Mig-29S attacks 2 targets simultaneously?

[GGTharos]

There is a small possibility. In LO, it's is almost 100%. Remember, these things can miss even when you LOCK THEM ON in reality, so why you'd want to do it with LA override and actually reduce your chances, I don't know. You already have LNGT mode to lock onto targets without radar or IRST (missile seeker as sensor) so I just don't see the point of using LA-O this way in reality.

 

The R-27ET carries a very large rocket, so it can actually be launched at a target 40-50km away (high-to-high especially) and still hit. In reality it would have most likely locked onto something else by the time it got there.

[GGTharos]

LA-Override is a hole ... it's not the only missile (and not just Air to Air) whose limitations it breaks, because those limitations were implemented as aircraft systems limitations. LA-O gets rid of those.

 

The scan patters of the missiles are a different matter and they're a known issue as well. There wasn't any time to make them smarter (and thus tighter) IIRC.

 

The hole is not overriding it' date=' but having the seeker pick up targets as far as 60 degrees from it's axis. The R-77 and the AIM-120 suffer from the same problem.[/quote']

[topol-m]

Thanks for the explanation GG

[RedTiger]

LA-Override is a hole ... it's not the only missile (and not just Air to Air) whose limitations it breaks, because those limitations were implemented as aircraft systems limitations. LA-O gets rid of those.

 

The scan patters of the missiles are a different matter and they're a known issue as well. There wasn't any time to make them smarter (and thus tighter) IIRC.

 

Here's something I've wondered; does LOMAC's launched override capability for radar-guided missiles even remotely match what the real FCR is capable of? Override is an invitation into abusing the sim in a very "gamey" way. Overriding an R-27ER goes hand-in-hand with stuff like using the SPO to figure out the exact range of the target, something that common sense tells you the SPO would not be sensitive enough to do. However, AWACS and GCI ARE certainly capable of this and could give a real life pilot the information needed to make a good guess about launch parameters.

[GGTharos]

It depends. It's not the missile itself in some cases, but you have to think about the following things:

 

The Su-27 and MiG radar of the aircraft versions modeled was not capable of holding a lock beyond 66km (indeed, the manuals indicate max missile range as 66km, but it is probably greater). The reason for this is that the cassegrain type antenna has an obstruction and so the mainlobe is offset from center. This caused the radar to be unable to hold lock at certain distance.

 

Thus override-launching ER's beyond 66km for example is gamey, for that type of aircraft.

 

Using the SPO to range the target is also inaprpopriate - it is most inappropriate when used a 'dodge that 120' timer too - you'd probably either end up with full bars or never end up with full bars in RL before it came close enough.

 

There's a score of other things; LA-O allows shooting A2G munitions from beyond intended range, etc.

 

Here's something I've wondered; does LOMAC's launched override capability for radar-guided missiles even remotely match what the real FCR is capable of? Override is an invitation into abusing the sim in a very "gamey" way. Overriding an R-27ER goes hand-in-hand with stuff like using the SPO to figure out the exact range of the target, something that common sense tells you the SPO would not be sensitive enough to do. However, AWACS and GCI ARE certainly capable of this and could give a real life pilot the information needed to make a good guess about launch parameters.

[Geier]

The real missile sure does. A lockon missile doesn't (although at short enough distances from the bandit it might look like it)

Yep, in Lo the missile just go straight without any maneuvers.

[Vekkinho]

 

There's a score of other things; LA-O allows shooting A2G munitions from beyond intended range, etc.

 

:( Wow, I never had an idea of using LA-O to loft bombs but if that's what LA-O does in LO it's really stupid!

[GGTharos]

I wasn't thinking of bombs, more of guided missiles etc ...

[Vekkinho]

Ooh, yeah indeed there are guided missiles in LOFC but not with MiG-29 and Su-27 that I fly so I was thinking bombs :megalol: :doh:!

[Case]

The Su-27 and MiG radar of the aircraft versions modeled was not capable of holding a lock beyond 66km (indeed, the manuals indicate max missile range as 66km, but it is probably greater). The reason for this is that the cassegrain type antenna has an obstruction and so the mainlobe is offset from center. This caused the radar to be unable to hold lock at certain distance.

I find this very doubtful. If we just look at the physics, whether or not a lock can be maintained depends on the signal-to-noise of the radar return the radar is receiving. Though range is certainly the most important factor in this, it is not the only factor, and I see no reason why radar returns from a target with a big cross section can't be detected and locked beyond 66km.

