reported R-27R missing targets also as 27ER.

[Ironhand]

16 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

How much of this do we think is chaff? 
 

It seems ridiculous to me how it seems to respond to severely to pretty much any chaff at any aspect. It is not simply guiding for center mass between chaff and target but making wild snaking maneuvers that send it ridiculously off course. 
 

Against AIM-7M, chaff causes no such maneuvers, only a loss of lock if you happen to chaff close enough to the beam with enough chaff. 
 

The radar is written to be resistant to chaff, I can’t imagine the missile aren’t also being monopulse pulse Doppler. I will upload tracks soon 

I do see it miss target pretty often just barely without chaff, but these are clearly two different behaviors that result In misses 

If the R-27 R/ER was the Cookie Monster, most of the cookies would be eaten. Anytime I test without chaff available, the hit rate goes way up. That even applies to long-range shots toward the outer limits. Using Dipirona4100’s R-27 track, I went from something like 12 out of 20 hits with the first missile to 19 out of 20 after removing the target’s chaff in the ME. Admittedly, that’s not a lot of trials but…

[wumas0201]

SO SAD

I pay the money to get the MiG-29, but all I got was a useless R-27 missile.

No wonder I get beaten up by the blue team on popular PvP servers.

Please, ED, fix this as soon as possible so the red team can have a fighting chance against the blue team.
PLEASE PLEASE

[AeriaGloria]

The chaff weakness is ridiculous. Wild maneuvers from chaff even if not beaming. I know from reading manuals that N-019 is resistant to chaff, idk about R-27R/ER but I can’t imagine it’s monopulse seeker is this weak when deformed in tandem when N-019. 
 

With this weakness to chaff, it’s almost 99% chance of decoying this missile as long as you know how to release chaff. 
 

Im not an expert on radar, but I expect this maybe from R-3R or AIM-7E, but 1980s R-27R/ER? 
 

The real kicker is all AIM-7 variants are still using original chaff modeling. They will not maneuver or swing wildly to the side from chaff. If you release chaff in the notch enough they decoy yes, but before that point chaff has 0 effect. 
 

AIM-7M/MH/P should have about equal accuracy to R-27R/ER, whatever is believed the missiles are comparable and I’m not sure it is completely known if one was weaker to chaff then the other, and definitly not to your average consumer. 
 

This is a game and a sim, and it feels wildly un fun right now and I’m not sure about this simulation of chaff. You could bring AIM-7M/MH/P to same level but then what, we just have almost 100% chance to decoy a 1980s fox 1 in 0 degree aspect straight and level flight? 
 

I am so confused. It’s been a few patches and many weeks since MiG-29 FF came out. And its really reduced the value of the module to be so gimped compared to AIM-7. 
 

I get that some weapons might get realistic things modeled before others, but this is too much when AIM-7E/R-3R is more accurate, it’s been over a month and a half with no end in sight, and we have no idea when or even if this module will have the value or parity of a blufor sparrow thrower in a 1980s environment. I am sorry but this is getting more serious to me then your average bug track when it seems we have no end in sight to this lop sided game of R-27R/ER being chaffed with no effort and a AIM-7E hitting fine. 

AIM-7chaff.trk R-27chaff6.trk aim-7chaff2.trk R-27chaff3.trk R-27chaff1.trk

Edited November 6 by AeriaGloria

[Drona]

Completely agree. It gives no incentive to fly the FF MiG-29 in its intended and primary role because its primary BVR weapon is so gimped. To hell with your "new seeker model". Bring the old seeker model back. Or if ED intends to keep this model, please adjust the chaff resistance. It's as @AeriaGloria says, 99% miss when chaff is introduced.

 

[Ironhand]

Susceptibility to chaff has always been this missile’s weakness in the sim. Doesn’t seem any worse than previously, though. Much more often than not, in a BVR dual, it’ll be a missile with an IR seeker that will make the kill. The R-27R/ERs just give you something to do, while you wait to make the R-73 kill.

[AeriaGloria]

Disagree. It always had same chaff resistance as AIM-7M when we look at at LUA

[Ironhand]

5 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

Disagree. It always had same chaff resistance as AIM-7M when we look at at LUA

Yes, I know. Some of the above was hyperbole, though I have had it happen.  Very disconcerting when it does.

