AIM120C & R27ER % kills within FC2 compared to 1.12b

[RvEYoda]

Here is my idea of missiles in 2.0

 

[asparagin]

Here is my idea of missiles in 2.0

 

:thumbup: Did you do that plot in matlab?

[GGTharos]

Actually no. This is the return of the Jedi, and they ain't the red birds ;)

 

Ohh noo.. that means you are also on the dark side!! :no:

[asparagin]

:)

[Pilotasso]

@ Pilotasso: I dont entirely understand what you mean about the notch thing. Are you saying that you have to close to target before firing a 27ER because at long range you can easily defeat it by doing a split-s or similar?

 

Isnt that also the case with a 120?

 

@isoul: You might be right, but I am not sure that evaluating missiles in combat would really add that much data: They would already have live fired the missiles in every conceivable situation I imagine..

 

If you fire a SARH missile from long range all the target will do is to get lower altitude than you and do a turn with you on his 3 or 9 O'clock, at which time the Doppler effect is nullified and the lock is broken, thus wasting the missiles. You might benefit from this taking initiative to press on further unless you have already been detected and be engaged by others.

[golfsierra2]

"the AMRAAM and AMRAAMsky are fire and forget"

 

Not exactly, they need initial guidance before becoming active homing unless under 12 miles roughly.

 

Exactly. Only IR seekers or missiles fired in HOJ are true fire and forget.

[Sov13t]

In 1.12 the missiles would self destruct only if the pilot of the launching aircraft QUIT the mission. If his craft was destroyed but he remained in game the missiles will continue on their path.

 

I believe in 2.0 since there is no "quitting" as you are technically always in the mission, your missiles will continue on their flight path until their timers run out.

[GGTharos]

That is correct. You can still quit (disconnect from server) and I believe at this point your missiles will self-destruct.

[CVFSGoran_VU]

I have problem with ET missiles. I do not get it why it has so long range (max. range) when I can not get LA on distanc more then 20 km (for example). At first I was thinking may be is problem in sun, terain, position of enemy, but after some time I didn't manage to use it at max. range.

 

I didn't test it, but is it going to search enemy if I override LA and launch it without missile lock on target?

[GGTharos]

No, it will not.

 

The ET is seeker-limited, ie. the seeker must lock a target before launch in order to guide properly. Against a head-on, non-afterburning target the seeker lock range should be under 20km - probably closer to 15km.

 

The range should be greater (in the real world) against bombers, which is what the E series of the 27 weapons are meant for. The 27ET is meant to be used either in ambush, or against an aircraft whose jammer prevents the use of a radar missile (and a B-52 can - in RL again - probably deny you a radar lock down to guns rage). The ET is also an excellent missile against escaping/running targets.

[borchi_2b]

gg, thats true, it is a great weapon for a running target, if there would not be the problem, that it slows down way faster then the r27er, which in my opinion is not realistic. the max range of the r27er in the hud in accordance to the vectors of the target are correct, also closure is taken into account. but with the r27et, well totally diffrent storie. i get a max range ona running target, for example with a groundspeed of 1400, myself is travelling the same speed or greater to get closer, but the weapon cpu, which takes all that into account also air pressure, gives me a range of 11km - 12km for example. but i still have to get to 8km, to have the missile reach the target in the end with a very low closurespeed. so there is something that does not match. but the guys from the 51st didtestings too, and mentioned it too. so it is not just me who discovered that problem.

 

greets

[GGTharos]

1) I have put a bug in to investigate this some time ago

2) It appears it doesn't matter anyway; the range for tail-chases appears to be correct within the parameters defined by the combat manual; head-on range will never be ballistic range anyway, simply due to. Exercises launching missiles without lock are not valid because the only correct context of using the R-27ET is to use it LOBL.

 

Ground speed of 1400 for target and launcher will shrink the launch range to LESS than it is for the 1100kph/900kph scenario which I posted up there ... in other words, a 1km altitude, significantly less than 10km launch range.

The tail-on launch range for the R-27ER ... the REAL one, is about 10km - as per the diagram I posted - at 1km altitude.

You already lose 20% of that (approximately) just for not having the ogival dome, and having a spherical instead. If the target is traveling faster than what is listed in the diagram, the range will shrink even more.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=875764&postcount=142

 

gg, thats true, it is a great weapon for a running target, if there would not be the problem, that it slows down way faster then the r27er, which in my opinion is not realistic. the max range of the r27er in the hud in accordance to the vectors of the target are correct, also closure is taken into account. but with the r27et, well totally diffrent storie. i get a max range ona running target, for example with a groundspeed of 1400, myself is travelling the same speed or greater to get closer, but the weapon cpu, which takes all that into account also air pressure, gives me a range of 11km - 12km for example. but i still have to get to 8km, to have the missile reach the target in the end with a very low closurespeed. so there is something that does not match. but the guys from the 51st didtestings too, and mentioned it too. so it is not just me who discovered that problem.

