Jump to content

Ракеты в DCS


Chizh

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

1986-2004

you mean 1994? By 2004 AIM-120 had been in widespread usage for quite a while

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chizh said:

It's not true. All R-73 varians have a same IR seeker MK-80. Its analog missile without any kind of digital processor like AIM-9X.

We can't deal with modern Russian weapons by political reasons. Sorry.

No in this time.

The RMD-2 does have superior IRCCM and an improved seeker
This source mentions it has a dual colour seeker with 'sensitivity which is twice as high as the basic model'

https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/20_a_6420965.shtml?updated

Sounds like an improvement, and it was a source you gave me less than a year ago

It was a source you gave me, remember?

 

Not to mention IRL pilots also agree the Seekers IRCCM have been improved

On that topic of 1990s AAMs

I feel an AIM-120A without HOBS tapes (while the 120B gets them to reflect some 2000s software upgrades would be nice)

More importantly later batches of the AIM-9M

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/mediawiki/index.php/AIM-9M_American_Short-Range_Air-to-Air_Missile
Some information of these improvements the -9 would be nice for some 90s environments too 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Is it just me, or it would be more beneficial to push for update to the new API and AP of the R-27s and R-77 so there is more foundation to up its priority then to ask for a nitch versions of R-73?

 

I agree missiles all being on the same API having the same complete CFD modeling is the priority for existing missiles

I just want these other 90s missiles to not be forgotten by ED so they can eventually make it into DCS

Preferably before I turn into an old fossil like half the forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Gahab141 said:

Флот использовал аим-7 до середины 2000-х

AIM-7 left frontline service in 2003 but you still see them from time to time, especially in navy and marine use. Here is a Super Hornet in 2020 with AIM-7 and AIM-9x!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chizh said:

It's not true. All R-73 varians have a same IR seeker MK-80. Its analog missile without any kind of digital processor like AIM-9X.

Can you share from where you have this information? all the information I have found says otherwise.

"The homing head of the RMD-2 missile variant has increased noise immunity against IR counteraction and is built on a digital element base, which makes it easy to reprogram tracking and interception algorithms. Improved attack capabilities for low-flying targets."

Screenshot (169).png

This would also match the information shared by other user with this image 

876998.PNG

 


Edited by FlankerFan35
additions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Is it just me, or it would be more beneficial to push for update to the new API and AP of the R-27s and R-77 so there is more foundation to up its priority then to ask for a nitch versions of R-73?

 

This would surely help yes with accurately performing weapons, but no API will help literal first generation 27s/29s especially with R-27ER/73-RMD-1 useable against modern gen 4, 4.5 aircraft and weapons like METEOR, even the ETs advantages it provides now are useless against aircraft with MAWS. I'd also like to say the RMD-2 is not actually niche, it's an upgrade like AIM-9L to 9M. 

As well we have been pushing for especially the R-77 to be updated with new API regularly, but we have not received very much information on when this will be finished or it's priority or where it is in the process from developers.     


Edited by FlankerFan35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
5 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The RMD-2 does have superior IRCCM and an improved seeker
This source mentions it has a dual colour seeker with 'sensitivity which is twice as high as the basic model'

https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/02/20_a_6420965.shtml?updated

Sounds like an improvement, and it was a source you gave me less than a year ago

It was a source you gave me, remember?

It is not connected to R-73 but RVV-BD.

Please do not use russian media. Its mostly propaganda with desinformation.

4 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Р-37 называешь "фейк миссл", при этом пишешь что Р-77 стоит на вооружении РФ. Это забавно)

Я назвал фейковой ракетой Р-37 из 90х годов. Когда дальше прототипов дело не ушло.
Р-77-1 стоит на вооружении где-то с 15 года. Что не так?

  • Like 3

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
8 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Not really "fake" though is it? 🙂 - as I recall it was in development in the late eighties for the MiG-31M and was basically an R-33 with a bigger engine and an ARH seekerhead. 

Yes, the R-37 was developed in those years. It just didn't go further than development.

 

8 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

As far as I can tell, the RVV-BD is exactly the above mentioned R-37 design being revisited.

RVV-BD is a new missile that appeared only a few years ago. 

3 hours ago, FlankerFan35 said:

Can you share from where you have this information? all the information I have found says otherwise.

No. I can't. Sorry.

Internet sources like to write fiction.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Yes, the R-37 was developed in those years. It just didn't go further than development.