[Drona]

13 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Susceptibility to chaff has always been this missile’s weakness in the sim. Doesn’t seem any worse than previously, though. Much more often than not, in a BVR dual, it’ll be a missile with an IR seeker that will make the kill. The R-27R/ERs just give you something to do, while you wait to make the R-73 kill.

True, it is susceptible, but not to the extent it does right now. Just one or two chaff is enough to spoof the missile, sometimes, even that is not required. The current implementation of the new seeker model seems way off. 

[wumas0201]

This issue has been reported for over a month, but we still haven't received any hot fixes.SO SAD.
Maybe two more weeks Right?? ED

[BIGNEWY]

12 minutes ago, wumas0201 said:

This issue has been reported for over a month, but we still haven't received any hot fixes.SO SAD.
Maybe two more weeks Right?? ED

the only useful track replays in this thread were posted 20 hours ago and we will check them, currently we are not seeing any issue when we check, most of the time it is due to not having good locks or bad launch parameters from the user. As mentioned we will check the new tracks and let you know. 

thanks 

[BIGNEWY]

20 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

The chaff weakness is ridiculous. Wild maneuvers from chaff even if not beaming. I know from reading manuals that N-019 is resistant to chaff, idk about R-27R/ER but I can’t imagine it’s monopulse seeker is this weak when deformed in tandem when N-019. 
 

With this weakness to chaff, it’s almost 99% chance of decoying this missile as long as you know how to release chaff. 
 

Im not an expert on radar, but I expect this maybe from R-3R or AIM-7E, but 1980s R-27R/ER? 
 

The real kicker is all AIM-7 variants are still using original chaff modeling. They will not maneuver or swing wildly to the side from chaff. If you release chaff in the notch enough they decoy yes, but before that point chaff has 0 effect. 
 

AIM-7M/MH/P should have about equal accuracy to R-27R/ER, whatever is believed the missiles are comparable and I’m not sure it is completely known if one was weaker to chaff then the other, and definitly not to your average consumer. 
 

This is a game and a sim, and it feels wildly un fun right now and I’m not sure about this simulation of chaff. You could bring AIM-7M/MH/P to same level but then what, we just have almost 100% chance to decoy a 1980s fox 1 in 0 degree aspect straight and level flight? 
 

I am so confused. It’s been a few patches and many weeks since MiG-29 FF came out. And its really reduced the value of the module to be so gimped compared to AIM-7. 
 

I get that some weapons might get realistic things modeled before others, but this is too much when AIM-7E/R-3R is more accurate, it’s been over a month and a half with no end in sight, and we have no idea when or even if this module will have the value or parity of a blufor sparrow thrower in a 1980s environment. I am sorry but this is getting more serious to me then your average bug track when it seems we have no end in sight to this lop sided game of R-27R/ER being chaffed with no effort and a AIM-7E hitting fine. 

AIM-7chaff.trk 572.56 kB · 7 downloads R-27chaff6.trk 293.49 kB · 6 downloads aim-7chaff2.trk 444.87 kB · 6 downloads R-27chaff3.trk 378.52 kB · 5 downloads R-27chaff1.trk 422.28 kB · 6 downloads

Ok, thank you for the tracks, we have identified an issue with chaff and a tweak will be made in a future patch. 

[BIGNEWY]

On 11/6/2025 at 2:13 PM, AeriaGloria said:

The chaff weakness is ridiculous. Wild maneuvers from chaff even if not beaming. I know from reading manuals that N-019 is resistant to chaff, idk about R-27R/ER but I can’t imagine it’s monopulse seeker is this weak when deformed in tandem when N-019. 
 

With this weakness to chaff, it’s almost 99% chance of decoying this missile as long as you know how to release chaff. 
 

Im not an expert on radar, but I expect this maybe from R-3R or AIM-7E, but 1980s R-27R/ER? 
 

The real kicker is all AIM-7 variants are still using original chaff modeling. They will not maneuver or swing wildly to the side from chaff. If you release chaff in the notch enough they decoy yes, but before that point chaff has 0 effect. 
 

AIM-7M/MH/P should have about equal accuracy to R-27R/ER, whatever is believed the missiles are comparable and I’m not sure it is completely known if one was weaker to chaff then the other, and definitly not to your average consumer. 
 

This is a game and a sim, and it feels wildly un fun right now and I’m not sure about this simulation of chaff. You could bring AIM-7M/MH/P to same level but then what, we just have almost 100% chance to decoy a 1980s fox 1 in 0 degree aspect straight and level flight? 
 

