Ракеты в DCS

[BlackPixxel]

5 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

 

 

Thanks!

 

I was wondering why the R-73 would outrange it at 1000 m and 5000 m, but then I noticed this:

 

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Just so you know, I didn't forget you nor do I intend to hide information from you.  One document you should be able to easily access - and yes, this is basic instruction:

 

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-825.pdf

 

PDF page 180:

 

Спасибо. И все же, для того, чтобы не было лишних споров и стен текста отправь все, что может доказывать твою позицию. По пунктнам. К примеру, амраам имеет большую дальность, чем Р-27ЭР потому что а) скриншот б) скриншот в) скриншот. Один лишь порядок применения мало о чем говорит. К примеру, руководство МиГ-29 говорит, что пуск первой Р-27Р нужно производить на пределе дальности, а пуск второй - в момент подхода цели к NEZ. По аналогии с твоей логикой можно сделать вывод, что у Р-27ЭР имеется достаточно энергии для достаточного для поражения цели маневрирования на максимальной дальности пуска. 

 

Ещё раз попрошу, для того, чтоб всем доказать, что амраам летит дальше Р-27ЭР, пожалуйста, отправь все документы, что у тебя есть. Не целиком, только скриншоты нужных мест, поскольку на текущий момент у нас есть только графики Р-27ЭР и заявления лётчиков, что 120 обладает меньшей дальностью. Кроме этого нет ничего

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

5 hours ago, Chizh said:

Нет. У вас есть одно упоминание отставного летчика, без конкретики о типах ракет.

У нас есть расчет тяги и аэродинамики AIM-120, а также свои SME.

 

Не стоит из слов одного отставного пилота, который, не участвовал в учениях, говорил без конкретики и указания типов ракет, делать какие-либо выводы.

Он просто ошибся.

He wasn't a retired pilot (If you're talking about the Su-30 brief he was talking to a romm of retired pilots though), I could understand saying that he might not have the full picture since he was a support person on the ground that view point though isn't unique to him alone though.

5 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

There are also timeline tactics available in manuals - and although they are unclass (though I'm not sure you'll be able to find the manuals), those timelines don't support the idea that the R-27ER out-ranges the 120.   Such details are hidden in the vault, but again - the basic unclass stuff that you can find has AMRAAM shots being taken at 20nm subsonic and medium altitude - and that little details is in individual aircraft manuals and in tactics manuals.   This equates to a range of about 36km, between 6000-8000m and I doubt that it's a low pk shot.

 

Now if you consider that the R-27ER Rmax at those ranges is between 45 and 55km, do you believe they'll be taking shots much before that 36km vs maneuverable targets?

The sim is built upon unclass information, sure its possible one guy might misspeak and say the R-27ER out ranges the 120B when he meant the R-31.

But why do multiple sources and pilots say the R-27ER has better range than the AIM-120B? Like this one? https://www.flightglobal.com/terminal-velocity/4498.article

 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Going off of memory, are defined at 0.7Pk vs a non-maneuvering target.  There's also an R-27ER fly-out graph (time-to-distace-and- speed) which supports these.  So, you keep in mind that these ranges match the DLZs we see on videos.  Sure, maybe those software loads are sanitized and the truth is a bit different, but this is the best information we have.

 

It means the seeker lock on.   Can you launch a sparrow at a fighter 100km away?  No, because the sparrow has no missile data-link and cannot see that target - it needs to lock on right after it's thrown off the aircraft and out of the aircraft's radar mainlobe.  The R-27 has a data-link that allows you to launch it further than the seeker can see an illuminated target.

It's also irrelevant in practice because you'll almost always be launching it inside a range at which the seeker can see its target (this range is pretty big for a PD radar, unless the seeker's well ... just not that good at seeing things! )

In other words, what you're reading has nothing to do with the missile's ability to fly.

 

We've learned more on what the VVS/RuAF considers as .7 PK a shot

The assumption that the R-27ER range chart is an Rmax figure was incorrect, it has a provision for being able to maneuver about 2 to 3g at the end according to a former RuAF pilot.

So it has a similar provision at the end as like an AIM-7 chart like you mentioned before its an R opt/Rpi graph.

 

This should be an important consideration moving forward when ED makes a CFD of the missile @Chizh

I also wonder, do similar semi circle charts exist for the RVV AE and R-73?

I've seen some different types claiming to be R aero figures but I am not sure if they're legitimate.

Edited January 30, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[BlackPixxel]

I don't quite understand the R-27 flyout chart.

 

Let's look at the R-27ER one, with the fighter = target = 1100 km/h condition.

