.

[æck]

You don't need radar lock to launch it, but unlike R-24R it requires the missile seeker to be locked on before launch. That's what ultimately limits the R-24T's range as the acquisition range is extremely dependent on target and aspect.
For example, at 11km altitude the 24T can detect a rear aspect F-15 in AB at over 90km (though is still limited to 50km like 24R). While front aspect mil power at sea level is only 6km.

there's more information in the R-24T manual: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/145783/

[addman]

Thank you for the info. So it can, theoretically, detect and lockon(?) (with IR-seeker I presume) aircraft at longer distances then let's say an R-60? And I presume it won't alarm the enemy rwr since it's using IR. Nice manual, too bad that it's in Russian though

Edited October 26, 2022 by addman

[æck]

6 hours ago, addman said:

too bad that it's in Russian though

you're in luck! Lucas (community manager of RAZBAM) made this translated version a while ago: R-24_Guide.pdf

and yes it won't alert the target, and the seeker can be cued by the IRST.

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by æck

[JunMcKill]

3 hours ago, æck said:

you're in luck! Lucas (community manager of RAZBAM) made this translated version a while ago: R-24_Guide.pdf

and yes it won't alert the target, and the seeker can be cued by the IRST.

 

 

Amazing doc, the MLA model if by far better than the standard ML used by cuban/angolan MIG-23 in the 80s. And the R-24 missile with longer range than the 23, anyway compared with western AIM-7 of the 80s, the range of the 23, 24 and even the R-27 sucks. And I'm talking about the tests done IRL, not what the manuals said.

Edited October 26, 2022 by JunMcKill

[Кош]

22 часа назад, JunMcKill сказал:

Amazing doc, the MLA model if by far better than the standard ML used by cuban/angolan MIG-23 in the 80s. And the R-24 missile with longer range than the 23, anyway compared with western AIM-7 of the 80s, the range of the 23, 24 and even the R-27 sucks. And I'm talking about the tests done IRL, not what the manuals said.

 

Which tests? Which model of AIM-7? It would be nice to talk numbers. 

How do you think the combat employment manual is written?

Photo depicts an R-24.

As for the T missiles there was a conversation somewhere that launch authorisation required a distance measuring radar ping, although this should not be picked up by RWR. A good thing if you think that seeker can lock some targets way further than kinematic and battery range.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Кош

[Avimimus]

On 10/26/2022 at 8:46 AM, æck said:

you're in luck! Lucas (community manager of RAZBAM) made this translated version a while ago: R-24_Guide.pdf

and yes it won't alert the target, and the seeker can be cued by the IRST.

A really interesting doc!

In particular, the sizeable effects of supersonic heating! It seems to make a real difference.

I assume that time of day and atmospheric conditions would also matter? Unfortunately that information doesn't seem to be included. I suspect engagement ranges would be higher at night though.

[JunMcKill]

On 10/27/2022 at 8:57 AM, Кош said:

Which tests? Which model of AIM-7? It would be nice to talk numbers. 

How do you think the combat employment manual is written?

Photo depicts an R-24.

As for the T missiles there was a conversation somewhere that launch authorisation required a distance measuring radar ping, although this should not be picked up by RWR. A good thing if you think that seeker can lock some targets way further than kinematic and battery range.

 

I was in the Cuban armed forces for more than 15 years and all my life I have been a fan of airplanes and combat and I was lucky enough to participate in the first attempts to create a basic combat simulator (fPS of the HUD) at the end of the 80s and early 90s.

But going back to the subject, I had all those manuals in Russian in my hands (and are the same ones that are on the internet today), but according to the pilots with whom I spoke, although the manuals gave those distances, in the real tests they fall below the manual specs by far (at that time Soviet scientists were sometimes forced to give data to please the party leadership)

Note: compared to the AIM-7M of the 80s

Edited October 31, 2022 by JunMcKill

[Кош]

22 часа назад, Avimimus сказал:

A really interesting doc!

In particular, the sizeable effects of supersonic heating! It seems to make a real difference.

I assume that time of day and atmospheric conditions would also matter? Unfortunately that information doesn't seem to be included. I suspect engagement ranges would be higher at night though.

If not listed always assume standart day standart atmosphere.

[Кош]

10 часов назад, JunMcKill сказал:

I was in the Cuban armed forces for more than 15 years and all my life I have been a fan of airplanes and combat and I was lucky enough to participate in the first attempts to create a basic combat simulator (fPS of the HUD) at the end of the 80s and early 90s.

But going back to the subject, I had all those manuals in Russian in my hands (and are the same ones that are on the internet today), but according to the pilots with whom I spoke, although the manuals gave those distances, in the real tests they fall below the manual specs by far (at that time Soviet scientists were sometimes forced to give data to please the party leadership)

Note: compared to the AIM-7M of the 80s

 

As for Soviet modus operandi, I happen to have had a first hand acquitance with both a defence scientist and a party leadership member. What you are saying was a major criminal offence. Besides combat employment manual is written not by the design berau but by the combat employment center based on practical results - most commonly Lipetsk. As for pilot opinions, without hard data its not a conversation. Pilots tend to exaggerate things both ways, with all due respect.

Have you been in a room with this picture?

[JunMcKill]

I agree with all that you say, but I can't provide you with any reliable information of what I spoke with the pilots (former Angola pilots), please take a look at the former soviet union history and what happened to the Kursk submarine and many other mishaps.

