About EOS and r27 missile in Su27S and Mig29S

[VAOZoky]

That is incorrect. You must launch the missile in STT or the radar will not generate the MCU. If you attempt to launch in EOS the launch is inhibited, and if you override it, switching back to radar will not generate MCU's because you did not send the launch signal to the radar.

 

Source?

[GGTharos]

Some ED developers had words with MiG radar technician. The fire control system will not generate an MCU unless it is properly triggered.

 

Source?

[Sov13t]

Do you have any info on what happens when the radar lock is lost and then regained? Would the launching airplane's radar system still be able to provide mid course updates or the contact with the missiles would be lost and only the last (or original) navigation point would be followed until the missile receives the target echoes or self destructs.

 

A bit of a spotty subject, and would require me reading up a little more as I do not have it memorized. As far as I remember, the radar switches to STT to authorize the launch (which is not a very correct term, the Russian radars have two modes for single target tracking one provides target telemetry for launches the second even more precise/stronger for missile guidance and painting and this is only activated after launch and runs for 60 seconds) Should the lock be lost or interrupted the missile is lost as the radar will not resume this mode until another missile is launched. Will the first missile resume guidance should second missile be launched - I do not know. There is a 10 second window where the radar will attempt to resume lock automatically based on last known target vectors and OLS information provided - it is also unclear whether during this 10 second window the missile be recovered or not.

 

Also, is the missile's passive seeker active immediately or there is some fixed timeout till activation or there is some calculated timeout? I mean, is there like a predetermined switch between the two guidance methods or the system does it automatically when the seeker starts receiving radar echoes?

 

The seeker is passive and is only "receiving" so it is active the moment it leaves the rail. There are no set ranges here because target's reflections could be strong enough to be acquired way in advance, giving missile better terminal guidance.

[Dudikoff]

Will the first missile resume guidance should second missile be launched - I do not know.

 

Well, since the standard intercept doctrine would supposedly have the MiG-29 to fire both missiles to increase the PK (and give it full maneuverability), I presume that both would be guided. The radar probably sends the same guidance signal which is then received by both missiles (probably because the target is still the same, so the radar code is the same, too)..

 

 

The seeker is passive and is only "receiving" so it is active the moment it leaves the rail. There are no set ranges here because target's reflections could be strong enough to be acquired way in advance, giving missile better terminal guidance.

 

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Dudikoff]

Ok R/ER cannot be launched with OLS lock but what about the inertial guidance which is there. Because in that case there will be a big change, in the STT mode target A/C will know that its been painted and will know of missile launch only when missile starts using direct guidance when RADAR starts to guide the missile more accurately. This will even change missiles flight path which will be now same as in FC2, loafty.

 

Not really - as written by Soviet, the radar will start guiding the missile immediately after launch - it is only because the passive sensor in the missile has a limited radar echo detection range that the inertial guidance is used (with midcourse updates) to guide towards the target until it starts receiving the echoes.

 

BTW, what would be the frequency of these MCUs? I'd expect the missile to turn in "jumps" according to these updates during the initial guidance phase.

[GGTharos]

Educated guess with lots of IFs:

 

When the lock is dropped, most radars will go into MEM mode or something similar (from STT). The radar continues to generate MCUs based on the STT trackfile.

 

From here, you have two options:

1) MEM mode tends to scan the volume around the target, and may re-acquire, in which case guidance resumes.

2) Re-acquisition fails (ie. MEM mode times out) and the radar stops generating MCUs, the system re-sets for the next missile.

 

There is a possibility that the radar will not change channels for the next shot (bad for ECCM if you ask me) in which case re-acquiring after MEM mode has timed out will resume guidance IF the target is in the missile's FoV, thus allowing it to see the radar reflection.

 

Do you have any info on what happens when the radar lock is lost and then regained? Would the launching airplane's radar system still be able to provide mid course updates or the contact with the missiles would be lost and only the last (or original) navigation point would be followed until the missile receives the target echoes or self destructs.

 

 

Yes, there is. There tend to be some rules about how and when to do it, but the exact details are necessarily missile-specific and generally unknown.

 

Also, is the missile's passive seeker active immediately or there is some fixed timeout till activation or there is some calculated timeout? I mean, is there like a predetermined switch between the two guidance methods or the system does it automatically when the seeker starts receiving radar echoes?

