Ракеты в DCS

[okopanja]

41 minutes ago, henshao said:

Battery powers not only seeker, but in some missiles also aerodynamic controls, and this is not an insignificant load. It is not unusual for a missile to have more kinematic range than battery life although I agree we should be sure of the actual value

 

25 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

IIRC its 60 secs for the R-24, so not unreasonable. No idea on the ER/ET tho, I'd imagine it might be more, but depends on how its powered.

 

9 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There's nothing strange about it.  Battery is what it is for technical and technological reasons.  So you can't reach max aero, but there are advantages to be had before you reach it.

I must say I feel overwhelmed by the rapid and rather welcome response of the community. It is so uncommon to have you all answer, therefore I wish to thank all of you for the opinions.

2 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Yes, confirm, 60 seconds is a limit of operation time.

The primary driver of R-27ER development was fact that in the estimated duel situation Su-27 with R-27 lost the battle of the F-15 with AIM-7M missiles. Then a more powerful motor was installed so that the 27ER would reach its target faster than the 7M. That is, the main goal was not range, but speed.

Indeed, SARH vs SARH speed might be a preferable option, but still I would have expected that the potential further range increase does not get sacrificed that easily.

Is there any specific document that proves that ER/ET retained the same 60 seconds battery life for extended version or is this derived by deduction from the example? I apologize if I ask something that can not be answered due to the known limitations.

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

R-27 and 27E have turbogenerator which is source of electric power, just to be mentioned 

[okopanja]

44 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

The only difference between these missiles is the motor, everything else was unchanged. 

Here is the source for battery life anyway.

Fascinating, do you know the name of the book and page?

[henshao]

2 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

R-27 and 27E have turbogenerator which is source of electric power, just to be mentioned 

Yes, I think R-27 use some kind of fuel/generator system

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, henshao said:

Yes, I think R-27 use some kind of fuel/generator system

Yeah its pretty common on many missiles to do this as power source since you can also generate gas for pneumatic control of flight surfaces at the same time. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Harlikwin

[okopanja]

12 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

R-27 and 27E have turbogenerator which is source of electric power, just to be mentioned 

It appears you know your trade. I found some reference that R-3S had this kind of power source...

Constructively would this be part of the motor itself and does this affect the time it provides the energy?

E.g. if the same unit is used in both, would it have life of 60s as stated that document (which also mentions mythical 2-27(E)P) or longer?

[Chizh]

10 hours ago, okopanja said:

Fascinating, do you know the name of the book and page?

Name: Авиация ПВО России и научно-технический прогресс: боевые комплексы и системы вчера, сегодня, завтра
Author: Е. А. Федосов
Publisher: Дрофа
Year: 2004

[okopanja]

1 minute ago, Chizh said:

Name: Авиация ПВО России и научно-технический прогресс: боевые комплексы и системы вчера, сегодня, завтра
Author: Е. А. Федосов
Publisher: Дрофа
Year: 2004

thanks

[Chizh]

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

thanks

Sorry, but the page above is not from this book. This book also has a description of the R-27, but I'm not sure the time is given.

[MicroShket]

48 минут назад, Chizh сказал:

Sorry, but the page above is not from this book.

Качество табличных граф похоже больше на методическое пособие или какое-то старое издание, что вряд ли в данном случае. Имхо. 

[tavarish palkovnik]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

Constructively would this be part of the motor itself and does this affect the time it provides the energy?

No, it doesn’t, it has nothing with motor related.
 

When you combine motor 513-1 with warhead 9E-1023 and assembly 470.0100-0 you get Izd.470-1 or R-27R

If instead of motor 513-1, motor 522 is incorporated with same 9E-1023 and same 470.0100-0 you get Izd.470-1E or R-27ER

Same again, motor 513-1 plus warhead 9E-1023 and assembly 470.0100-0-02 makes Izd.470-3 or R-27T while with motor 522 Izd.470-3E or R-27ET

In both assemblies, 470.0100-0 and 470.0100-0-02, there is so called block 3, identical by all means, in it turbogenerator TG-18.7200-0-04 and energy blocks 9P-1023 and 9R-1023.

So R/T and ER/ET have identical power sources, electrical and mechanical, same 60 seconds of guided flight in which you shouldn’t have doubts.

By the way, to share it here as well, last revision of what motor 522 should looks like, by me

 

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

No, it doesn’t, it has nothing with motor related.
 

