Ракеты в DCS

[tavarish palkovnik]

Really no-one ? 

Meanwhile I found how China (Shanghai Aerospace) back there in 1997 estimated kinematic of HARM, seems very resonable

 

 

 

''Curves showing changes in motion trajectory and speed of ARM over time when attacking guidance radar''

 

 

AGM-88 HARM.pdf

Edited December 20, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[Chizh]

39 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Really no-one ? 

Meanwhile I found how China (Shanghai Aerospace) back there in 1997 estimated kinematic of HARM, seems very resonable

 

 

 

''Curves showing changes in motion trajectory and speed of ARM over time when attacking guidance radar''

 

 

AGM-88 HARM.pdf 474.7 kB · 0 downloads

 

Thank you!

What's on the second diagram on the vertical axis?

[tavarish palkovnik]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Thank you!

What's on the second diagram on the vertical axis?

You are welcome!

That should be third axis of Cartesian coordinate system, slight declining from ideal and straight line of sight. Most likely, because they took this matter seriously, due to like they wrote, errors caused by wind, initial aiming errors, off-center thrust, inclined rudders etc. Don’t claiming, just assume it is about although declining value is really insignificant, but presenting of trajectory in horizontal plane should be for sure.

[Chizh]

2 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

You are welcome!

That should be third axis of Cartesian coordinate system, slight declining from ideal and straight line of sight. Most likely, because they took this matter seriously, due to like they wrote, errors caused by wind, initial aiming errors, off-center thrust, inclined rudders etc. Don’t claiming, just assume it is about although declining value is really insignificant, but presenting of trajectory in horizontal plane should be for sure.

Is this scale in meters or am I missing something?

[tavarish palkovnik]

8 minutes ago, Chizh said:

Is this scale in meters or am I missing something?

It would have much more sense that scale is in km but scan said in m. Perhaps it was by translating bad copy, like said meters would be insignificant, kilometers would make something but still in comparison with X axis Z is not significant for what I’m interested 

[tavarish palkovnik]

 

Aviation Archives: MiG-25PD Flight and Combat Employment Training Manual

[F-2]

https://studfiles.net/nau/145/folder:11012/#5383849
 

https://studfiles.net/preview/5383872/
 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2378427/
 

any chance for a physics based radar model?

[Lisovsky]

Интересует вопрос, а какова все-таки в DCS дальность у ракет AIM-120 C-5? Мне неоднократно удавалось поражать цели на дистанции в 45 и даже 48  морских миль. Причем даже маневрирующие. Для реальных  ракет версии C-5 производитель действительно заявляет эффективную дальность поражения в 105 км, но то для реальных, а у нас как?

[Blackfyre]

15 hours ago, Lisovsky said:

Интересует вопрос, а какова все-таки в DCS дальность у ракет AIM-120 C-5? Мне неоднократно удавалось поражать цели на дистанции в 45 и даже 48  морских миль. Причем даже маневрирующие. Для реальных  ракет версии C-5 производитель действительно заявляет эффективную дальность поражения в 105 км, но то для реальных, а у нас как?

Мне всегда было интересно, что понимаются под эффективной дальностью? От определения и зависит ответ.

[Lisovsky]

3 часа назад, Blackfyre сказал:

Мне всегда было интересно, что понимаются под эффективной дальностью? От определения и зависит ответ.

Дальность поражения цели ракетой C5, достигнутая на испытательном полигоне в США (название полигона не помню, сорри), составила около 105 км. Была сбита маневрирующая беспилотная цель на базе F-16. Но как именно она маневрировала, мне, естественно, неизвестно. То есть, именно эти 105 км я и подразумеваю под "эффективной дальностью". Скорее всего, ракета способна лететь еще дальше. 

Edited February 10 by Lisovsky

[Blackfyre]

1 hour ago, Lisovsky said:

Дальность поражения цели ракетой C5, достигнутая на испытательном полигоне в США (название полигона не помню, сорри), составила около 105 км. Была сбита маневрирующая беспилотная цель на базе F-16. Но как именно она маневрировала, мне, естественно, неизвестно. То есть, именно эти 105 км я и подразумеваю под "эффективной дальностью". Скорее всего, ракета способна лететь еще дальше. 

 

Ну вот получается, что нам недостает "немного" информации, чтобы сравнить с DCS. Немного это - скорость и высота носителя, скорость, высота, ракурс и маневры цели. От этого всего зависит дальность. Если кто-нибудь из ED ответит вам 110 км, то это будет такой же ничего не значащей цифрой, как и 105км.

