FC2 A2A Changes

[Thunderbird]

thanks guys

[Maximus_G]

If there is a question of efficiency it would have to do with the configuration of the warhead itself - IIRC the R-27 uses a different type than the AIM-120 and R-77(expanding rod) - even so it still sounds odd that the huge R-27 warhead would need a shorter range to target to be efficient than a warhead half the size.

 

"Fuze range" itself sounds strange enough. Usually there are warhead effective range and targeting accuracy to consider. But if that's a maximum possible range for the fuze to initiate the warhead, then it depends on 2 things: fuze sensivity and warhead effective range. Considering AIM-7 and R-27 - are their fuzes not good enough to measure their distance to a fighter-sized aircraft several tens of meters away? VERY doubtful :suspect:

[GGTharos]

... yet it is just that way.

[Kula66]

Will there be any changes to the logic giving 'down-hill' shots a significantly (x2) greater range than low-to-high shots, ie. like RL?

[foxwxl]

How about the R-27EM?

 

It is marked as a much longer range and improved anti low-altitude target missile in the FC1. But what we actually seen in FC1 is: R-27EM has a exectly same range as R-27ER ,not any improvement. And the EM is even much a chaff eater than the ER. The only better things is EM can pull 23G as ER could only do 18G, EM can engage a target between 10m~20m, that's all.........

 

EM is always a A2A unguied rocket in FC1......even not having a great range than it suppose to be...

 

R-27EM, the naval version. Semi-active-radar homing with an upgraded seeker head, enabling it to engage targets flying at three meters above the sea

From wiki, it says EM have an improved seeker.......no reason to have a even poorer anti chaff ablity......

 

I've noticed the screenshots that EM have a different texture with ER in the FC2, so, what do we have about EM in FC2?:D

Edited March 26, 2010 by foxwxl

[Vault]

Is there any changes to AWACS logic in FC:2.0?. Thanks.

[GGTharos]

Slightly different yes. No more flooding, hopefully.

[GGTharos]

I've noticed the screenshots that EM have a different texture with ER in the FC2, so, what do we have about EM in FC2?:D

 

The R-27EM has a different seeker from the ER; their range and maneuverability should be exactly the same. The EM can just hit targets at a lower altitude than the ER. Realistically this should only be over the sea, but that's not so in FC2.

[RedTiger]

I'm late to the thread!

 

 

AI changes:

 

AI will now notch with an accuracy corresponding to their skill. This means that while an excellent AI can lose most of your missiles, an average AI will most likely be hit. While the note on this may be short, the change in gameplay is big.

 

I might be the only one on the forum, but I'm glad to see this.

 

To clarify something regarding missiles, there was some discussion a while back about the R-27 vs the "E" versions, information provided by those in the know that the E versions were more for bombers and not as effective vs. fighters as the regular version. Were there any changes to that effect?

[GGTharos]

No, for two reasons:

 

One is playability, the other one is that we can only speculate why they are better against bombers vs. fighters, although that particular fact (that the R-27E are better against bombers than fighters) has been corroborated by a couple different sources. No explanation though.

 

To clarify something regarding missiles, there was some discussion a while back about the R-27 vs the "E" versions, information provided by those in the know that the E versions were more for bombers and not as effective vs. fighters as the regular version. Were there any changes to that effect?

[funkee]

"ARH missiles will now track down to very low altitude. No more <10m safe zone."

 

THIS will be awesome, especially against those who like to fly like that over the water :)

 

And against Kamovs... :) Seems like they will be a fresh meat in the new FC.

[RedTiger]

No, for two reasons:

 

One is playability, the other one is that we can only speculate why they are better against bombers vs. fighters, although that particular fact (that the R-27E are better against bombers than fighters) has been corroborated by a couple different sources. No explanation though.

 

My brain filled in the blanks and concluded that it was due to the E versions being bigger. I suppose that doesn't make much sense. An SA-10 or Patriot is huge, but I've never heard of that being a disadvantage against a fighter.

[Boberro]

And against Kamovs... :) Seems like they will be a fresh meat in the new FC.

 

Kamov can't be seen below about 70 km\h IIRC or when you use perpendicular to threat axis then you are on radar from to time only.

[GGTharos]

This is what we assumed, but we don't know.

 

And actually it does make sense of the surface. The R-27R is a lighter, slower missile with a certain airframe g-limit. It is also less draggy than the ER both in the straight shot and in turns.

 

The g-limit of the airframe is likely the same or lower on the ER, but the ER exceeds the speeds the R reaches this limit at. Further, its larger mass likely causes it to expend more energy during maneuvering after the rocket motor has burnt out.

 

The Patriot missile on the other hand doesn't have any bolt-on goodies like that ... it's airframe is designed to hit anything in the sky from the get-go.

 

My brain filled in the blanks and concluded that it was due to the E versions being bigger. I suppose that doesn't make much sense. An SA-10 or Patriot is huge, but I've never heard of that being a disadvantage against a fighter.

[Nate--IRL--]

Kamov can't be seen below about 70 km\h IIRC or when you use perpendicular to threat axis then you are on radar from to time only.