 

Can you explain this further?

[GGTharos]

The mainlobe is offset from the center - the circuits that drive the radar have a problem with this at some point.

[Case]

The mainlobe is offset from the center - the circuits that drive the radar have a problem with this at some point.

Can you explain further? Is the mainlobe not at the center by default? And how does the fact that the mainlobe is offset from the center affect the locking capability? Again, it seems to me the maximum range for a lock will depend on the radar cross section, so why can't it lock a big target beyond 66 km?

[Alfa]

I find this doubtful too GG - I think you are confusing "lock" with "LA" ;) .

 

I think the bit you are refering to in the manuals has to do with missile support range - i.e. the datalink range limit, which IIRC is something along those lines(50-60 km).

 

AFAIK this limit is not with the radar(s), but with the radio reciever on the R-27R missile, which in turn explains why its refered to as a fixed number and the same for both Su-27 and MiG-29.....and in fact(I believe) also the same for both the R-27R and -ER since only the propulsion sections differ.

[Case]

AFAIK this limit is not with the radar(s), but with the radio reciever on the R-27R missile, which in turn explains why its refered to as a fixed number and the same for both Su-27 and MiG-29.....and in fact(I believe) also the same for both the R-27R and -ER since only the propulsion sections differ.

This indeed sounds a lot more plausible. Thanks Alfa :thumbup:

 

An interesting question that pops up is that launching at a distance of 60km doesn't mean the missile will be beyond 60km from the launching aircraft when it hits :smartass:

 

So that even if it is advised not to launch beyond 60km, it doesn't mean missiles won't hit if launched at that range :D

[GGTharos]

The launch range is an Rmax. That means distance at launch, and I'm pretty sure it takes the closure into account ;)

[Kuky]

GG, but you said radar lock :)

[GGTharos]

Yep, I'm trying to find the source of that - I'm pretty certain it was here, even.

[Kuky]

It makes absolutely no sense to have radar which cannot hold lock at certain range and missiles that have greater range than that. It would mean you would already be within rmax the moment you lock someone (I'd assume if head on)

[GGTharos]

Like it makes no sense that R-27ET would not have a datalink? :)

[Kuky]

Why would it need it? It's HEAT seeking missile, not SARH.

[GGTharos]

A long while ago (when LO was still in the 1.00-1.01 iteration, perhaps even 1.02), the R-27ET had a data-link. Why? Because it 'made sense' since the R-27ER had one, and the only difference was 'just' the seeker.

In other words, just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it reflects reality ;)

[Case]

The launch range is an Rmax. That means distance at launch, and I'm pretty sure it takes the closure into account ;)

Sure, but you were talking about keeping a lock at 66 km, which has nothing to do with the Rmax of a missile.

 

I'm saying that if Alfa is right and the radio link between aircraft and missile has a maximum range of, say, 66 km, then that does not necessarily mean that you can't launch missiles at targets farther than that. You have to make sure the distance between the aircraft and the missile doesn't get larger than that maximum range.

[Kuky]

I don't know what this has to do with anything... if ET had datalink with 1.00-1.01 version and actually it doesn't it would mean they coded it on guess... and my guess would still be to not to give it datalink because the missile has IR guidance. I still doubt radar of these fighters have less range then the missile(s) but if you can prove otherwise I'd like to hear it.

[GGTharos]

Then I suppose you're different from everyone else. There might be other IR missiles that had a datalink at that time, though it isn't really confirmed - the lack of DL was confirmed later by a MiG-29 radar technician, I believe, or a radar maintenance manual, I forget which.

 

What this has to do with anything: Your assumption isn't any better than mine, and 'makes sense' isn't a valid argument.

 

The N001 uses a twist-cassegrain antenna which means multiple reflectors, and that causes issues of its own - but perhaps not the issue I'm thinking of.

[Kuky]

Well the technology of the IR tracking on the ET to my logic would not require a datalink, which is why I would go with "makes sense" in this case, definitely. About the Su-27 radar... it says pretty much everywhere that it has excellent range... some 250km max I'd think and tracking range of about 185km... this is way more then 66km you are thinking of.

 

Look problem with these things will always be... clasification and secrecy of real world data and I assume even if ED would get info on real systems themselves from Russian agencies who have this info, I am sure it wold not be completely true, I mean come on, which country's army or airforce in this world would advertise its true potential and strength?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Kuky