[GGTharos]

MCU's are generated by the radar and tansmitted in the mainlobe and sidelobes. Their frequency can be as high as the radar PRF. The missile wouldn't really turn in anything as abrupt jumps if it can help it (although you might see discrete periods of non-turning) as it needs to preserve energy for terminal maneuvering ... some missiles are better at this than others.

 

BTW, what would be the frequency of these MCUs? I'd expect the missile to turn in "jumps" according to these updates during the initial guidance phase.

[Dudikoff]

MCU's are generated by the radar and tansmitted in the mainlobe and sidelobes. Their frequency can be as high as the radar PRF. The missile wouldn't really turn in anything as abrupt jumps if it can help it (although you might see discrete periods of non-turning) as it needs to preserve energy for terminal maneuvering ... some missiles are better at this than others.

 

Yes, of course. I used a wrong term - was aiming at these periods of non-turning which should be noticeable in the game if these updates are not sent that often.

[Teknetinium]

Well...here would be another "source" supporting your source: R-27 (AA-10) Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (2nd paragraph under DESIGN). The problem with the internet, however, is that when data is scarce, often the same source can be used multiple times without a reference so that it seems that multiple sources agree, when it's really the same source being used multiple times. SO, if that one source is wrong...

 

OTOH, the R-27ET in an older version of the sim could be launched at long ranges because it was assumed to have inertial guidance. Further research on the devs part, suggested that this was not true and, so, the version of the R-27ET we have in the sim today has been kneecapped and limited to when it's IR seeker can "lock".

 

Rich

 

Good point, Its not bias at all, its more realistic when we all testers have passion only for one side of the coin. All this have been mentioned before for ED. Still we dont even have Time to impact on the HUD:)

Edited November 15, 2012 by Teknetinium

[EtherealN]

its more realistic when we have all testers have passion only for one side of the coin.

 

?

 

1) Testers test things. Testers do not make game design decisions. Worth looking at is the old sticky by Matt regarding tester team membership: ( http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=50779 )

 

"Testers wanted, not wish list contributors. We do not want testers that primarily joins the test team as a way to advance their game content desires. While we have a separate content "wish list" for testers, software testing should be the only reason to join our test team."

 

If a tester says that a given thing is wrong, the response from the developers is "source?" If the tester is then able to produce authoritative sources, the developers will take this into consideration and might make a design change. If the tester can only say "because I want it to" or "because a friend of a friend said" then the developer will say "please don't waste my time". This is not a complex concept. :)

 

2) Your statement is just plain wrong on the face of it. There are plenty of testers that prefer various platforms.

 

Tin foil hats look pretty and all, but really - they don't work. Seriously. ;)

[Teknetinium]

I have seen how much attention ED and testers had on Russian birds!!!

[159th_Viper]

Good point, Its not bias at all, its more realistic when we all testers have passion only for one side of the coin. All this have been mentioned before for ED. Still we dont even have Time to impact on the HUD:)

 

I'll make this official:

 

If its not in the FC3 official bug thread then it does not exist. I'm tired of hearing 'ED Testers do not do this, do not do that' if peeps could not be bothered to help me collate the bugs and have them sorted out once and for all, and if not, furnishing reasons why not.

 

It's not that hard: See a bug? Don't moan about it - write it in the Bug thread.

[Teknetinium]

I'll make this official:

 

If its not in the FC3 official bug thread then it does not exist. I'm tired of hearing 'ED Testers do not do this, do not do that' if peeps could not be bothered to help me collate the bugs and have them sorted out once and for all, and if not, furnishing reasons why not.

 

It's not that hard: See a bug? Don't moan about it - write it in the Bug thread.

 

Its all assumptions from a Mig-29 technician that I know, :)

[Kenan]

I'm sure beta testers are doing their best. It could happen to anyone, even to a group of dedicated testers to miss a giant pilot head in the back of Su27 cockpit. So, instead of complaining about it, every bug should be reported, even the most obvious one, as even those could miss an untrained eye.

[GGTharos]

How are the testers going to 'impact the HuD'? How do you even know what we ask for, and what's done without us asking for, and how many of our requests are not acted on?

 

Good point, Its not bias at all, its more realistic when we all testers have passion only for one side of the coin. All this have been mentioned before for ED. Still we dont even have Time to impact on the HUD:)

[GGTharos]

Oh, that's what you're sore about. For your information, us testers didn't talk to any MiG-29 technicians that we know of. This information comes from ED developers. And while we're at it, they have a lot more documentation that we can get our hands on. The relevations of what they know are sometimes surprising, even if the knowledge is incomplete.