 

RVV-BD is a new missile that appeared only a few years ago. 

No. I can't. Sorry.

Internet sources like to write fiction.

Are you discounting that a RuAF pilot said it has better IRCCM too?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Internet sources like to write fiction.

And how do you know this is fiction, multiple sources state this. The RMD-2 is an upgraded RMD-1, the body is the same, the engine is the same, the only difference is in fact the dual band seeker which adds the 5kg extra weight, has better IRCCM and is more sensitive as well as a function to allow launch at greater ranges.

If this is not the truth what is the difference between RMD-1/2, please explain in detail since you say you cannot share your source.

 


Edited by FlankerFan35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
35 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Are you discounting that a RuAF pilot said it has better IRCCM too?

No. Pilots are just people who can make mistakes. We have seen this more than once.

We believe in documents.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Прошу прощения, что влез в тему про р-27 и амраам, но у меня вопрос.

Недавние события подарили нам возможность наблюдать пальбу НАРами с кабрирования. Все видели эти видосы, я не буду кидать лишний раз.

И там получается, что С-8 кидают с 5900м, давай тангаж 25-30 на скорости 230 и минимальной высоте.

По итогу все это дело падает широким пятном.

Если провернуть такое в DCS, то НАРы улетают почти на 10км и падают кучной дорожкой.

 

Не то чтобы я жалуюсь, но было ли это замечено. Будут ли какие-то правки? Может, в рамках ЧА3

Spoiler

еще подпружиненная крышка пусковых вихрей закрывается после пуска обратно. Надеюсь, тоже сделают.

 

 

 

Спойлер

Wishlist: MiG-31BM, An-72P, YaK-38M, A-5 Vigilante, YaK-3, He-162

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
21 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

So a pilot confirms it, all other sources confirm it too and its wrong in your opinion?

We trust official documents, not Internet fakes or individuals.

18 minutes ago, Velik said:

Недавние события подарили нам возможность наблюдать пальбу НАРами с кабрирования. Все видели эти видосы, я не буду кидать лишний раз.

И там получается, что С-8 кидают с 5900м, давай тангаж 25-30 на скорости 230 и минимальной высоте.

По итогу все это дело падает широким пятном.

Если провернуть такое в DCS, то НАРы улетают почти на 10км и падают кучной дорожкой.

 

Не то чтобы я жалуюсь, но было ли это замечено. Будут ли какие-то правки? Может, в рамках ЧА3

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Как были вычислены параметры пуска и попадания?

4 hours ago, FlankerFan35 said:

This would surely help yes with accurately performing weapons, but no API will help literal first generation 27s/29s especially with R-27ER/73-RMD-1 useable against modern gen 4, 4.5 aircraft and weapons like METEOR, even the ETs advantages it provides now are useless against aircraft with MAWS. I'd also like to say the RMD-2 is not actually niche, it's an upgrade like AIM-9L to 9M. 

As well we have been pushing for especially the R-77 to be updated with new API regularly, but we have not received very much information on when this will be finished or it's priority or where it is in the process from developers.     

 

I know that RMD2 has and bigger energy block for extended time and wider gimbal limits.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

I know that RMD2 has and bigger energy block for extended time and wider gimbal limits.

That part matches the information I have, however alongside this my information also denotes better IRCCM which would make sense for an upgraded missile with a new seeker and features which the RMD-2 is rather like 9L to 9M which I said before.

Here my information matches your information and more.

Screenshot (168).png

 

Here this matches what you said with the addition of other information under "RMD-2 / R-73M / RVV-MD" including "sensitivity increased by 2 times" and "dual band cooled photodetector". Where this source seems to be incorrect is the GOS MK-80 presumption, it is likely the MK-2200 similar to MK-80 (new) which as you will see (below) is advertised as a "dual band" seeker with the other values under the MK-2200 section closely describing not only what you yourself have said about the RMD-2 but what I myself and others have been able to find on the RMD-2 and its performance which is that the R-73 RMD-2 is basically just a slightly heavier RMD-1 with a better seeker and increased life due to launch permission range increase.

image.png

You can see above the specifications under "MK-2200" section are quite similar to what you and articles I have read said to describe the RMD-2 seeker performance. I'd also like to note that this image is from the same company Arsenal that developed the MK-80 originally and was a large producer of optical component development so it is not some random guesswork or an opinion piece. 