I am so confused. It’s been a few patches and many weeks since MiG-29 FF came out. And its really reduced the value of the module to be so gimped compared to AIM-7. 
 

I get that some weapons might get realistic things modeled before others, but this is too much when AIM-7E/R-3R is more accurate, it’s been over a month and a half with no end in sight, and we have no idea when or even if this module will have the value or parity of a blufor sparrow thrower in a 1980s environment. I am sorry but this is getting more serious to me then your average bug track when it seems we have no end in sight to this lop sided game of R-27R/ER being chaffed with no effort and a AIM-7E hitting fine. 

AIM-7chaff.trk 572.56 kB · 8 downloads R-27chaff6.trk 293.49 kB · 7 downloads aim-7chaff2.trk 444.87 kB · 7 downloads R-27chaff3.trk 378.52 kB · 6 downloads R-27chaff1.trk 422.28 kB · 7 downloads

I have here some feedback from the team, 

R-27chaff1.trk
At a range of several kilometres to the target F-15, an Ace level pilot performs a precise 3-9 notch with a vertical dive, as a result both missiles go to chaff.
In the new version with reduced RCS of chaff, the missiles do not go to the chaff and the first missile hits the target.

R-27chaff3.trk
At a range of several kilometres from the target F-16, an Ace level pilot performs a precise 3-9 notch with a vertical dive, as a result both missiles go to decoys.
In the new version with reduced RCS of chaff, the missiles do not go to the chaffs and both hit the target.

R-27chaff6.trk
At the moment the missile approaches the target F-14, an Ace level pilot performs a precise 3-9 notch, as a result both missiles go to chaffs.
In the new internal version of DCS with reduced RCS of chaffs, the missiles are also distracted by the chaffs, but after a second they return to the target, but it's too late.

It is worth noting that you are using Ace level pilots as opponents, who masterfully perform 3-9 notch. They are good at evading missiles.
If you put an enemy pilot of a lower skill, the result will be different.



Additionally, we've begun work on converting the AIM-7 seeker to the same components as the R-27. Soon, these missiles will be the same generation of our technology. This will be in a future update.

thank you 

[RaymonD]

Dear developers. Have you taken into account the fact that a missile with INS and radio correction is flying with its seeker turned off and shouldn't retarget to the dipoles? In the game, I've noticed that a missile flying to its maximum range can often immediately retarget to the dipoles while still outside the missile's seeker lock-on range.

Edited November 7 by RaymonD
errors google translate

[RaymonD]

3 часа назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

Soon, these missiles will be the same generation of our technology.

It's strange to hear this from you, considering that missile versions prior to the AIM-7M had conical scanning, along with other technologies and poor jamming immunity. I think this is worth considering. I'd also like to point out that the R-27R missile family uses a monopulse guidance method, which was introduced in the AIM-7 missiles starting with the M model.
In the next patch, I expect to see the R-27R missiles' jamming immunity no less than that of the AIM-7M.

[Muchocracker]

That's not what he said. The aim-7 will be brought up to the new systems modelling introduced with the R-27. Not that all of the aim-7's will have monopulse antennas.

Edited November 7 by Muchocracker

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I have here some feedback from the team, 

R-27chaff1.trk
At a range of several kilometres to the target F-15, an Ace level pilot performs a precise 3-9 notch with a vertical dive, as a result both missiles go to chaff.
In the new version with reduced RCS of chaff, the missiles do not go to the chaff and the first missile hits the target.

R-27chaff3.trk
At a range of several kilometres from the target F-16, an Ace level pilot performs a precise 3-9 notch with a vertical dive, as a result both missiles go to decoys.
In the new version with reduced RCS of chaff, the missiles do not go to the chaffs and both hit the target.

R-27chaff6.trk
At the moment the missile approaches the target F-14, an Ace level pilot performs a precise 3-9 notch, as a result both missiles go to chaffs.
In the new internal version of DCS with reduced RCS of chaffs, the missiles are also distracted by the chaffs, but after a second they return to the target, but it's too late.

It is worth noting that you are using Ace level pilots as opponents, who masterfully perform 3-9 notch. They are good at evading missiles.
If you put an enemy pilot of a lower skill, the result will be different.



Additionally, we've begun work on converting the AIM-7 seeker to the same components as the R-27. Soon, these missiles will be the same generation of our technology. This will be in a future update.

thank you 

Thank you I appreciate the input from the team!!!!