 

greets

Edited April 15, 2010 by GGTharos

[borchi_2b]

got you on that. but i talked about chases higher, like 7000m or more. bandits cannot eccalerte that fast there, compared to airspeed and pressure, so there is a good chance that the missile makes its hit anyway, plus burners :-) bright shiny targetspots for ir seakers :-)

 

but when we have like 20 diffence, right, it is shown in the weaponcpu cause the cpu knows the data of the missileparameters exactly.

i assume the weapon cpu simulated in fc2.0 is abaout correct, cause when i work with the r27er, then it shows the dorrect ranges. tested that allready to to some tacticimprovement, and the ranges are needed fo certain manuevers, but thats not my point acctualy. the weapons cpu shows certain ranges for ther27et, but even when you fire them at a ballistic, they are not correct, i falls shoret of the range shown by the cpu.

 

tested it, and well when you look at the flight time in comparison, then it is way less then 25% the flighttime of the r27er, for example. you can do some math to it too, and not just range should be about 25% less, also flighttime, do to the fact, that it is basically the same missile, and has same burntimes and makes the same distance during the burntime. also has about the same speed. r27er after brunout has a speed at about 4230km/h at an agnles of 42ooo and the r27et has 4190km/h. at these speeds the diffrence of 40km/h makes no real diffrence, never the less it slowes down like there would be a parachute on its tail. this is something i do not understand, and it cannot be explained with physics or math, cause the aerodynamics are the same, beside the round shaped head, which makes maybe about 5 - 10% in reality. 25% is maybe a bit to much.

 

never the less, it would be cool to have Ed test the missiles again and maybe get this straightend out.

 

cheers

 

by the way, the aim7m is not that slow like it is shown in fc2.0 :-)

[EtherealN]

the aerodynamics are the same, beside the round shaped head, which makes maybe about 5 - 10% in reality.

 

I'd like to know where that figure comes from. I've not done any simulations of round/pointed tips, but I can definitely see some serious shockwave-building happening with a round tip compared to a pointy one that just slices through. Do you have sources for the 5-10%?

[Sov13t]

Okay, so who is volunteering to build a replica and test it in a wind tunnel? :music_whistling:

 

Anyways, a few more facts about T and ET missiles that should be considered.

 

The weight of T / ET missiles is smaller than those of R / ER. R-27T: 245kg, R-27ET: 343kg, R-27R: 253kg, R-27ER: 350kg.

 

Weight of the missile after burn: R-27T: 177kg, R-27ET: 203kg, R-27R: 185kg, R-27ER: 210kg.

 

Length of the T / ET missiles is also shorter than those of R / ER. R-27T: 3795mm, R-27ET: 4490mm, R-27R: 4080mm, R-27ER: 4775mm

 

Per documentation, launches from head on aspect for non E versions: 2-50km. For E versions: 2-80km.

 

Per documentation, launches from rear aspect for non E versions: 0,7-16km. For E versions: 0,7-26km

 

I called the Kremlin and asked them. They were very helpful.

 

So, why should the ET be a flying air brake? :)

[EtherealN]

Okay, so who is volunteering to build a replica and test it in a wind tunnel? :music_whistling:

 

Matlab and drag coeficcient will do. ;)

[Breakshot]

Matlab and drag coeficcient will do. ;)

 

Would that explain for 40% less range? Id be willing to see that matlab report ;)

[Avimimus]

Regarding the ET it is important to remember its uses:

- Firing on a fleeing opponenet

- Firing on an opponenet at higher altitude

- Firing at very low altitude

 

When some combination of these situations is in place it becomes necessary to have a missile with a longer burn time and ballistic range (even at true ranges which are close enough for the IR seeker to lock).

 

As it currently stands the ET is one of the most effective weapons for low altitude combat.

[GGTharos]

I put a above where I included the ERs launch parameters. It is from the RL combat usage manual.

 

Either compare it to that or we have nothing to talk about.

Edited April 15, 2010 by GGTharos

[EtherealN]

That's my point - unless we have sources and some proper simulation both the "5-10%" and the "40%" are numbers with no meaning. We don't know. What I do know is that you should not underestimate the effect of a round nose on something meant to go at very high speeds.

[159th_Royalman]

The weight of T / ET missiles is smaller than those of R / ER. R-27T: 245kg, R-27ET: 343kg, R-27R: 253kg, R-27ER: 350kg.

 

 

7kg?? :huh:

 

I really want things to be as actuate as possible, it's a simulator after all. But 7kg.... this is a bit like splitting hairs to me.

Edited April 15, 2010 by 159th_Royalman

[asparagin]

7kg?? :huh:

 

I really want things to be as actuate as possible, it's a simulator after all. But 7kg.... this is a bit like slitting hairs to me.

 

It is not about range. The correction that came with 2.0 regarding the ET is about the ability of the seeker to lock in a head on situation. Head on => difficult to lock on, no LA.

Therefore correct me if I'm wrong the current diagram for the ET, comparing it with the ER that GG provided, is almost or more symmetrical.

[GGTharos]

You can't really compare head-on due to the seeker limitation, but you can easily compare tail-on aspects.

 

I also have the R/T diagrams, where T does indeed seem to lose range to the R.

[asparagin]

You can't really compare head-on due to the seeker limitation

 

Without giving exact figures, if you take in account the seeker limitation the plot should be more or less symmetrical. (because the seeker limitation is compensated by the launch aspect)

[GGTharos]

Ah yes - I understand. ONly at low alt-though, at high altitudes you might have far less seeker range head on than tail on.