I understand this is more modern as well but it's also similar to modernized MK-80.

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by FlankerFan35
additions and grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
38 minutes ago, FlankerFan35 said:

That part matches the information I have, however alongside this my information also denotes better IRCCM...

My information didn't

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
23 minutes ago, Gahab141 said:

У нас в игре углы целеуказания и пуска - 45гр, это рмд-1. Народ просит рмд-2 с 60 (или сколько там) градусами

Есть предположение что РМД2 это РВВ-МД. 

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chizh,

We understand  that there is a limit on what you are allowed to implement in DCS depending on local legislation.
However, we see something I would describe as unnatural disbalance involving something we should rightfully call a different-era weapons (e.g. try pitting 80s Flanker with F-15E with much later avionics or even Eurofighter), which greatly affects ability to create realistic scenarios.


I do witness more blue-vs-blue, which sort of looks shallow for a simulator that aspires to realism? Save for e.g. USA vs Venecuela, or Turkey vs Greece/France, or Egypt - Israel , any others sound totally wrong.

While the ongoing debate on the missiles continue, I could not help but try to look at this from one to two levels above, and perhaps try to approach the solution from a different angle. I would like to ask following questions:

1. Does ED as company have a strategy on how to deal with this problem (e.g. often described as NATO-only simulator in forum posts)?
2. Could you please consider completing the missing features of red FC3 aircrafts, such as non-working multiplayer airplane-to-airplane datalink, DL command options, helmet tone, etc? I understand this is in fact effort, but perhaps enough of the missing feature could be pooled together to form a module that would justify paid upgrade? (as a fellow SW developer I understand you can not code for free indefinitely).
3. How about adding the GCI features to the aircraft that had them. E.g. Лазур/Лазур-M for Mig-21/29, or Рубеж/Радуга for Su-27/Mig-31 (I do not dare to call names of more modern systems)? This could likely be a second seat for those aircraft? E.g. you get a pilot and he gets dedicated GCI officer, just like in real life. This can even create scenarios where opposing forces try to take GCI out.
4. How about adding to the combined arms style C4I systems integrating PVO systems with fighters, EW and AWACS? From what I know even the AWACS itself can directly command those assets. Surely the longer range of S-200/S-300 systems can be utilized to negate the missile range advantage of blue, not to mention ECM resistance provided by integration of radars contributing to the radar picture from different locations and bands.

Many of these things existed, were in operational use and even exported so documents should not really be a problem (E.g. Poland, Germany). In some cases these countries even extended the original!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

However, we see something I would describe as unnatural disbalance involving something we should rightfully call a different-era weapons (e.g. try pitting 80s Flanker with F-15E with much later avionics or even Eurofighter), which greatly affects ability to create realistic scenarios.

I cant understand why you mix legacy Su-27 with F-15E. It is more sence to create scenerio with Su-27 and F-15C without 120 and 9X.

 

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I do witness more blue-vs-blue, which sort of looks shallow for a simulator that aspires to realism? 

It is not ED question, rather to server hosts.

 

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

1. Does ED as company have a strategy on how to deal with this problem (e.g. often described as NATO-only simulator in forum posts)?

We just create world and its components. Which scenario of these components users will make is their question.

 

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

2. Could you please consider completing the missing features of red FC3 aircrafts, such as non-working multiplayer airplane-to-airplane datalink, DL command options, helmet tone, etc? I understand this is in fact effort, but perhaps enough of the missing feature could be pooled together to form a module that would justify paid upgrade? (as a fellow SW developer I understand you can not code for free indefinitely).

It is feature for hardcore module, not for simplified game of FC or MAC.

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

3. How about adding the GCI features to the aircraft that had them. E.g. Лазур/Лазур-M for Mig-21/29, or Рубеж/Радуга for Su-27/Mig-31 (I do not dare to call names of more modern systems)? This could likely be a second seat for those aircraft? E.g. you get a pilot and he gets dedicated GCI officer, just like in real life. This can even create scenarios where opposing forces try to take GCI out.

Same as upper answer.

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

4. How about adding to the combined arms style C4I systems integrating PVO systems with fighters, EW and AWACS? From what I know even the AWACS itself can directly command those assets. Surely the longer range of S-200/S-300 systems can be utilized to negate the missile range advantage of blue, not to mention ECM resistance provided by integration of radars contributing to the radar picture from different locations and bands.

We have in the to do list creating air defence network. I hope it will appear sometime.

