Ракеты в DCS

[Velik]

12 минут назад, Ronin_Gaijin сказал:

Ranges and flight profiles are the same as with the R-27 family.
Regarding tracking a target moving in three dimensional space, logic stipulates that you use the same code you have (in DCS already) for the HOJ feature of the R-27R/ER.

 

all ARM in DCS are overperformed. a lot. If you dream to launch silent R-27P A-A and kill someone....little chance anyway

Edited July 25, 2024 by Velik

[Chizh]

20 minutes ago, Ronin_Gaijin said:

Regarding tracking a target moving in three dimensional space, logic stipulates that you use the same code you have (in DCS already) for the HOJ feature of the R-27R/ER.

We need to know the features of real missiles. Especially their effectiveness.
Have you ever wondered why no one else in the world makes such missiles?

[FoxAlfa]

Are we even sure R-27P is for Air targets primary? It may just be anti-SAM self-protection modification of the A to A missile... a kin to the AGM-122 or in a way AGM-45

Edited July 25, 2024 by FoxAlfa

[Ronin_Gaijin]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

We need to know the features of real missiles. Especially their effectiveness.
Have you ever wondered why no one else in the world makes such missiles?

No, I have not. I am only interested in weapons that exist/existed.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Ronin_Gaijin

[Skyhammer]

vor 41 Minuten schrieb FoxAlfa:

Are we even sure R-27P is for Air targets primary? It may just be anti-SAM self-protection modification of the A to A missile... a kin to the AGM-122 or in a way AGM-45

 

what i found on the Internet its definitely described as designed against Air targets

 

"R-27P - with passive radar CNS 9B-1102 (see photo). It is intended to engage DRLO and other radio-emitting airplanes at any time of the day, in simple and difficult weather conditions, in the front hemisphere, including the background of various underlying surfaces, providing defeat of aircraft that put the active interference radar to cover their aircraft. Explosive device - a radio detonator and contact target sensor. Battle unit - rod bearing type. "

Edited July 25, 2024 by Skyhammer

[Fuerte]

7 hours ago, Ludio0 said:

Р-27 при наличии у противника аим-120с-5 - мусор

На помощь придет SD-10

[okopanja]

7 hours ago, Chizh said:

You probably don't understand something. We did not and do not have blue aircraft or missiles that are not in service with NATO. But we provided a red missile that no red country had in game 2003.

The following interview with Pilot Mirčeta Jokanović, belonging to the 1st generation of pilots who got trained in SSSR indicates that R-77 was offered for sale/upgrade of the 9.12 fleet of Mig-29.

 

Quote

 

Back than we were offered (1996), something similar that was done with the current airplanes, but with some other technic (tehnology), with some other elements:
- replacement of C100 with C101/C102 (C=Ts), which is central airplane computer
- replacement of "symbol generator" (serbian: generator simbola), internal component.
- ability to mount the missile RVV-AE - R-77, RVVAE was the export model similar to the AMRAAM with range of 80km. Our airframes with it's current radar could cover that range, since they had 90km range for the fighter size target, and 120 for large targets. Maximal scale was 150km on display
- replacement of radar tubes,
- including installation for R-77,
- installation for Kab-500, TV guided (there was no offer for "lasers")

We have requested modification to enable usage of gun when the center-line fuel tank is hanged, including the 2x under-the-wing 1000l fuel tanks.

All this modifications could have modified on the site, except the modification for gun. This involved cutting through the 14th rib of which meant factory modification involving reinforcing, so the ejection channel for empty shells can be re-routed. With no modification this shell would hit the fuel tank directly.

There were further modifications (he does not detail), and the only thing were Russians were reserved was Gardenia. This ECM station would have been very useful, although by standards of the 1999 it was already obsolete, it would have still played some role in jamming the seeker heads of AMRAAM missiles. The RWR system would be different, SPO-15 would be replace with another system, which would enable it to facilitate some radio reconnaissance including recording. All the other changes were of cosmetic nature.

Sadly "ours" (he means either politicians or military top close to political decisions) did not want to hear about it, saying that this would not change the things much. To the hell it would not mean more, as we so it meant in practice a lot.

Remont was not done, around 1996 we were not under sanctions but doubts remained if the airplane would be returned from Russia if the situation changed.

 

A bit later he reveals the state of the NV019, he states the following

Quote

Conditions of this tubes was such that the lock was possible at meager ranges of 20-30km, instead of the original 60-80km.

Further he talks about the wrong way the decisions were made by political leadership...

Quote

General Veličković (Head if Airforce and PVO) has requested general Perišić has requested from Ministry of Defense... The gentlemen have thought we will not face war situation, and that we do not need, and that this was too much.

Consequently if you ever take into the account "effectiveness" of Mig-29 in 1999, you should have in mind that 1/2 of air-frames did not have either functioning radar or 1999.