When you combine motor 513-1 with warhead 9E-1023 and assembly 470.0100-0 you get Izd.470-1 or R-27R

If instead of motor 513-1, motor 522 is incorporated with same 9E-1023 and same 470.0100-0 you get Izd.470-1E or R-27ER

Same again, motor 513-1 plus warhead 9E-1023 and assembly 470.0100-0-02 makes Izd.470-3 or R-27T while with motor 522 Izd.470-3E or R-27ET

In both assemblies, 470.0100-0 and 470.0100-0-02, there is so called block 3, identical by all means, in it turbogenerator TG-18.7200-0-04 and energy blocks 9P-1023 and 9R-1023.

So R/T and ER/ET have identical power sources, electrical and mechanical, same 60 seconds of guided flight in which you shouldn’t have doubts.

By the way, to share it here as well, last revision of what motor 522 should looks like, by me

 

True SME: I am impressed.

To conclude it: 60 seconds is correct for ER/ET guidance.

Redfor: we only have 60 seconds, we have to use them good.

Bluefor: you may take a deep breath now.

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by okopanja

[tavarish palkovnik]

Uffff…should we now about available reserved overload capacity after 60 seconds of flight.

Or about what “blues” like to call flight with loft what “reds” have also and call it inertial flight with weight compensation

 

 

[H7142]

On 9/2/2022 at 10:44 AM, Chizh said:

Thank you. Wrote down to bug tracker.

Here's a source for this

Also the max launch G of 2G isn't accurate:

 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 9/2/2022 at 5:43 AM, FlankerFan35 said:

Can you post the study?

R-27ER flight is mostly ok from what I know, I'm more concerned with guidance, it can be notched as easily as a Sparrow. And for R-77 guidance issue is the same.

Burn time is off and doesn't match WEZ sim or charts

[Harlikwin]

On 9/3/2022 at 6:33 PM, H7142 said:

Here's a source for this

Also the max launch G of 2G isn't accurate:

 

The time sequence is already in the thread. And we are talking about the 9B not the 9D/G/H (which don't even exist in DCS currently). Though the D doesn't uncage either. For navy missiles that started with the 9G, and for the AF the 9E was the first one with uncage while still on the plane. I don't recall off the top of my head buy I'm pretty sure there is a launch limit for the 9B and the derived R3S (seeker on that one should also work like the mirage F1 9B as well if other devs wanna follow along). Though that missile should have a longer lifetime and different/better motor. 

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Harlikwin

[tavarish palkovnik]

AIM-9B and R-3S are almost same rockets, of course when later came directly from first one which is confiscated. Actually not confiscated but bought, I’m sure you know for this trade between China and USSR.

First one and second one (the one in middle) …

 

 

So seconds should not surprise, both are with same motor active time and other characteristics and total guidance time of not less then 21s.

These two are not the only ones, K-13M and AIM-9C also share details 

[FlankerFan35]

21 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Burn time is off and doesn't match WEZ sim or charts

Oh dear, should definitely post your findings 

[Default774]

Есть ли планы сделать ракету AIM-120C-7 после завершения С-5?

[GGTharos]

The difference between C5 and C7 is only in electronics - they use the same rocket motor.  It would probably just have a better chaff rejection in DCS?

[Chizh]

10 hours ago, Minimalist said:

Есть ли планы сделать ракету AIM-120C-7 после завершения С-5?

Пока нет.

В хотелках записана 120D.

[Default774]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Пока нет.

В хотелках записана 120D.

Может ли любой из наших реактивных самолетов стрелять из 120D, или это подготовка к Eurofighter?

[Chizh]

32 minutes ago, Minimalist said:

Может ли любой из наших реактивных самолетов стрелять из 120D, или это подготовка к Eurofighter?

Как минимум F/A-18

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15751/canada-may-buy-aim-120d-missiles-that-far-outrange-its-cf-18s-radars-reach

Я думаю применять 120D могут все носители ракет АМРААМ, но вероятно не все смогут использовать преимущества новой ракеты.

[FoxAlfa]

50 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Как минимум F/A-18

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15751/canada-may-buy-aim-120d-missiles-that-far-outrange-its-cf-18s-radars-reach

Я думаю применять 120D могут все носители ракет АМРААМ, но вероятно не все смогут использовать преимущества новой ракеты.

I guess Aim-120A is also on the wish list? 

[Chizh]

4 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

I guess Aim-120A is also on the wish list? 

Yes, it is.