Some details of FC3 AFM Missile Improvements

[GGTharos]

Same seeker and same guidance method. One missile somewhat reflects performance of the other. But either way, those were R1's, and they were (IIRC) old stock, so they may have already been prone to failure due to poor storage, good old age, etc.

[Sov13t]

Wish the E-E conflict was better documented.

 

From the numbers I saw, launches were performed in pairs, and if outside parameters both missiles were doomed from the get-go. Which can quickly deflate statistical analysis.

[GGTharos]

And that's why this conflict is ignored; we don't know parameters, we don't know the condition of the missiles, etc. It's difficult to believe that missiles made in the 1980's for the flanker would display vietnam-war era performance of the AIM-7.

 

At the same time though people really wish to ignore AMRAAM's successes, citing 'oh, they weren't jamming, RWR's were busted, look at all the times they missiles' ... while ignoring the fact that a bunch of launches were either out of or in very poor parameters, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not, some were in what are considered to be difficult-for-radar-missiles conditions, and it has been the best performing BVR missile, demonstrably, to date.

[*Rage*]

That depends ... do you want to go by the E-E conflict? Then yes, such abysmal performance is realistic.

 

For certain good reasons, a lot of people tend to ignore the E-E conflict though when it comes to R-27 performance.

 

How many were launched?

 

Hardly significant n values for analysis and as you and Soviet mentioned we have no idea under what conditions.

[Kenan]

Let's be honest. R27 sucked IRL combat..That's a fact. Lot's of them launched in EE conflict, lots of misses..Unless monkeys were flying those jets having no idea how to employ the weapon..I think it's safe to say, the missile failed.

[pepin1234]

Let's be honest. R27 sucked IRL combat..That's a fact. Lot's of them launched in EE conflict, lots of misses..Unless monkeys were flying those jets having no idea how to employ the weapon..I think it's safe to say, the missile failed.

 

 

Could you say how many conflicts please. Detailed, and the numbers of missiles launched??

[wilky510]

At the same time though people really wish to ignore AMRAAM's successes, citing 'oh, they weren't jamming, RWR's were busted, look at all the times they missiles' ... while ignoring the fact that a bunch of launches were either out of or in very poor parameters, sometimes deliberately and sometimes not, some were in what are considered to be difficult-for-radar-missiles conditions, and it has been the best performing BVR missile, demonstrably, to date.

Well said. Pity people won't even bother reading this and will just keep complaining about the AIM-120 'amazing' performance ingame because they read about it's 'realistic' combat performance.

[159th_Viper]

R27 sucked IRL combat..That's a fact. Lot's of them launched in EE conflict, lots of misses....

 

They all missed, but that is besides the point.

 

What is a fact is that 90% of those engagements and attendant launches have been confirmed by the Pilots as having the missiles launched in a Salvo. Again, in all but one out of five engagements featuring 27R's, only two missiles per engagement were launched, in a salvo, ie at once. So what we have are engagements where only two R27R's were launched BVR prior to the merge.

 

Now you can bet your a$$ that those launches were at RMAX or pretty close thereto in order to force the Mig drivers on the defensive, or more probably to the point, Pilot inexperience/error. No doubt the missiles were old as hell and some prone to failure, but IMHO to attribute all the blame for the misses on ordnance is stretching it.

[Dudikoff]

Let's be honest. R27 sucked IRL combat..That's a fact. Lot's of them launched in EE conflict, lots of misses..Unless monkeys were flying those jets having no idea how to employ the weapon..I think it's safe to say, the missile failed.

 

That's a FACT? You have documented sources about how many missiles were fired and in what conditions (e.g. within NEZ, fired from the rear hemisphere at max ranges, etc.)? Furthermore, you know from whom and how were those missiles procured from (I bet it was not the Russian government) and in what condition they were (e.g. not maintained, not properly transported, not kept in specified conditions, etc.)? For instance, I remember reading somewhere that some or most were fired from the rear hemisphere while the MiGs were returning to their bases (low-fuel) and somewhere else that some of the missiles's systems were sensitive to handling and storing conditions, but I'm certainly not presenting those as a fact, but more like rumors.

