Expectation on Air to Air missiles of the MiG-29A?

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

99% of the time? pls give me a link to your source, Retheon official page dont count  I can give you source to statment that 700+ fired ARM's killed 3 radars in Yugoslavia, and yes, they were turning of radars, not having this at least as option for AI put sirious scratch on DCS "study level sim" lebel

Speaking about HOJ in SARH missiles, given efficiency of this mode in DCS, it should be a viable IRL combat tactic to fire SARH on jammer and go cold, somehow I never heard about any aerial kill this way in history of aviation, in DCS missiles in HOJ are more effective than they are against chaffing/flaring targets.

 

SEAD in DCS without some sort of external IADS script is kina a joke gameplay wise at this point. And thats just basic stuff like turning off a radar or relocating a battery. Much less stuff like decoys/false signals etc.

2 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

going of topic now, and stop with this post, but Shrikes in A-4 are preety well modelled, curious if Phantom improve current picture, but i said already, game should give us option to turn on system like IADS, or at least training setting should affect SAM's behavior, further options like really integreted SAM network should be another option in mission editor or just difficulty setting, propably only in editor. In general, if we are getting battlefield simulation on par with current systems moddeling, then there is no point of those systems moddeling on modules in the first place, it's just performance hit for no gains.

 

I think I recall HB saying that actual seeker heads will be modeled i.e. targeting different bands and with various other things, i.e. some had smoke some didn't, some had G-bias some didnt. And so forth. Frankly the Shrike was a pretty crappy ARM tho. 

 

Anyhow this has nothing to do with the 29.

 

[draconus]

On 1/28/2024 at 1:01 PM, Ramius007 said:

99% of the time? pls give me a link to your source, Retheon official page dont count  I can give you source to statment that 700+ fired ARM's killed 3 radars in Yugoslavia, and yes, they were turning of radars, not having this at least as option for AI put sirious scratch on DCS "study level sim" lebel

Speaking about HOJ in SARH missiles, given efficiency of this mode in DCS, it should be a viable IRL combat tactic to fire SARH on jammer and go cold, somehow I never heard about any aerial kill this way in history of aviation, in DCS missiles in HOJ are more effective than they are against chaffing/flaring targets.

On 1/28/2024 at 7:41 PM, Ramius007 said:

going of topic now, and stop with this post, but Shrikes in A-4 are preety well modelled, curious if Phantom improve current picture, but i said already, game should give us option to turn on system like IADS, or at least training setting should affect SAM's behavior, further options like really integreted SAM network should be another option in mission editor or just difficulty setting, propably only in editor. In general, if we are getting battlefield simulation on par with current systems moddeling, then there is no point of those systems moddeling on modules in the first place, it's just performance hit for no gains.

So, you already use mods, why not install another for IADS and SAMs? Battlefield is by far not on par with simulated aircraft systems. DCS strives to have it all but it's a flight simulator first and foremost. And no, not having your favourite feature, doesn't strip it from "study level sim" label. No offence, but you seem to be one of those never happy with what you got so here's a great place for you:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

You'll find there years old threads with IADS, better SAM AI, new ECM, whatever you think DCS lacks and prevents it from getting to the sim heaven.

Or you can just run DCS and fly while devs continue their work.

[Pavlin_33]

Fighting an AI plane, is completely different that fighting a human adversary. I feel it would be similar if we could "drive" the SAMs our selves.

Edited January 30 by Pavlin_33

[pepin1234]

R-27P on a supposed MiG-29 of Ukraine. The wing logo was censored but still the yellow and blue can be seen.

New Russian fighters still using the Soviet design R-27 in late war action. Probably with new sensors made in Russia, after removing the Ukraine made parts. That particular missiles seem to be censored in the HUD.

 

Edited February 1 by pepin1234

[draconus]

2 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

It's certainly not Mig-29.

[pepin1234]

5 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

R-27P on a supposed MiG-29 of Ukraine. The wing logo was censored.

New Russian fighters still using the Soviet design R-27 in late war action. Probably with new sensors made in Russia, after removing the Ukraine made parts. That particular missiles seem to be censored in the HUD.

 

 

@draconus highlighted for you. Maybe you missed the Ukrainian MiG-29 part and also I added the new fighters because in case you don’t know, Some parts of R-27 was made in Ukraine, but not for service Russian client… still a remarkable detail…

Edited February 1 by pepin1234

[Viper33]

9 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

R-27P on a supposed MiG-29 of Ukraine. The wing logo was censored but still the yellow and blue can be seen.

New Russian fighters still using the Soviet design R-27 in late war action. Probably with new sensors made in Russia, after removing the Ukraine made parts. That particular missiles seem to be censored in the HUD.

 

 

 

There are no new parts. They can be refublished but that is it. New parts = R-77-1.

[pepin1234]

6 hours ago, Viper33 said:

There are no new parts. They can be refublished but that is it. New parts = R-77-1.