 

I would guess the Rotors would be seen on radar no matter the speed of the Shark.

 

Nate

[GGTharos]

Not in this radar code :)

 

I would guess the Rotors would be seen on radar no matter the speed of the Shark.

 

Nate

[Nate--IRL--]

Hmm... that's good, it'll give us chopper pilots a chance on the battlefield.

 

Nate

[Alfa]

"Fuze range" itself sounds strange enough. Usually there are warhead effective range and targeting accuracy to consider.

 

Of course :) .

 

But if that's a maximum possible range for the fuze to initiate the warhead, then it depends on 2 things: fuze sensivity and warhead effective range. Considering AIM-7 and R-27 - are their fuzes not good enough to measure their distance to a fighter-sized aircraft several tens of meters away? VERY doubtful :suspect:

 

Yeah I agree it sounds strange.

 

But apart from the size of the explosive charge, warhead effective range also depends on its configuration - i.e. the type of fragments and the method of dispersing them upon detonation. The continious rod method used by the warheads of the AIM-20 and RVV-AE are arguably more effective, so I am not surprised if the smaller warheads of those don't necessarily lead to a shorter "kill range"....but I would be surprised if it is significantly longer :) .

 

Anyway, I have been looking for fuze range documentation for the R-27 and R-77(RVV-AE), but so far haven't found anything - I did find it for the R-33 though, which has a radar fuze(like the R-27) and for this it is stated as being 20 m.

 

The R-33 has a larger warhead(47 kg) than the R-27(39 kg), but the difference is not that big and considering that the R-27 and R-33 were made by the same company, are quite contemporary and, as far as I can see, have a similar type of warhead(HE fragmentation) it would seem odd if the R-27 fuze detonates the warhead at only half the range.

[GGTharos]

My understanding is that the AIM-120 uses an explosive which propels the rods at higher speed compared to a bunch of other warheads.

In addition it uses smart fuzing, whatever that means, to ensure more accurate use of the proximity detonation.

 

That's just what I heard.

 

As for R-33, keep in mind it's an anti-bomber weapon ... I imagine plenty of missile fuzes can trigger farther against a larger target - in fact AMRAAM has a selectable fuze setting that is meant to be matched for target size or RCS.

[Alfa]

How about the R-27EM?

 

AFAIK the deal with the "R-27EM" is quite similar to that of the "R-27AE"......i.e. something that was under consideration at one point, but never made it into operational use.

 

So the question is whether it should be in the game at all.

[Alfa]

My understanding is that the AIM-120 uses an explosive which propels the rods at higher speed compared to a bunch of other warheads.

 

Well I don't know, but I think it may have more to do with the rods themselves providing a more stable dispersion over range.

 

In addition it uses smart fuzing, whatever that means, to ensure more accurate use of the proximity detonation.

 

Yes but that could mean anything GG - the warhead still needs to be able to "catch" the target and I don't really believe that a shorter fuze range for the R-27 would be down to the efficiency of the fuze itself.

 

As for R-33, keep in mind it's an anti-bomber weapon ... I imagine plenty of missile fuzes can trigger farther against a larger target - in fact AMRAAM has a selectable fuze setting that is meant to be matched for target size or RCS.

 

Its a good point GG, but the R-33 is not merely an anti-bomber weapon. The Zaslon/R-33 combination is as much an anti-cruise missile system as an anti-bomber one.......and a cruise missile is still a smaller target than a fighter jet.

[GGTharos]

Well I don't know, but I think it may have more to do with the rods themselves providing a more stable dispersion over range.

 

No argument here.

 

Yes but that could mean anything GG - the warhead still needs to be able to "catch" the target and I don't really believe that a shorter fuze range for the R-27 would be down to the efficiency of the fuze itself.

 

Shorter fuze is an electronics issue probably, sure, but you can have all the fuze range you want (well .. sort of :) ) ... if your fuze timing is not good, then you reduce the effective range of those explosives.

 

 

Its a good point GG, but the R-33 is not merely an anti-bomber weapon. The Zaslon/R-33 combination is as much an anti-cruise missile system as an anti-bomber one.......and a cruise missile is still a smaller target than a fighter jet.

 

Sure, but I think here there is an accuracy requirement, not a huge fuze requirement - pure speculation of course, but personally I believe they'd either command-detomate it in the path of the cruise missile OR the target is stable enough to get the missile in very close to destroy the CM. The smaller the target, the less effective the fuze, IMHO.

 

Anyway we're probably saying mostly the same thing anyway :P

[Wags]

Jens, you left test team why again? ;)

[Dudikoff]

Its a good point GG, but the R-33 is not merely an anti-bomber weapon. The Zaslon/R-33 combination is as much an anti-cruise missile system as an anti-bomber one.......and a cruise missile is still a smaller target than a fighter jet.

 

Exactly, but on the other hand, cruise missiles are not very fast and manouverable :)

[Alfa]

Yeah well I give up anyway - if I cannot come up with any factual information to counter whatever ED used to determine R-27 fuze range, then my gut feelings are not of much use :D .