 

The speed is about 305 m/s. For that speed, the flighttime of the missile is about 58.5 s, and the max seperation from the fighter is 20 km in the chart.

 

In 58.5 s, each aircraft travels 17.9 km. So they would meet after that time if they were seperated by 35.8 km.

 

To get the 65 km engagement range from the launch range chart, the missile would have to be about 30 km ahead of the fighter. But the flyout chart says that the maximum seperation for that speed is just 20 km.

 

With the R-27R flyout chart it also does not fit.

[dundun92]

14 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

R-73

[GGTharos]

15 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

He wasn't a retired pilot (If you're talking about the Su-30 brief he was talking to a romm of retired pilots though), I could understand saying that he might not have the full picture since he was a support person on the ground that view point though isn't unique to him alone though.

 

He was saying unclass stuff to an unclass room, yes.

 

15 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The sim is built upon unclass information, sure its possible one guy might misspeak and say the R-27ER out ranges the 120B when he meant the R-31.

But why do multiple sources and pilots say the R-27ER has better range than the AIM-120B? Like this one? https://www.flightglobal.com/terminal-velocity/4498.article

 

Ok, if you want to speculate, consider that the AMRAAM had gone through ramjet testing in the VDFR project before the 2000's.   And even when METEOR was on the way, and even now, the USAF isn't considering giving up AMRAAM nor are they considering sticking a ducted rocket on it (As far as we know - requirements specs are classified and even the ones from AIM-120A are classified at this time).   AIM-260 is still a paper tiger line NCADE and whatever other concepts came before it.

 

Plus the link you provided doesn't tell me much.  As far as I'm concerned, the R-27E and AIM-120s have effectively range parity with the 120 having a huge technology advantage.   You have a sparrow that goes M3 reaching out to 25nm at 30000' subsonic.  That's about 45km, and 120A/B already went out to 55km at that point, according to common information out there.   But official documentation now lists the 120C at >35nm which is already 65km.  That very figure is present in the document I posted for the timeline.   Sure, there's no altitude and launch speed posted, but that's why we have CFDs  - and for the 120 we have two independently constructed ones!   Another is being created for the R-27 independently as well right now.

 

How much longer are you going to insist that a couple of things written somewhere trump the most educated information we have?

 

This goes literally right back to brochure fights - well, the 120A/B have a 30nm range, but the R-27ER has 120km.   So, it reaches further, right?  But wait, that 120km range is a high altitude high mach speed launch, and the 30nm one isn't ... it's more like 35nm under similar circumstances.

 

If this isn't enough for you that's ok, I can't argue with that - so we can agree to wait on  an R-27 CFD.

[GGTharos]

10 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

But the flyout chart says that the maximum seperation for that speed is just 20 km.

 

One of the main issues with those charts is that you prpbably need the paper copy to get an accurate measurement.  You could also try to digitize it using something like Engauge - but either way I suspect this is much closer to the 24km than 20.  Yes, there's still a discrepancy but I'd chalk it up to a warped page or something.

Or it this chart may have an additional condition (I don't have the full document it came from) like the missile having aircraft speed + something.

[BlackPixxel]

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

One of the main issues with those charts is that you prpbably need the paper copy to get an accurate measurement.  You could also try to digitize it using something like Engauge - but either way I suspect this is much closer to the 24km than 20.  Yes, there's still a discrepancy but I'd chalk it up to a warped page or something.

Or it this chart may have an additional condition (I don't have the full document it came from) like the missile having aircraft speed + something.

 

For the speed of 400 m/s it is exactly on the 60 s line, and on the line of 16 km range.

 

So 2*400 m/s * 60 gives us 48 km, and from the chart we can add the 16 km. So 64 km in total AT BEST (under the condition that the missile has maximum seperation after 60 s).

 

While the launch zone chart gives a launch range of 65 km for 25 % less speed for shooter and target.

 

I don't really get what the flyout chart is supposed to show, as it is clearly not what I think it shows. Or it is for earlier prototypes.

Edited January 30, 2021 by BlackPixxel

[Москва]

6 часов назад, Chizh сказал:

22 часа назад, Москва сказал:

догадок не надо, я с вами согласен.но после закупок ракет р-27 украинского производства, индийцы остались ими не довольны. и заключили контракт на российские р-27. причём со складов боевого хранения. 

Пруф или это ваши фантазии?

это был ответ но не вам на мой вопрос вы не ответили 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

He was saying unclass stuff to an unclass room, yes.