That was not the point of my post. Parts including head seekers was made in Ukraine. Mostly for export clients users of R-27. That means information about variants is well known. 
 

and the modern new fighter means, R-27 for RuAf have nothing to do with what was made in Ukraine as it was a modular missile. So of course we still get a Soviet MiG-29 version but with the possibility to carry export R-27 family, unfortunately export stopped after 2014. But they were shown for real to the general public for sale to MiG, Su fighter family users R-27P/R/T with the respective extended versions. Not anymore in the web site. We have been discussing about that a lot in this forum in old threads. 
 

https://en.topwar.ru/185470-ukraina-zakljuchila-krupnyj-kontrakt-na-postavku-aviacionnyh-raket-r-27-vozduh-vozduh-srednej-dalnosti.html

 

This news, even when is not 100% clear. Give you a picture of the situation for export R-27 after 2014. Mostly because was a Soviet design, still in use by new RuAf modern Fighters, for sure not with export components (Ukrainian made)

Edited February 2 by pepin1234

[Viper33]

58 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

 
and the modern new fighter means, R-27 for RuAf have nothing to do with what was made in Ukraine as it was a modular missile.

No, they still have large stockpiles but it's the same missile. There are no differences to the Ukrainian built version. 

[pepin1234]

53 minutes ago, Viper33 said:

No, they still have large stockpiles but it's the same missile. There are no differences to the Ukrainian built version. 

[AeriaGloria]

Ukraine Arsenal sold upgraded R-27T/ET seekers and upgraded R-73 seekers. But their brochure for R-27R/ER seeker shows no improvement or differences and nothing else in their marketing implies such. R-27P/EP is its own matter, but for R-27R/ER just becuase it was made in 2014, does not mean it was performing better from the perspective of the pilot

[Harlikwin]

59 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Ukraine Arsenal sold upgraded R-27T/ET seekers and upgraded R-73 seekers. But their brochure for R-27R/ER seeker shows no improvement or differences and nothing else in their marketing implies such. R-27P/EP is its own matter, but for R-27R/ER just becuase it was made in 2014, does not mean it was performing better from the perspective of the pilot

Yeah now do sales numbers... who bought how many.

 

[Hobel]

a question about the guidance of the 27ER, the search head only switches to "active" or sees the target from a certain distance, depending on the size of the target different range, about 10-20km.
so LOAL and the missle is steered close to the target via radio link until then.

hence my assumption, is it possible to fire the 27ER in TWS and the Radar only automatically switches to STT when the missle is in Seeker range. 
in the initial phase, an STT would not necessarily be necessary because the missle does not yet see the radiation anyway.

As with Fox3 shots, the advantages would be that the target is warned late.
The disadvantage of course is that the update rate is not quite as high in TWS

 

Edited March 7 by Hobel

[AeriaGloria]

9 hours ago, Hobel said:

a question about the guidance of the 27ER, the search head only switches to "active" or sees the target from a certain distance, depending on the size of the target different range, about 10-20km.
so LOAL and the missle is steered close to the target via radio link until then.

hence my assumption, is it possible to fire the 27ER in TWS and the Radar only automatically switches to STT when the missle is in Seeker range. 
in the initial phase, an STT would not necessarily be necessary because the missle does not yet see the radiation anyway.

As with Fox3 shots, the advantages would be that the target is warned late.
The disadvantage of course is that the update rate is not quite as high in TWS

 

 

It is theoretically possible if the Missile/guidance system was designed that way. 
 

As it is, there is no way to fire while maintaining TWS, and the datalink is designed with 1 s update rate. Whereas in TWS, a full scan takes about 3.6 seconds I believe. 
 

Im sure it would’ve been possible if the engineers had the money to make it work with their existing hardware which is as you say, already designed for LOAL. But it just wasn’t done. The range is 12 km for small target, 25 km for medium, and 40 for large. These ranges are also drastically smaller if attacked using MPRF/ZPS mode. 
 

You would think with comparing to the F-14/Phoenix, that this sort of thing would have been on their mind. But I guess they believed the STT guidance needed for accurate mid course guidance while saving their TWS mid course engineering for R-77, which was notoriously behind schedule

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

As it is, there is no way to fire while maintaining TWS, and the datalink is designed with 1 s update rate. Whereas in TWS, a full scan takes about 3.6 seconds I believe. 

I think that 3.6s TWS update provides you with just raw input on the target movement. From here the extrapolation is calculated using specific algorithm and this can easily be on the needed 1s update interval. True: it will not be as precise as e.g. STT, but still feasible and kind of acceptable until the seeker gets the proper reflection signal.

[AeriaGloria]

4 hours ago, okopanja said:

I think that 3.6s TWS update provides you with just raw input on the target movement. From here the extrapolation is calculated using specific algorithm and this can easily be on the needed 1s update interval. True: it will not be as precise as e.g. STT, but still feasible and kind of acceptable until the seeker gets the proper reflection signal.