[Fighterinterceptor]

MiG 29 HUD view launching an R-27ER missile at a drone target! Youtube link!

[Fighterinterceptor]

On 4/15/2023 at 8:09 PM, tavarish palkovnik said:

It could be 47800 kgs at sea level what is significantly different to what you are giving for R-33. Although these two motors are from two different design bureaus, older one is quite enough known, in geometrical form of fuel block and burning time, there shouldn’t be some drastic difference between those two.

Last summer one patent is published, and as one of authors signed is personally V.A.Sorokin, general director of MKB Iskra, and Iskra designed and manufacture this motor. Description and model sketch for me is nothing but this motor. Eventually it could be some redesign of motor of H-58 (originally also their) but even if it is this, still to me all these R-33, R-37 and H-58 motors (380mm) are more or less very familiar. Familiar in geometry and fuel mass.

 

 

 

I would like to help you with these 2 pictures!

 

The maximum range is 250 km, and if the engine of the 2 missiles under the R-33 is the same, then the R-33 is also incorrectly simulated and therefore its maximum range is reduced from 160 km to 100 km!

If the maximum range of the KH 58 is 250 km, then the R-33 missile can also be believed, which is 160 km, not 100 km!

Another thing I don't understand, unfortunately I only found information for the R-27T. The maximum launch distance on the data sheet is 87 km, and about 62 km within the game. I just want to clarify why?

 

I found a missile named R-33E which is an Export missile WEAKENED. Here it can be pointed out that almost all Soviet weapons are adapted from export documents, which are usually weakened versions of Soviet and Russian weapons!

Edited March 7 by Fighterinterceptor

[Chizh]

1 hour ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

Another thing I don't understand, unfortunately I only found information for the R-27T. The maximum launch distance on the data sheet is 87 km, and about 62 km within the game. I just want to clarify why?

The launch range of all IR missile is limited by target lock range of the seeker.

[Fighterinterceptor]

5 perccel ezelőtt Chizh azt mondta:

Az összes infravörös rakéta kilövési hatótávolságát a kereső célzár hatótávolsága korlátozza.

Any missile can be launched at any time, I can overwrite the launch command at any time on these two images, but it will not hit the target, then the non-maneuvering launch distance and the no escepe zone launch distance will not change either.
That's right, missiles with an infrared head are limited by the heat seeker, but if the heat seeker doesn't see the target, what we see on the HUD remains the same! The described question concerns why the R-27T has a shorter range. I can't go higher than that, and if I launch a MiG 31 in front of me, which flies at 3000 km/h, it won't even reach 87 km!

[Chizh]

7 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

Any missile can be launched at any time, I can overwrite the launch command at any time on these two images, but it will not hit the target, then the non-maneuvering launch distance and the no escepe zone launch distance will not change either.
That's right, missiles with an infrared head are limited by the heat seeker, but if the heat seeker doesn't see the target, what we see on the HUD remains the same! The described question concerns why the R-27T has a shorter range. I can't go higher than that, and if I launch a MiG 31 in front of me, which flies at 3000 km/h, it won't even reach 87 km!

Place yourself and the target towards each other, at altitude about 12 km, and speed at least 2M. Launch the R-27ER and see its range. The R-27ET has the same engine and almost the same aerodynamics.

To reach 87 km range for the R-27T missile, it must be launched at an altitude of about 20 km and a speed of M2.5+

[Fighterinterceptor]

Chizh csak most mondta:

Helyezze magát és a célpontot egymás felé, körülbelül 12 km magasságban, és sebessége legalább 2 M. Indítsa el az R-27ER-t, és nézze meg a hatótávolságát. Az R-27ET ugyanazzal a motorral és majdnem azonos aerodinamikával rendelkezik.

R-27T not R-27ER and not R-27ET!

Let's not include these other two rockets in the conversation because then I will reveal more mistakes! The R27 missile family suffers from such errors that the developers are only informed by export documents. It is well known that Soviet and Russian export weapons are always WEAKER because this is how Russia protects itself from being attacked. No country gives another country weapons of equal strength. Another example is that China made an SD-10 version of its PL-12 missile, which has a shorter range of 30 km and does not sell the PL-12 missile to anyone for money!