 

 

Ok, if you want to speculate, consider that the AMRAAM had gone through ramjet testing in the VDFR project before the 2000's.   And even when METEOR was on the way, and even now, the USAF isn't considering giving up AMRAAM nor are they considering sticking a ducted rocket on it (As far as we know - requirements specs are classified and even the ones from AIM-120A are classified at this time).   AIM-260 is still a paper tiger line NCADE and whatever other concepts came before it.

 

Plus the link you provided doesn't tell me much.  As far as I'm concerned, the R-27E and AIM-120s have effectively range parity with the 120 having a huge technology advantage.   You have a sparrow that goes M3 reaching out to 25nm at 30000' subsonic.  That's about 45km, and 120A/B already went out to 55km at that point, according to common information out there.   But official documentation now lists the 120C at >35nm which is already 65km.  That very figure is present in the document I posted for the timeline.   Sure, there's no altitude and launch speed posted, but that's why we have CFDs  - and for the 120 we have two independently constructed ones!   Another is being created for the R-27 independently as well right now.

 

How much longer are you going to insist that a couple of things written somewhere trump the most educated information we have?

 

This goes literally right back to brochure fights - well, the 120A/B have a 30nm range, but the R-27ER has 120km.   So, it reaches further, right?  But wait, that 120km range is a high altitude high mach speed launch, and the 30nm one isn't ... it's more like 35nm under similar circumstances.

 

If this isn't enough for you that's ok, I can't argue with that - so we can agree to wait on  an R-27 CFD.

I do not deny the authenticity of the AMRAAM CFD.

When they say out range I'm guessing this means that despite the AIM-120s ability to fly out further aerodynamically (through lofting and even without) in terms of effective range against contemporary 4th gen fighters the Alamo Charlie by virtue of being able to sustain a higher speed longer and have it time out before say the AMRAAM becomes a factor the launch aircraft in some conditions.

 

To put it in a simpler example say we have 2 missiles Type A and Type B

Type A flys out to 50km at Mach 2 all the way

Type B flys out to 43km at Mach 3.5 all the way

 

If an Eagle firing Type B at an Eagle firing Type A at say 35km

The guy firing the Type A missile will have to defend harder earlier compared to the guy firing type B meaning that the Type B effectively has better turn signaling range

 

And while yes the US did not go with an air-breathing missile the US did go to the AIM-120C5 with a larger motor which is boost only iirc and this would fall in line with the thinking making the C AMRAAM fly at a faster speed longer and reduce its time to impact and increase the NEZ.

Things that would nullify advantages of the R-27ER in many spots like even the 6~10nm pre merge / outer merge range probably even in longer range turn signaling shots.

 

That is at least how I understand it based on what I have seen and read.

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

We've learned more on what the VVS/RuAF considers as .7 PK a shot

The assumption that the R-27ER range chart is an Rmax figure was incorrect, it has a provision for being able to maneuver about 2 to 3g at the end according to a former RuAF pilot.

So it has a similar provision at the end as like an AIM-7 chart like you mentioned before its an R opt/Rpi graph.

 

This should be an important consideration moving forward when ED makes a CFD of the missile @Chizh

I also wonder, do similar semi circle charts exist for the RVV AE and R-73?

I've seen some different types claiming to be R aero figures but I am not sure if they're legitimate.

 

@Chizh Please review this. In DCS the R-27ER will barely be able to fall short of the graph, R-27ET cannot achieve anything close to those numbers. This Pilot says cutoff is defined where more than 3G is not possible (Target G?).

Can you also comment on why DCS AIM-120B in a straightline shot outperforms the chart posted by you?

Edited January 30, 2021 by Max1mus

[GGTharos]

20 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

When they say out range I'm guessing this means that despite the AIM-120s ability to fly out further aerodynamically (through lofting and even without) in terms of effective range against contemporary 4th gen fighters the Alamo Charlie by virtue of being able to sustain a higher speed longer and have it time out before say the AMRAAM becomes a factor the launch aircraft in some conditions.

 

My understanding of it was 'I'm taking the first shot'.   There is a lot of details that I have not discussed (and won't, because frankly it doesn't help us) regarding preferred speeds and altitudes that flankers would operate at, so my knowledge comes with a grain of salt.

 

20 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The guy firing the Type A missile will have to defend harder earlier compared to the guy firing type B meaning that the Type B effectively has better turn signaling range

 

Yes, there's a cross-over range and it can be manipulated with maneuvering.

 

20 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

And while yes the US did not go with an air-breathing missile the US did go to the AIM-120C5 with a larger motor which is boost only iirc and this would fall in line with the thinking making the C AMRAAM fly at a faster speed longer and reduce its time to impact and increase the NEZ.