 

There is such a thing like live weapon drills and such and there's so many users of those missiles after the Soviet Union collapsed. It sounds pretty logical to me that it would have been leaked out already if the missile was indeed such a colossal failure in the last 25+ years of its existence and that at least some of the countries using it would be obtaining some kind of replacement.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Dudikoff

[Kenan]

That's a FACT?

 

Yes it is. I'll say it again: R27 sucked in real life -combat-. Now, we can argue the parameters, how, what, when, under what condititions etc..And indeed, if those missiles were launched from too far away. As I said, if monkeys were flying those planes, totally ignorant of how the weapon system works then ok..let's just dismiss the whole EE conflict. But, those were trained professional pilots (at least on one of the sides if reports are to be believed) and they, presumably, knew what they were doing.

 

It would be curious if the missile was so badly managed during the conflict, but..everything is possible.

[Dudikoff]

As I said, if monkeys were flying those planes, totally ignorant of how the weapon system works then ok..let's just dismiss the whole EE conflict. But, those were trained professional pilots (at least on one of the sides if reports are to be believed) and they, presumably, knew what they were doing.

 

It depends on what "trained" means.. IIRC, they were mercenary ex-Soviet pilots, no? Now, they're not defending their country or anything like that, they fly for money and they want to survive to be able to spend it. And none of them might have experienced real combat before. So, it's more than likely that if you have missiles to spare (especially on a Flanker and even more so against a Fulcrum), you might not want to wait for the optimal moment to launch. It's not like you have an organized military structure behind you which will analyze the tapes afterwards and review your actions.

 

It would be curious if the missile was so badly managed during the conflict, but..everything is possible.

 

The missiles probably came from the black market or maybe covertly from some ex-Soviet state, which means they probably didn't come from the active service (where they would be maintained), but from some storage facility and who knows how they were transported and in what conditions were they kept. Yes, a lot of "probably"'s, but with no accurate reports, one can only presume..

 

But, again, don't you think if the missiles were incapable of hitting anything, that maybe somebody would have noticed it already? Wouldn't there be a memo somewhere in lines of "Our BVR capabilities are next to 0" with an urgent contingency planning to find some replacement? Or at least some ex-Warsaw Pact pilot testimonies would express their doubts about the missile capabilities? They all had live weapon firings and such. So, you can choose to base your conclusions on these shady reports from the EE conflict or you could choose to put more significance to the fact that the weapon is still a primary BVR weapon for so many countries.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Dudikoff

[Kenan]

The missiles probably came from the black market or maybe covertly from some ex-Soviet state, which means they probably didn't come from the active service (where they would be maintained), but from some storage facility and who knows how they were transported and in what conditions were they kept. Yes, a lot of "probably"'s, but with no accurate reports, one can only presume..

 

But, again, don't you think if the missiles were incapable of hitting anything, that maybe somebody would have noticed it already? Wouldn't there be a memo somewhere in lines of "Our BVR capabilities are next to 0" with an urgent contingency planning to find some replacement? Or at least some ex-Warsaw Pact pilot testimonies would express their doubts about the missile capabilities? They all had live weapon firings and such. So, you can choose to base your conclusions on these shady reports from the EE conflict or you could choose to put more significance to the fact that the weapon is still a primary BVR weapon for so many countries.

 

Well, I hope you're right..othervise, it wouldn't feel right to hit anything with R27 in DCS World.. :D

[Dudikoff]

Well, I hope you're right..othervise, it wouldn't feel right to hit anything with R27 in DCS World.. :D

 

Well, everything is in order in DCS World then ;)

[blkspade]

Because RL experience shows that if you are no match in BVR you are unlikely to ever make it to the merge? :)

 

Anyway, as I mentioned above, given the better radar the F-15C would still be superiour in BVR with AIM-7Ms and since such a config is completely contempory with the Su-27 version in the sim, there really was no good reason to add the AIM-120 into the mix.

 

So as far as I am concerned, its not a question of accepting to be inferiour in BVR - only to what extend and why :) .

 

I was mostly referencing as things stand in game. Then again there have been RL situations where ROE limits meant US pilots either had to visually ID potential threats, or not fire until fired upon. There have been incidents in RL where IFF would fail. The F-15s involved in desert storm were certainly more capable than the Migs29s and their pilots at BVR, but were strongly advised against getting into a dogfight. Merges still happened.