 

No one can still show secret Russian or Soviet weapon information on the forum. The Su-27SK document is an export document, just like the MiG 29B document is an export document, and the MiG-29B is the weakest sensor and weapons MiG-29 ever built. That's why I don't think it's right to build on what the real MiG-29A can do, which has more powerful sensors and can use more combat modes.

[Chizh]

5 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

R-27T not R-27ER and not R-27ET!

Let's not include these other two rockets in the conversation because then I will reveal more mistakes! The R27 missile family suffers from such errors that the developers are only informed by export documents. It is well known that Soviet and Russian export weapons are always WEAKER because this is how Russia protects itself from being attacked. No country gives another country weapons of equal strength. Another example is that China made an SD-10 version of its PL-12 missile, which has a shorter range of 30 km and does not sell the PL-12 missile to anyone for money!

This is not always true. R-27 missiles in export versions had the same engine and the same range as their Soviet counterparts. There probably was a simpler system of counter-countermeasures.

5 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

No one can still show secret Russian or Soviet weapon information on the forum. The Su-27SK document is an export document, just like the MiG 29B document is an export document, and the MiG-29B is the weakest sensor and weapons MiG-29 ever built. That's why I don't think it's right to build on what the real MiG-29A can do, which has more powerful sensors and can use more combat modes.

We have Russian documents on the Su-27 and MiG-29. The missile ranges are the same.

[Fighterinterceptor]

Thanks for all the answers, I appreciate the time the developers spent on my questions. It's better if I let this question go, because the discussion goes to a level it shouldn't go to! I have published some interesting pictures here on the forum, I hope this helps the development of DCS World.

Thank you again for your time and patience!

Sincerely, a very enthusiastic Flanker fan!

[GGTharos]

44 minutes ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

It's better if I let this question go, because the discussion goes to a level it shouldn't go to!

It is good to ask questions, but not good to accuse of errors in many cases - the R-27 range, engine, and other issues have been discussed for over a decade and the data for this are good.  If you want to discuss strange rocketry, the SD-10 in DCS is a good candidate with a rocket set up with a 6s boost and 4s sustain resulting in a missile that is far faster than it ought to be.

ED stated that they will be working on what remains to be worked on for the R-27 family which is guidance.  I hope they will significantly enhance ECM behavior and the 'RF environment' in addition to other things (for example sparrow and AIM-120 have brought new guidance mechanics in terms of the physical motion of the missile)

[tavarish palkovnik]

7 hours ago, Fighterinterceptor said:

MiG 29 HUD view launching an R-27ER missile at a drone target! Youtube link!

To copy here text I wrote last year on one other topic when this video appeared on the net:

“Few days ago new source of information appeared, nice view of launching R-27ER seen thru ILS (HUD). Helpful for additional determination of actual and real behavior of this rocket.Shortly to express what I see here. Fighter (Mig-29) fly with nearly constant velocity of 150m/s at altitude of 600m. For almost 20 seconds, from taking target in lock-on through PR time (launching allowed) till rocket is launched, indicator of mutual distance (distance between fighter and target) stays still on some let say 1,5 km. Title of video says target was Orlan what can’t be true but something that flies with nearly same velocity as fighter. Don’t thrust everything on Internet.With multiple trying I managed to count 4,7 seconds for rocket flight time, plus minus.So how much rocket flew in those 4,7 seconds? Taking roughly 2200 meters, 1500 meters initial distance plus what target added with its continuous flying at 150m/s.If rocket’s flight would be considered as constant acceleration moving then acceleration can be calculated roughly as 135 m/s2 and final velocity as 785 m/s. Of course due to drag it will be less but for rough visualization it is all correct.Now what interest me the most. What is force needed to give mass of 350kg such acceleration. Newton law of course, F=m*a and it gives average force of 47250 N and total force impulse 222075 NsIn these 4,7 seconds I’m giving to motor to operate at average 80+ bar pressure so delivered specific impulse for such nozzle down there could be something about 250s.Next step is determination how much fuel roughly should be burned in these 4,7 seconds. 222000/250g=90kgWith adding time of starting, erosion, to move rocket from launch pad, to compensate losses etc for 4,7 seconds 95 kilograms of fuel should be burned out, and rest 45kg of available is to keep pushing. I’m giving 20kN thrust in sustaining phase in same time, 20000*4,7/45=215s making average 230-235s what is so natural and so normal for such nozzle at nearly sea level.”