[Chizh]

33 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Consequently if you ever take into the account "effectiveness" of Mig-29 in 1999, you should have in mind that 1/2 of air-frames did not have either functioning radar or 1999.

In developing MiG-29, we are guided by our data on the real-life MiG-29A model.

[okopanja]

20 minutes ago, Chizh said:

In developing MiG-29, we are guided by our data on the real-life MiG-29A model.

Not aiming here modernized at 9.12 with R-77s and other stuff, we have today in operational use, but rather to the fact that comprehensive upgrade was offered as early as of 1996.

Furthermore when working with foreign governments there is no place for rushing incomplete products into production, since flaws get revealed at factory and site tests and the money is paid on delivery performance and not immediately at full. Consumer market is much more forgiving in terms of supplying incomplete products with features being added at later time. Sadly sometimes some of them never get delivered.

[DisplayName]

10 hours ago, Chizh said:

We need to know the features of real missiles. Especially their effectiveness.
Have you ever wondered why no one else in the world makes such missiles?

You mean like HOJ modes.... yeah, others have made such missiles that perform the same basic function. Although mathematically an application specific seeker is more like to achieve a kill, this is in accordance with Soviet doctrine which is why they also made medium range IR missiles.

 

Expecting ALL global military doctrine to be identical is extremely ignorant. 

[FlankerFan35]

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Are we even sure R-27P is for Air targets primary? It may just be anti-SAM self-protection modification of the A to A missile... a kin to the AGM-122 or in a way AGM-45

 

 We know they are designed for AA use. I'd also add in well regarded books on the topic of Flankers and the MiG-29, the R-27P/EP are always mentioned under the AA loadout and described as AA weapons.

7 hours ago, Fuerte said:

SD-10 to the rescue

SD-10 is not confirmed present on any of the planes that use R-27 in DCS.

Edited July 26, 2024 by FlankerFan35

[DisplayName]

19 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Are we even sure R-27P is for Air targets primary? It may just be anti-SAM self-protection modification of the A to A missile... a kin to the AGM-122 or in a way AGM-45

 

They are absolutly for air-to-air aplications; although any air-to-ground capability would be neat.

In accordance with Soviet doctrine, the probability of kill is not based upon a single missile as it is with Western doctrine. The mathematics shows us that the probability of kill dramatically increases as a function of salvo size — In order to provide some context I will mention that this specifically rules out the use of the same seeker type; as any actions taken to defeat one missile of a given seeker type will also be effective at defeating all succeeding missiles of the same seeker type of the same salvo. This is why the Soviets placed great emphasis on developing missiles of many different seeker types, which is encompased fully by the R-27 family, which includes the semi-active RADAR homing, infrared seeking, passive RADAR homing, and active RADAR homing missiles.

The probability of kill dramatically increases from a salvo with varying seeker types, this [salvo] probability of kill surpasses the probability of kill of any one given missile within the salvo. This mathematical principle was also applied to other aspects of Soviet military doctrine, such as that with the design of their tanks; where the individual reload rate was considered to be less important over many other design features (such as silhouette, which has its own mathematical guiding principles as observed in WWII), the reason it was less important was because the Soviets would have fielded more tanks and thus the indevidual salvo size (tanks firing) was greater than what the opposition would have, thus resulting in a mathematical probability of success that is higher than the indevidual probability of success of the indevidual tank (or missile).

There is a lot more to be said on this matter, but I just thought to outline the base principles at work in regards to the R-27 family so that there is no misunderstanding that the R-27 family is indeed specifically intended for air-to-air.

 

Edited July 26, 2024 by DisplayName

[Fuerte]

3 hours ago, FlankerFan35 said:

SD-10 is not confirmed present on any of the planes that use R-27 in DCS.

You can find it on J-11A

[FlankerFan35]

10 minutes ago, Fuerte said:

You can find it on J-11A

It is a community mod.

[Fuerte]

6 minutes ago, FlankerFan35 said:

It is a community mod.

Still an acceptable option. Its been used quite widely in MP. Something that works good right now.

[FlankerFan35]

1 hour ago, Fuerte said:

Still an acceptable option. Its been used quite widely in MP. Something that works good right now.

Hopefully in time we can get additions that use these weapons for real instead of faking

[Fuerte]

Yes, chinese flankers from Deka is the only hope we could have imo.

But until then SD-10 is here, it kills and its official.

Edited July 26, 2024 by Fuerte

[MicroShket]

Haven't the developers from Deka encountered obstacles from the Chinese side in development of J-11 or else?

[falcon_120]

You mean like HOJ modes.... yeah, others have made such missiles that perform the same basic function. Although mathematically an application specific seeker is more like to achieve a kill, this is in accordance with Soviet doctrine which is why they also made medium range IR missiles.
 
Expecting ALL global military doctrine to be identical is extremely ignorant. 