[volk]

They all missed, but that is besides the point.

 

What is a fact is that 90% of those engagements and attendant launches have been confirmed by the Pilots as having the missiles launched in a Salvo. Again, in all but one out of five engagements featuring 27R's, only two missiles per engagement were launched, in a salvo, ie at once. So what we have are engagements where only two R27R's were launched BVR prior to the merge.

 

Now you can bet your a$$ that those launches were at RMAX or pretty close thereto in order to force the Mig drivers on the defensive, or more probably to the point, Pilot inexperience/error. No doubt the missiles were old as hell and some prone to failure, but IMHO to attribute all the blame for the misses on ordnance is stretching it.

Мой бог. Откуда эта точная, детальная информация? Это официальный отчет, рассказ пилота от первого лица на русском языке или просто очередные выдумки с фанового авиационного сайта :)?

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

It is not important. I don't think anyone who is serious about simulation takes the E-E conflict seriously in terms of missile statistics :)

[volk]

^^^^

 

It is not important. I don't think anyone who is serious about simulation takes the E-E conflict seriously in terms of missile statistics :)

Как говорит в таких случаях Чиж, на заборах много что пишут:)

Я так понимаю, вся эта "статистика", копируемая затем в печатные издания, взята с фановых сайтов. Или наоборот :)

[GGTharos]

Yes, basically it is not possible to make good analysis of the reports.

 

Even if the reports are accurate, we do not know what condition the missiles were in (some say they were old, end-of-shelf-life stock) and we do not know how these weapons were employed.

 

So it is possible that indeed R-27 is this bad, but more probable is that these missiles were simply too old - past their shelf life, possibly combined with shooting in poor parameters.

 

After all, a mission kill is almost as valuable as an aircraft kill - if you can make the other guy run away and fail at his mission, you don't need to hit his plane.

[volk]

Yes, basically it is not possible to make good analysis of the reports.

 

Even if the reports are accurate, we do not know what condition the missiles were in (some say they were old, end-of-shelf-life stock) and we do not know how these weapons were employed.

 

So it is possible that indeed R-27 is this bad, but more probable is that these missiles were simply too old - past their shelf life, possibly combined with shooting in poor parameters.

 

After all, a mission kill is almost as valuable as an aircraft kill - if you can make the other guy run away and fail at his mission, you don't need to hit his plane.

Чтобы быть точным. Мы вообще не знаем, сколько пусков и каких ракет было в этом конфликте. Мы не знаем, кто были пилоты. Мы не знаем, какие цели были поставлены пилотам, и какие у них были собственные цели. Эта война стран третьего мира во многом отличается от других войн такими факторами, как отсутствие дисциплины, субординации и пр., привычными в обычных цивилизованных странах.

Все, что известно - это рассказы с русских форумов тех, кто "в теме" и был очень близко и "все знает" :), но сам при этом в кабины не садился. Слухи, помноженные на сплетни, авторитетные мнения "форумных авиационных специалистов" и пр. Которые затем вольно переводятся на иностранные языки.

Edited February 8, 2013 by volk

[volk]

... so I agree that even in a 1985 config with only AIM-7M it would be a supriour BVR platform compared to a 1984 Su-27S with R-27R...

Поправка: Р-27Р изначально была предназначена для вооружения МиГ-29. Для более тяжелого Су-27 предназначены ЭР. Почему-то в западной части форума считают, что ракета Р-27ЭР была принята на вооружение около 1990 г., т. е. значительно позже, чем Р-27Р. Это не так, в РЛЭ МиГ-29 есть упоминание о ракетах Р-27ЭР выпуска до июля 1986 г. Т. е. по крайней мере до июля 1986 г. ракета Р-27ЭР уже была в производстве и соответственно находилась на вооружении Су-27.

[volk]

..Unless monkeys were flying those jets having no idea how to employ the weapon..

Если считать обезьянами летчиков, у которых налет в год составляет 15-40 часов на протяжении поледних 8-9 лет, выполнявших практические пуски только ракетами Р-73, и неимеющими никакой мотивации, кроме как "вернуться домой живыми, заработав немного денег" - то да, можно сказать, что в кабинах сидели обезьяны. Это не их вина.