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

This is very good news!

[rob10]

4 hours ago, RaymonD said:

In the next patch, I expect to see the R-27R missiles' jamming immunity no less than that of the AIM-7M.

You really might want to reset your expectations to avoid disappointment.  The chances of this making the next patch are pretty much zero.  You're assuming they have a dev (or more) they can put onto this immediately, that it's a quick fix, that it can be integrated into the release build in the next couple of days and that it can be tested before that point.  Note that BigNewy said "A FUTURE PATCH", not the next patch.  In a best case scenario you're probably looking January before there's any chance of seeing it.  That's just development and testing reality.

[Dipirona4100]

On 11/7/2025 at 6:36 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Ok, thank you for the tracks, we have identified an issue with chaff and a tweak will be made in a future patch. 

@BIGNEWY Could you please analyze some of my tracks? idk if the missile is supposed to be so easily evaded by simple maneuvers like in my track files, i constantly evaded all of the missiles front aspect without any chaff

split s miss 5 closer.trk R27 miss1 further.trk R27 miss2 further.trk R27 miss3 closer.trk R27 miss4 closer.trk R27 miss5 closer.trk R27 miss6 closer fa18.trk R27 miss7 closer fa18.trk R27 miss8 closer f14.trk R27 miss9 closer f14.trk split s miss 1.trk split s miss 2 closer.trk split s miss 3 closer.trk split s miss 4 closer.trk

[BIGNEWY]

On 11/7/2025 at 5:03 PM, RaymonD said:

Dear developers. Have you taken into account the fact that a missile with INS and radio correction is flying with its seeker turned off and shouldn't retarget to the dipoles? In the game, I've noticed that a missile flying to its maximum range can often immediately retarget to the dipoles while still outside the missile's seeker lock-on range.

The missile in the DCS does not re-target to the chaff during the inertial guidance stage.

[AeriaGloria]

21 hours ago, Dipirona4100 said:

@BIGNEWY Could you please analyze some of my tracks? idk if the missile is supposed to be so easily evaded by simple maneuvers like in my track files, i constantly evaded all of the missiles front aspect without any chaff

split s miss 5 closer.trk 249.29 kB · 2 downloads R27 miss1 further.trk 538.32 kB · 2 downloads R27 miss2 further.trk 653.44 kB · 1 download R27 miss3 closer.trk 475.42 kB · 1 download R27 miss4 closer.trk 471.4 kB · 1 download R27 miss5 closer.trk 417.43 kB · 1 download R27 miss6 closer fa18.trk 469.8 kB · 1 download R27 miss7 closer fa18.trk 401.37 kB · 1 download R27 miss8 closer f14.trk 342.6 kB · 1 download R27 miss9 closer f14.trk 263.42 kB · 1 download split s miss 1.trk 361.82 kB · 2 downloads split s miss 2 closer.trk 359.05 kB · 1 download split s miss 3 closer.trk 323.04 kB · 1 download split s miss 4 closer.trk 288.84 kB · 0 downloads

Great job posting a ton of tracks!

[Dipirona4100]

In the new 2.9.22.17790 update, there was some changes to the R27 missile target tracking capability, but in game performance seems like nothing has changed, the missile still missing without using any chaff or aggressive maneuvers

 

Quote

R-27 AA missile. Fixed issue when chaff RCS look excessive from missile point of view.  Fixed bug in target tracking filter that might cause missile miss even against moderately maneuvering target.

 

4 r27er miss split s.trk 3 r27er miss split s.trk 2 r27er miss split s.trk 1 r27er miss split s.trk

[Maverick Su-35S]

On 9/26/2025 at 9:38 AM, Thirsty said:

This looks very much like a bug with the new missile API.

I have noticed as well that all you need to do is roll and pull a little and the R-27 just lost all abilitly to guide, and no chaff is needed at all.
Especially if anykind of hard roll is intruduced.
ColdClaws report and yours shows the same exact bug.

Hope this gets fixed soon, since this is some warthunder levels of "just roll and the missile misses" kind of bug.

Yeap,

Hheheh, I have a track exactly for what you say. I was testing to see the AIM-120s unbeatable notch proof vest that the devs have made for the crybabies in DCS that flow rivers of anger when their aim-120 misses, and mostly they miss not because of lock loss actually, but because the target outruns the missile defensively=)).