You're conflating terms. No one has susgested here that doctrine should be the same, rather the suggestion have been there is a trend of technology usefulness and applicability that is commoun to air forces. To give some examples, none air forces use sonar to detect air targets, all air forces use IR seekers for short range weapons. These are just silly examples on how technology limitations define the use case in which the technology is useful.
There are clear technical complexities in achieving that a passive ARM seeker provides enough precision to hit a maneuvering target. If that was not the case US air force could be using AGM88D to kill AWACS instead of amraams (bigger warhead and slightly bigger range al high altitude). By the way the R27ET is not thought to be a BVR weapon rather tp be used for extended range on cold targets or in some case for very hot target with Afterburner. And HOJ modes in missiles are lower PoK and rather a way to make FOX3 missiles get close enough for to burnthrpugh the jamming SNR with their active radar.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

You're conflating terms. No one has susgested here that doctrine should be the same, rather the suggestion have been there is a trend of technology usefulness and applicability that is commoun to air forces. To give some examples, none air forces use sonar to detect air targets, all air forces use IR seekers for short range weapons. These are just silly examples on how technology limitations define the use case in which the technology is useful.
There are clear technical complexities in achieving that a passive ARM seeker provides enough precision to hit a maneuvering target. If that was not the case US air force could be using AGM88D to kill AWACS instead of amraams (bigger warhead and slightly bigger range al high altitude). By the way the R27ET is not thought to be a BVR weapon rather tp be used for extended range on cold targets or in some case for very hot target with Afterburner. And HOJ modes in missiles are lower PoK and rather a way to make FOX3 missiles get close enough for to burnthrpugh the jamming SNR with their active radar.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Dude, please think again. Radio signal is signal being the RADAR or Jammer. So if HOJ works, the RADAR based signal can also be used at least for proportional navigation based on measured angles.

Few montha ago even the page from manual surfaced and was removed, so ED is aware it did exist. What remains unknown is exact mode of operation:

- guiding on STT is one option. Clearly thia was doable in 80s.

- guiding on other modes, e.g. SCAN/TWS is more complex:

  - update frequency may be in seconds.

  - There is a difficulty in correlating the right signals in presence of multiple emitter.

Personally I think this weapon was usable against STT and less manouvarable targets in SCN/TWS modes

[ShadowFrost]

One would suggest looking at the history of the "Brazo" as to why an R-27P for A2A engagements may not be a good idea. As it is expected to require significantly compliant targets.
There's a reason nations (mostly) stuck with radar guided missiles for A2A and not passive. 

In regards to sneaky A2A weapon.... DCS RWRs have a lot of work to do. Development time spent in this area would drastically change how A2A engagements play out. (Less reliance on RWR, less reactive tactics, more pro active maneuvers) 

On 7/25/2024 at 8:50 AM, Ronin_Gaijin said:

Ranges and flight profiles are the same as with the R-27 family.
Regarding tracking a target moving in three dimensional space, logic stipulates that you use the same code you have (in DCS already) for the HOJ feature of the R-27R/ER.

 

The HOJ feature is extremely simplified for R-27R/ER. (Or any fox-1s). The way we use it within DCS are not valid employment strategies per the manual and per SMEs. 

 

Correction* The way we can use it. IE turning the radar off and watching a Fox-1 guide unassisted. That is incorrect and due to the simplifications present within DCS.

Edited July 26, 2024 by ShadowFrost

[falcon_120]

Dude, please think again. Radio signal is signal being the RADAR or Jammer. So if HOJ works, the RADAR based signal can also be used at least for proportional navigation based on measured angles.
Few montha ago even the page from manual surfaced and was removed, so ED is aware it did exist. What remains unknown is exact mode of operation:
- guiding on STT is one option. Clearly thia was doable in 80s.
- guiding on other modes, e.g. SCAN/TWS is more complex:
  - update frequency may be in seconds.
  - There is a difficulty in correlating the right signals in presence of multiple emitter.
Personally I think this weapon was usable against STT and less manouvarable targets in SCN/TWS modes

What do you want me to think? I know how ARM work and the principle behind it... I think you've entirely missed the point i was making.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Fuerte]

9 hours ago, ShadowFrost said:

DCS RWRs have a lot of work to do. Development time spent in this area would drastically change how A2A engagements play out. (Less reliance on RWR, less reactive tactics, more pro active maneuvers) 

And all RWRs should be detailed to the same level then, no matter if its legacy FC or full fidelity.

[Velik]

В 26.07.2024 в 07:33, Fuerte сказал:

Still an acceptable option. Its been used quite widely in MP. Something that works good right now.

Su-57 mod is still acceptable option too. Until SD-10 is not a default choice it doesn't count.

[NytHawk]

в версии 2.9.6 в игру был добавлен символ SPIKE-ER/SPIKE-ER2, зачем это было сделано, если ни один самолет не может запустить эту ракету.