Things that would nullify advantages of the R-27ER in many spots like even the 6~10nm pre merge / outer merge range probably even in longer range turn signaling shots.

 

I agree completely with your analysis.  So I think we remain at waiting for the CFD to tell us what's happening at that 66km mark.

 

[TotenDead]

1 час назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

I agree completely with your analysis.  So I think we remain at waiting for the CFD to tell us what's happening at that 66km mark.

 

К CFD как раз есть вопросы, так что не исключено, что амраам придется рано или поздно править)

[Hoarfrost]

29.01.2021 в 10:38, Chizh сказал:

We still have plans to do an R-27 CFD research, but now there is no time for this, because the engineer is busy with weapons of current projects.

Если нет времени и свободных инженеров на семейство р27 и р77, может отдать сторонним разработчикам красные ракеты, например Deka. Они занимаются красными ракетами, ЕД синими. Тем более у них в планах Су 30.

[Chizh]

16 часов назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

Но почему DCS AIM-120B способны поражать объекты, превосходящие эти цифры (+ 33-50%), о чем свидетельствуют красные и зеленые отметки на моем изображении? Если это, как вы сказали, неманеврирующая цель?

 

(Для справки это изображение)

https://m.imgur.com/aGuRlMH

 

You asking about AIM-120B by chart of AIM-120A.

[Max1mus]

Just now, Chizh said:

You asking about AIM-120B by chart of AIM-120A.

 

Its the same missile without loft. Yet the DCS one severely outperforms the one on the graph with no loft.

[Chizh]

16 часов назад, BlackPixxel сказал:

@Chizh

 

Не могли бы вы также загрузить скан противоположного сайта страницы? Думаю, мы никогда раньше не видели карту Р-27Т.

 

А есть ли у вас схема Р-27ЭТ?

 

About the R-27ET missile, it is indicated that its range is several percent less than the R-27ER.

 

8 минут назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

Its the same missile without loft. Yet the DCS one severely outperforms the one on the graph with no loft.

For the AIM-120 missiles, we conducted a lot of research, made a lot of calculations of both engine thrust and aerodynamics in the CFD. Current performance is based on these researches.

 

[Чарик80]

А где же тема про бомбы-эта про ракеты-понятно,если не найду про бомбы-буду сюда писать

[Chizh]

16 минут назад, Чарик80 сказал:

А где же тема про бомбы-эта про ракеты-понятно,если не найду про бомбы-буду сюда писать

Ок, можно сюда. Если будет много вопросов - сделаем отдельную тему.

[Чарик80]

должна была бы быть-как будто только ракетами воюют,бомбы тоже интересно-а вот в игре с ними полный дурдом,это я по нашим советско-российским,в натовские ещё не залазил

[Chizh]

1 минуту назад, Чарик80 сказал:

должна была бы быть-как будто только ракетами воюют,бомбы тоже интересно-а вот в игре с ними полный дурдом,это я по нашим советско-российским,в натовские ещё не залазил

Пока я вижу эмоции. Где конкретика?

[Чарик80]

почему-то здесь на сайте когда печатаю перепрыгивает маргающая палочка на начало предложения,поэтому печатаю в редакторе потом копирую на сайт-так что не спешите,сейчас начну

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

About the R-27ET missile, it is indicated that its range is several percent less than the R-27ER.

 

For the AIM-120 missiles, we conducted a lot of research, made a lot of calculations of both engine thrust and aerodynamics in the CFD. Current performance is based on these researches.

 

This graph for R-27T shows it vs R-27R, but for R-27ER/ET there is only a combined graph.


But why does AIM-120 on the other hand overperform relative to this graph this much, when in DCS the R-27E can barely even make it against an opponent that leaves is controls entirely and on a perfectly angled shot? Is this extra speed calculated in for terminal maneuvering? According to the Su-35 pilot in these forums R-27E has those margins too.

Straightline 120A/B on your graph at 10.000m at 240m/s - 17.5km
DCS - 21.5km, (+22.9%)
AIM-120B_outperforms_graph_10000m.trk

Straightline 120A/B on your graph at 5.000m at 255m/s - 10.5km
DCS - 11.6km (+10,5%)
AIM-120B_outperforms_graph_5000m.trk

Can we expect a similar overperformance of R-27 relative to its graph by 10.5% at 5000m and 22.9% at 10000m? Thats what i would consider modelled to the same standard, which you will that agree all DCS weapons must be, since youre going to be doing all weapons for all DCS modules soon.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Max1mus

[Чарик80]

У вас обе такие есть?И в описании и в игре