[GGTharos]

Are you certain? Because for F-15C, AMRAAM is mentioned in 1988 manual, maybe older (but I do not have older so I don't know). F-15C was AMRAAM-ready many years before AMRAAM was in service. It an be the same with R-27ER.

 

Поправка: Р-27Р изначально была предназначена для вооружения МиГ-29. Для более тяжелого Су-27 предназначены ЭР. Почему-то в западной части форума считают, что ракета Р-27ЭР была принята на вооружение около 1990 г., т. е. значительно позже, чем Р-27Р. Это не так, в РЛЭ МиГ-29 есть упоминание о ракетах Р-27ЭР выпуска до июля 1986 г. Т. е. по крайней мере до июля 1986 г. ракета Р-27ЭР уже была в производстве и соответственно находилась на вооружении Су-27.

[volk]

Are you certain? Because for F-15C, AMRAAM is mentioned in 1988 manual, maybe older (but I do not have older so I don't know). F-15C was AMRAAM-ready many years before AMRAAM was in service. It an be the same with R-27ER.

В РЛЭ МиГ-29 говорится не о готовности МиГ-29 к Р-27ЭР, а о ракетах, сделанных до июля 1986 г. В РЛЭ F-15 есть упоминание о сроках выпуска AIM-120А? Вот точный текст:

В связи с тем что информация по крену при радиокоррекции об-новляется с частотой 18—20 Гц, сигналы радиокоррекции правильно выдаются только при угловой скорости вращения истребителя не более 60°/с (при применении ракет выпуска до июля 1986 г. — не более 30°/с). По этой причине не обеспечивается наведение ракеты Р-27ЭР на цель в инерциально-корректируемом режиме при выпол-нении истребителем противоракетного маневра типа «кадушка».

Можешь привести выдержку из РЛЭ F-15 с упоминанием произведенных AIM-120A?

Ну и кстати :). Раз уж речь идет о том, что ракеты еще нет, а самолет готов к ее применению, то:

Very unlikely: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2007/pdf/af/2007amraam.pdf

(http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1662396&postcount=1700)

Производство боевых ракет и темпы их поступления в части имеют к различным тренировкам не самое прямое отношение. Для тренировок не нужно вешать под крыло боевую ракету :), достаточно и учебной, которых может быть 5 штук на часть. Или просто особый режим имитации в СУО. Главное, чтобы было обновление СУО, позволяющее вести расчеты для новой ракеты.

Из http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2007/pdf/af/2007amraam.pdf:

FY07 Recommendations. The program office should:

1. Ensure that modeling is complete and validated for the AIM-120C-7 prior to modeling for the AIM-120D.

2. Seek changes to the Air Force full-scale and sub-scale target programs to ensure proper target presentation, target reliability, and availability.

. Расчет зоны возможных пусков того F-16 мог быть произведен и для AIM-120C-7, несмотря на то, что реальной боевой ракеты он не нес.

[Alfa]

Поправка: Р-27Р изначально была предназначена для вооружения МиГ-29. Для более тяжелого Су-27 предназначены ЭР.

 

Yes I know, but it was my impression that the larger two-stage motor section entered production later.

 

Почему-то в западной части форума считают, что ракета Р-27ЭР была принята на вооружение около 1990 г., т. е. значительно позже, чем Р-27Р. Это не так, в РЛЭ МиГ-29 есть упоминание о ракетах Р-27ЭР выпуска до июля 1986 г. Т. е. по крайней мере до июля 1986 г. ракета Р-27ЭР уже была в производстве и соответственно находилась на вооружении Су-27.

 

You may be right, but are you sure that ER/ET were in production from the beginning - or that the manual just mentioned it as planned?.

 

The reason I am asking is that most footage of Su-27s with armament(even mock-up/training rounds) concerns the R-27R/R-27T and rarely -ER/ET, which would suggest that the stock of these is smaller.....which in turn could be due to a late production start(shortly before 1991).

 

Anyway, what I said in the quote had more to do with the nature of the radars :) .

[Mandrake5]

Let me put this politely. WTF?

 

I thought this was the English forum.