 

Its all assumptions from a Mig-29 technician that I know, :)

[VAOZoky]

Ok jent's. This is not "report a bug thread". I created this thread for educational purposes. If you have any info with source please post. This applies to you too GG. Saying "i head it from some MiG tech guy with no name" doesn't count ;)

[EtherealN]

I'm sure beta testers are doing their best. It could happen to anyone, even to a group of dedicated testers to miss a giant pilot head in the back of Su27 cockpit. So, instead of complaining about it, every bug should be reported, even the most obvious one, as even those could miss an untrained eye.

 

Not to forget that sometimes a tester is looking for something that is complex, and might not notice the obvious. "Can't see the forest for the trees" isn't an insult, it's an accurate description of human cognisance. If a tester is looking through flight envelopes it is almost expected that he might not notice something like a deformed model.

 

ubNF9QNEQLA

[Sov13t]

I can confirm all of the information that has been said thus far by GG in relations to the basics of Semi-Active guidance is correct per the manuals/lecture notes I have on the SU-27P.

[Teknetinium]

Oh, that's what you're sore about. For your information, us testers didn't talk to any MiG-29 technicians that we know of. This information comes from ED developers. And while we're at it, they have a lot more documentation that we can get our hands on. The relevations of what they know are sometimes surprising, even if the knowledge is incomplete.

 

Why dose it not get implemented then on Russian birds? simple stuff that are in the manual that would make it easier for Russian birds, but everything we see dose only make Russian birds and missiles more realistic :) I have lost faith in ED, They will get what they want by having only American birds that can compete witch will make this sim like Jane's F-15/F-18 good times.

[GGTharos]

I didn't hear it from some MiG tech guy with no name. ED did, and I trust ED's devs.

 

But if you want to take it a step further, the stuff you're suggesting isn't even hinted at in the aircraft's operating manuals.

 

Ok jent's. This is not "report a bug thread". I created this thread for educational purposes. If you have any info with source please post. This applies to you too GG. Saying "i head it from some MiG tech guy with no name" doesn't count ;)

[GGTharos]

Thanks. I have some manual but I don't read Russian. I have an english translation somewhere but sometimes things translate ... funny, so the confirmation is appreciated.

 

I can confirm all of the information that has been said thus far by GG in relations to the basics of Semi-Active guidance is correct per the manuals/lecture notes I have on the SU-27P.

[GGTharos]

Why? Because no one assigned time to such things. Because there were more important things to do. There are definitely reasons for it all, though most importantly FC things see few changes in general, and that is how it always will be.

 

Do I need to whine about how ED is selling out to the flanker crowd because they restricted my TWS to 60 deg AZ?

 

Do I need to point out that despite not having a TTI, you're not suffering from having truly smart missiles coming after your plane, that you don't have to suffer from very effective ECM/ECCM from the eagles, etc?

 

Do I need to remind you that at some point the F-15 barely got anything while a lot of changes/improvements were made to the Russian birds ... or did you forget?

 

Regardless of all that, no one minds seeing Russian birds getting some attention - quit portraying this as some sort of 'us vs them' thing, because it isn't.

 

Why dose it not get implemented then on Russian birds? simple stuff that are in the manual that would make it easier for Russian birds, but everything we see dose only make Russian birds and missiles more realistic :) I have lost faith in ED, They will get what they want by having only American birds that can compete witch will make this sim like Jane's F-15/F-18 good times.

[Sov13t]

Thanks. I have some manual but I don't read Russian. I have an english translation somewhere but sometimes things translate ... funny, so the confirmation is appreciated.

 

Where it really gets interesting is the bits where OLS and RLS cooperate and use each other as backups. But it quickly gets out of hand and I can see why ED has tried to simplify it as much as possible in FC.

[VAOZoky]

I didn't hear it from some MiG tech guy with no name. ED did, and I trust ED's devs.

 

But if you want to take it a step further, the stuff you're suggesting isn't even hinted at in the aircraft's operating manuals.

 

Can you post that manual (if it is in digital form) please :)

About stuff: It's not that i don't trust you or ED, its that i wanted this thread to stay clean of "I head it somewhere" or "some guy told me". Like i said numerous times i posted what i found, and if you have more accurate info please post. I'm not saying that my stuff is right, it's just that i didn't find anything other that that.