Here, you can see the AI F-15 doing a 2G left turn a 180 roll to the right at 3G, and the R-27R is like being hit in the eyes and doesn't know where to go anymore and passes by the F-15 although it should have a lot of lift at Mach 1. But guess what, I consider this to be actually realistic on behalf of the R-27. Yes..., it shouldn't be changed as you say, simply because all missiles have a reaction time/delay/lagg in responding to sudden target path changes, especially in the last seconds before impact. So, yes..., it's actually realistic to have the missile go fly by dozens of meters. People tend to think that reality is how they imagine it, with some things being invincible, very wrong. In reality, the things are more sensitive than we imagine because we play a game called sim.

The R-27s reaction time for correcting the interception is actually realistic.acmi

[Maverick Su-35S]

What type of missile is the R-27? OoooOoooOoo, ahaAaaAAaAa..., it's a SARH! Well, thank you, topic maker. Of f@#2ing course it will lose the target that goes in a beam position for 1st notch condition. Doesn't the Su-27 or MIG-29's radar that fires that missile lose signal strenght and actually the target track for good, even from like 10-15kms away? Oh..., so it loses it. And who guides SARH your missile? The monkey in the forest? Of course you don't need any chaff to avoid any type of SARH missile using the 1st notch. This is like kindergarden knowledge. AIM-7s, R-27s and other SARH missiles are normally behaving like that. You probably didn't have a reality proof because actually the real combat pilots that face SARH missiles simply didn't do the right thing to break the launching plane's radar lock, followed by the missile, due to skills/panic various reasons. But the physical limitations are as they are, you can't change that. We, as players, act like we are missile designers and see the weaknesses and start asking the devs to "MAKE THEM BETTER, MAKE THEM BETTER" as if they would be designers too. No! We use the knowledge (which we usually lack and live by impressions) that we have available through research and real proof (not mumbo stories) and DO NOT veer away from that only for the liking or disliking of the players.

Imagine DCS "simulation" (if you can call them that way anymore) under the player's wish/imagination: Everything flawless and alien performant..., from radars, to aircraft performances turning on a die and accelerating at 50% acceleration of a rocket and whatever else on their delight! That's not a realistic simulator anymore! War thunder is for those.

[Maverick Su-35S]

On 11/6/2025 at 5:04 AM, wumas0201 said:

SO SAD

I pay the money to get the MiG-29, but all I got was a useless R-27 missile.

No wonder I get beaten up by the blue team on popular PvP servers.

Please, ED, fix this as soon as possible so the red team can have a fighting chance against the blue team.
PLEASE PLEASE

Yet another role playing game player...! DCS is wrong for you! Remember guys, who makes the server is the unfair guy if he allows the unfair to happen. You want to win with the MIG-29A that you paid for. Well, guess what, this is NOT a pay to win simulator or game. War Thunder actually is! This is a true simulator up to some points. You want the devs to fix what the server maker isn't fair by what he makes?

Actually, on my servers I don't allow F-14s, F-15Cs, F-18s and M-2000s unless they will have a combat starting weight (carefully calculated for correction to realistic performances level) handicap that must be kept, because as an AE and well dedicated man to flight performances and realistic simulation, not just anyone who already worked for other flight simulators, I don't accept aircraft that overperform compared to reality, especially if it's a combat simulator where it really matters! I just spit/puke them out of my mission until even if 100 years from now it they are still not corrected. The same goes for the missiles. To make it fair, as you complain by using the wrong arguments by looking in the wrong direction for correction when there is no correction to be done from that direction (meaning the devs), I simply ban the AIM-120C and that's it. Only the B is allowed and here's why it's just almost perfectly fair:

1. The lift and drag of the AIM-120s (B/C) have been corrected (after I had lot of arguments about it, and was proven right in the end) and they have towards more realistically lower drag and more realistically lower lift as well. So the AIM-120s B and C do have towards more accurate flight performances.

2. But..., on the other hand, the R-77, R-27s, R60s and R-73 still have a too high drag like they have a small parachute behind after the engine runs out. So..., these missiles have abnormally lower range than they shoud..., SO..., this abnormal handicap on the russian missiles flight range, besides the actually lower than normal maximum AoA on and thus lift on the R-27s alone, combined with the more correct and much higher range on the AIM-120C compared even to the R-27s, it's AS FAIR AS IT CAN BE to eliminate the AIM-120C variant from the players and everyone is happy. Fairness achieved for both sides! How about that?

Edited 16 hours ago by Maverick Su-35S