The radar itself is also what sends the data link signal. Two 1/3rd second signal periods to provide datalink guidance for up to 2x R-27, and last 1/3rd second target illumination. I would have to check some material, but I believe after a certain period of time the radar sends a seeker lock command and transitions to a more normal illumination waveform with higher update, but I would have to check 

 

[okopanja]

12 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

The radar itself is also what sends the data link signal.

good point!

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb AeriaGloria:

The radar itself is also what sends the data link signal. Two 1/3rd second signal periods to provide datalink guidance for up to 2x R-27, and last 1/3rd second target illumination. I would have to check some material, but I believe after a certain period of time the radar sends a seeker lock command and transitions to a more normal illumination waveform with higher update, but I would have to check 

 

 Oh, that sounds good, doesn't it?  

So tws/soft lock shoots not quite so absurd with 27ER

[AeriaGloria]

30 minutes ago, Hobel said:

 Oh, that sounds good, doesn't it?  

So tws/soft lock shoots not quite so absurd with 27ER

Absurd? It’s impossible I think! Maybe possible if the time was turned back to 1976 and the engineers were able to design it with that intention with extra money and resources. Or if some sort of huge upgrade was announced. But DCS MiG-29 will only be able to guide with STT

[Fighterinterceptor]

A couple of interesting things about the R-27P!

Date Posted: 28-Apr-2004

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - MAY 05, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia releases passive 'Alamo' for export
Robert Hewson Editor, Jane's Air-Launched Weapons
London

The Russian authorities have made a significant shift in their arms export policies by approving foreign sales of the Vympel R-27P air-to-air missile (AAM). The R-27P (Pasivnaya) is fitted with Avtomatika's 9B-1032 (PRGS-27) anti-radiation seeker, which homes in on other airborne radars. It is one of three basic versions of the R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo') developed in the early 1980s.

Until now the R-27P has been fielded only by the Russian, and probably Ukrainian, air forces. It is part of the baseline weapon set for the MiG-29 and Su-27/Su-30 fighter families. Despite several reports to the contrary, Russia has not yet supplied the R-27P to foreign users. During the recent FIDAE 2004 exhibition in Santiago, Vympel confirmed to JDW that it has now been given permission to offer the R-27P on the export market for the first time.

Despite its age, the R-27P is a radical and effective beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapon with no Western parallels. For decades, Soviet (now Russian) missile engineers have produced passive BVR AAMs that allowed their fighters to make undetected stealthy missile attacks. There is already an infra-red-guided version of the weapon - the R-27T - and the R-27P is an extension of this capability.

The R-27P's seeker was designed to be modular and interchangeable with the RVV-AE/R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') active-radar AAM. Vympel's designers discovered that the R-27E (Energitisheskaya) variant, the so-called 'Long Alamo' with its larger rocket motor, had superior ballistic performance to the R-77 and, therefore, more straight-line range. As a result, an R-27EP has been developed, but there is no passive R-77 yet. Export versions of the R-27P variants are designated R-27P1 and R-27EP1.

According to Vympel, the R-27P's 9B-1032 seeker has an effective range of 200km: this significantly outreaches the 110km maximum range of the R-27E missile. Vympel is considering further improvements to the missile design but says it will still not match the capability of the seeker. The preferred solution would be a ramjet-powered R-77. Such a concept has been studied and the basic missile design was tested in the late 1980s, but since then there has been no funding to take this weapon further.

[Hobel]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb AeriaGloria:

Absurd? It’s impossible I think! Maybe possible if the time was turned back to 1976 and the engineers were able to design it with that intention with extra money and resources. Or if some sort of huge upgrade was announced. But DCS MiG-29 will only be able to guide with STT

Yes, but does this also apply to other aircraft that carry the 27ER?

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

Yes, but does this also apply to other aircraft that carry the 27ER?

I checked guide for MiG-29SMT with Zhuk-ME radar. It can do TWS and provide coordinates to RVV-AE (R-77) and R-73 in such a way as to attack all selected targets. 
 

However, if any R-27 variant is selected, it will transition to STT 10 seconds before reaching authorized launch zone. 
 

So if it is possible, it is not on the MiG-29SMT 

Edited March 8 by AeriaGloria

[AeriaGloria]

It’s kindve like why they never used the datalink for R-27 T/ET. Sure it “could” have worked if they built them with the reference antennas and made it work with the software. But the sad truth of the Soviet Union is that they didn’t, and I think the they did a pretty good job as is designing a pretty unique missile to have some rather unique abilities (modularity). 

[JonathanSVK]

mig-29AS equipment used in the Slovak air force.

 

[okopanja]

31 minutes ago, JonathanSVK said:

mig-29AS equipment used in the Slovak air force.

 

The loadput looks like pre-upgrade earlyvariant. Modernized Slovak and Serbian Mig-29 cockpits are almost identical. The later carries R77,R27ER1, Kab-500.