By the way, in addition to say that in the meantime few motors I was trying to figure out, including R-27ER, R-33 and H-58 went through redesign and got 8 slots what gives much more natural burning behavior 

 

[Chizh]

22 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

To copy here text I wrote last year on one other topic when this video appeared on the net:

“Few days ago new source of information appeared, nice view of launching R-27ER seen thru ILS (HUD). Helpful for additional determination of actual and real behavior of this rocket.Shortly to express what I see here. Fighter (Mig-29) fly with nearly constant velocity of 150m/s at altitude of 600m. For almost 20 seconds, from taking target in lock-on through PR time (launching allowed) till rocket is launched, indicator of mutual distance (distance between fighter and target) stays still on some let say 1,5 km. Title of video says target was Orlan what can’t be true but something that flies with nearly same velocity as fighter. Don’t thrust everything on Internet.With multiple trying I managed to count 4,7 seconds for rocket flight time, plus minus.So how much rocket flew in those 4,7 seconds? Taking roughly 2200 meters, 1500 meters initial distance plus what target added with its continuous flying at 150m/s.If rocket’s flight would be considered as constant acceleration moving then acceleration can be calculated roughly as 135 m/s2 and final velocity as 785 m/s. Of course due to drag it will be less but for rough visualization it is all correct.Now what interest me the most. What is force needed to give mass of 350kg such acceleration. Newton law of course, F=m*a and it gives average force of 47250 N and total force impulse 222075 NsIn these 4,7 seconds I’m giving to motor to operate at average 80+ bar pressure so delivered specific impulse for such nozzle down there could be something about 250s.Next step is determination how much fuel roughly should be burned in these 4,7 seconds. 222000/250g=90kgWith adding time of starting, erosion, to move rocket from launch pad, to compensate losses etc for 4,7 seconds 95 kilograms of fuel should be burned out, and rest 45kg of available is to keep pushing. I’m giving 20kN thrust in sustaining phase in same time, 20000*4,7/45=215s making average 230-235s what is so natural and so normal for such nozzle at nearly sea level.”

By the way, in addition to say that in the meantime few motors I was trying to figure out, including R-27ER, R-33 and H-58 went through redesign and got 8 slots what gives much more natural burning behavior 

 

 

There's something wrong here. The radar would not be able to acquire the target at the same speed. Especially against the surface in background.

[tavarish palkovnik]

Wrong in video and ILS presentation how this fight was going on, or wrong in description of mine?

It was long time ago when I was interested in this so I forgot, does KOLS can be merged with radar?

[Chizh]

16 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Wrong in video and ILS presentation how this fight was going on, or wrong in description of mine?

I have doubts about your assumption that the target is flying at the speed of fighter in tail-on position.

16 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

It was long time ago when I was interested in this so I forgot, does KOLS can be merged with radar?

There is an indication of active radar РЛ, but there is no indication of the OLS (ТП).

[Fighterinterceptor]

The Developers should know best, because they make a real MiG 29 with all secrets! I found this 50 km HUD mode on the internet in 5 minutes!

 

Spoiler

Mode “D” (Dogon): Pursuit

A medium PRF mode usable for both headon and tailchase engagements. In practise it is used only when necessary, as it is prone to displaying false targets from ground clutter especially at low altitudes. Marsh land, marshy forests and flood plains give greatest clutter problems. When multiple false returns are present, the pilot should compare visible targets with the calculated target range supplied by datalink from GCI controller to determine the correct target. Display is calibrated to a maximum range of 50km. Detects targets from 30 m to 23,000 m altitude receding at speeds of 210 – 2200 km/h. Target can be up to 10,000m above or 6,000 m below. Range against a typical 3 sq m RCS fighter target is 25-35km search and 20-35km tracking when host aircraft is flying above 3000m. When flying from 1000m to 3000m altitude, range is reduced to 20-35km search and 18-35km track. When flying at 500-1000m achievable range is just 15-30km search and 13-25km tracking. When target range is below 20km, scan coverage is 40º in azimuth, 16.5º in elevation. If target range is above 20km, scan coverage is 30º in azimuth, 13.5º in elevation. Individual targets can be resolved providing they are separated 3-4km in range in Pursuit mode. Errors in range measurement can be as high as 8km, but there is no minimum range. Lockon and transition to tracking mode takes 1-4 seconds in Pursuit mode. When “Cooperation” mode is selected, the radar is automatically switched to an equivalent mode to pursuit, scanning with the IRST.

 

Edited March 7 by Fighterinterceptor