 

  • Like 2

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Hi Chizh,

~snip~

Many of these things existed, were in operational use and even exported so documents should not really be a problem (E.g. Poland, Germany). In some cases these countries even extended the original!

 

For points 3 and 4, you'd need rework of whole Vozduch datalink system; ALL of the strategic sams can use them. Meaning S-75M, S-125, S-200 and S-300. Currently we don't even have correct search radar for S-200 (I know there was a talk about what Syria uses, and no, even if you look at google photo maps you can clearly identify the P-14). The search radars are then connected usually to Senezh air defence computer (this is a system from 80s, if not earlier), can automatically identify and track targets from search radars, including jamming targets. There was a PDF floating around the internet describing its function, original documentation, but since we were on the legal topic yesterday not sure how legal it would be to use. In a very simplified manner (think of the datalink display on Su-27) it would still be a massive jump towards realism.

But speaking of missiles and realism, is there a rework of SAMs planned?
I already published a report for the S-75M's missile (system uses wrong launcher and missile model for V-755, plus it should be С-75м Волхов, not С-75 Двина - not to mention, it is just not a thing, СА-75/75м/75мк are "Двина", S-75 is Десна.

Then there is the fact that all the command guided SAMs seem to use proportional navigation instead of the correct modes of guidance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Koty said:

For points 3 and 4, you'd need rework of whole Vozduch datalink system; ALL of the strategic sams can use them. Meaning S-75M, S-125, S-200 and S-300. Currently we don't even have correct search radar for S-200 (I know there was a talk about what Syria uses, and no, even if you look at google photo maps you can clearly identify the P-14). The search radars are then connected usually to Senezh air defence computer (this is a system from 80s, if not earlier), can automatically identify and track targets from search radars, including jamming targets. There was a PDF floating around the internet describing its function, original documentation, but since we were on the legal topic yesterday not sure how legal it would be to use. In a very simplified manner (think of the datalink display on Su-27) it would still be a massive jump towards realism.

Not necessarily first you have to consider which hierarchy is in use depending on which PVO is actually implemented. I am pretty sure not all components are mandatory. This is further confirmed by the facts that foreign customers did not purchase the full range from the Russian PVO Zoo. In this case it would be enough to start with simpler topology and extend it gradually with active/passive sensors and jammers, including links to specific SAM structures on different levels. Btw Воздух1М-Каскад-ЛазурМ came earlier, while Senezh-Kashtan-Raduga/LazurM were used later. Atm I am suggesting just to focus on those that deal more directly with the interceptors, and expand from there.

A proper GCI cabin would be an interesting and attractive addition, possibly with Jester AI equivalent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
55 minutes ago, Koty said:

For points 3 and 4, you'd need rework of whole Vozduch datalink system; ALL of the strategic sams can use them. Meaning S-75M, S-125, S-200 and S-300. Currently we don't even have correct search radar for S-200 (I know there was a talk about what Syria uses, and no, even if you look at google photo maps you can clearly identify the P-14). The search radars are then connected usually to Senezh air defence computer (this is a system from 80s, if not earlier), can automatically identify and track targets from search radars, including jamming targets. There was a PDF floating around the internet describing its function, original documentation, but since we were on the legal topic yesterday not sure how legal it would be to use. In a very simplified manner (think of the datalink display on Su-27) it would still be a massive jump towards realism.

But speaking of missiles and realism, is there a rework of SAMs planned?
I already published a report for the S-75M's missile (system uses wrong launcher and missile model for V-755, plus it should be С-75м Волхов, not С-75 Двина - not to mention, it is just not a thing, СА-75/75м/75мк are "Двина", S-75 is Десна.

Then there is the fact that all the command guided SAMs seem to use proportional navigation instead of the correct modes of guidance...

The air defense development is in our plan. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time for all tasks. All of this does not happen quickly.

  • Thanks 2

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38AEA298-3D7F-4C21-A104-285C39A86C20.png


Только для информации, и обратите внимание, что эта таблица для С-8, в СВО в основном используется С-8КОМ, но это не имеет большого значения по дальности.

5900м слишком мало для 230км/ч и 25-30 градусов


Edited by tavarish palkovnik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, okopanja said:

~~

A proper GCI cabin would be an interesting and attractive addition, possibly with Jester AI equivalent.

I'm also hoping for playable heavy sams, at least the ones where information is freely available 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...