Is not me who says they covered up defects and test results, it is the protagonists themselves, the internet is full of their interviews.

But please, this is just a technical conversation (and somehow regarding the history of the former USSR), it's not to warm things up

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by JunMcKill

[JunMcKill]

 

[OverStratos]

3 hours ago, JunMcKill said:

I agree with all that you say, but I can't provide you with any reliable information of what I spoke with the pilots (former Angola pilots), please take a look at the former soviet union history and what happened to the Kursk submarine and many other mishaps.

Is not me who says they covered up defects and test results, it is the protagonists themselves, the internet is full of their interviews.

But please, this is just a technical conversation (and somehow regarding the history of the former USSR), it's not to warm things up

 

 

Your opinions are... interesting
Why don´t you drop in our Discord server?
it is the main place where we discuss modules and its characteristics

[JunMcKill]

18 hours ago, OverStratos said:

Your opinions are... interesting
Why don´t you drop in our Discord server?
it is the main place where we discuss modules and its characteristics

Time dear OverStratos, at the most I have a minute to read how is going the development of your modules! and that's it, the last time I flew DCS was a month ago.

[Dragon1-1]

Note that what the test pilots over a cool test range in Lipetsk was not necessarily what the real pilots in a hot, humid place like Angola got. The differences here likely stem from the very same things that made Sparrow absolutely suck in Vietnam, while being perfectly adequate on the Nevada test ranges. Atmospheric conditions, storage conditions and age all affect both missile electronics and motors. I'd imagine the missiles used for writing the manual were brand new, stored exactly as intended and handled by Soviet experts. Angolan pilots likely used old missiles stored in what was available, not what was intended, and serviced by local technicians who weren't necessarily the top of the top armament techs a Soviet test facility would get. Don't mistake the USSR for modern Russia, the Soviets were much better about those things.

In fact, the R-24 was found to be better than the Sparrow, unless you mean late 80s versions which were quite advanced. Soviets had a chance to copy the Sparrow, but decided against it, which is honestly pretty damning, given they were typically eager to copy Western inventions. Even in late variants, Sparrow's kinematics were not that great.

[Кош]

04.11.2022 в 16:16, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Note that what the test pilots over a cool test range in Lipetsk was not necessarily what the real pilots in a hot, humid place like Angola got. The differences here likely stem from the very same things that made Sparrow absolutely suck in Vietnam, while being perfectly adequate on the Nevada test ranges. Atmospheric conditions, storage conditions and age all affect both missile electronics and motors. I'd imagine the missiles used for writing the manual were brand new, stored exactly as intended and handled by Soviet experts. Angolan pilots likely used old missiles stored in what was available, not what was intended, and serviced by local technicians who weren't necessarily the top of the top armament techs a Soviet test facility would get. Don't mistake the USSR for modern Russia, the Soviets were much better about those things.

In fact, the R-24 was found to be better than the Sparrow, unless you mean late 80s versions which were quite advanced. Soviets had a chance to copy the Sparrow, but decided against it, which is honestly pretty damning, given they were typically eager to copy Western inventions. Even in late variants, Sparrow's kinematics were not that great.

Point is AIM-7 had conical scan seekers(Like R-3R, R-98R, R-40R) well until the M series introduced in 1982, greatly reducing its performance against actively maneuvring targets. As for kinematics, AIM-7 was quite impressive in all models vs respective timeframes.

[Harlikwin]

On 10/30/2022 at 8:49 AM, Avimimus said:

A really interesting doc!

In particular, the sizeable effects of supersonic heating! It seems to make a real difference.

I assume that time of day and atmospheric conditions would also matter? Unfortunately that information doesn't seem to be included. I suspect engagement ranges would be higher at night though.

Yeah, DCS IR modeling is very very simplistic. But the major determinants of lock ranges from an IR standpoint are basically gonna be related to how much IR signal you are getting and what part of the IR spectrum is in (this is where what kind of seeker material you are using becomes important). But at a very basic level what you are seeing in that chart is obviously, signature from the engine (idle/mil/AB) which of course is a bigger deal from rear aspects. Then you have the airframe which when you get supersonic will get warm, but the key point everyone missies is that there is a supersonic shock wave, well what happens when you rapidly compress a gas? It heats up. I used to have a great IR image of a hornet along with the shockwave but can't find it anymore. 

The other thing that matters alot as well is "background" or "contrast". Its pretty simple to think about if your plane has a temp value of 100 and the background has a temp value of 0, then this is the perfect case, the signature is 100 (lets say this is the case looking up at a clear sky, which is very cold). Now in "look down" you are looking at the ground, so your plane is still 100, but now the ground is say 50. So your effective signature is just 50, so shorter range to pick you out of that. (not represented on the chart as far as I can tell) since I don't think it says what the ownship alt is (or maybe it is and I missed it). 

Other fun things that show up in the chart like atmospheric attenuation, so the high alt ranges are longer than the low alt ranges, because there is less atmosphere to absorb the signal. And as you can see, this is actually a major effect.  

Also one major thing that I don't think is really reflected in this chart are other factors such as "skyshine" or "ground shine" i.e. reflections of either the very cold sky, or the relatively warm ground that also impact IR signatures. 

Also, the final complicating factor being paint... 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Harlikwin