Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[GGTharos]

Nope, MiG-21 is special. What does MiG-21 have that other fighters do not have?

 

So those stories from India that Mig-21 is harder to pick up at low altitudes then Su-27 is bullshit?

Of course dimension play a role together with reflecting materials and angels on the shape.

[Teknetinium]

Really? What can you prove?

 

 

 

Where does this documentation include time and speed targets for those missiles? Why are you making statements you can't prove, again?

 

 

I'm doing same thing as you GG, where is your prove.;)

I stand by Volks studies because he actually showed some documentation compared to others that want us to believe in words from heavens.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

No, you're not. If you were doing the same thing I am, you'd have some questions as to why it is that R-27ER has to reach its target faster than a 120C5.

 

The stuff that volk showed are valuable pieces of information. His calculations are alright, but he's only working with rockets currently and leaving drag be. You 'stand by' volk's work because you don't understand it, but it gives you something you want to happen. Unfortunately, it isn't complete work.

 

I'm doing same thing as you ;)

Edited August 7, 2013 by GGTharos

[Pilotasso]

I'm doing same thing as you GG, where is you prove.;)

I stand by Volks studies because he actually showed some documentation compared to others that want us to believe in words from heavens.

 

OK so your both wrong, have it your way, what does that do for the missiles argument? :D

[Teknetinium]

No, you're not. If you were doing the same thing I am, you'd have some questions as to why it is that R-27ER has to reach its target faster than a 120C5.

 

I know your claims, it just that I have not seen any documentation on it that proves your statements. The diagram that showed aim-120x going longer than ER had no values of speed or altitude. Mig-31 can make R-77 fly longer than ER as well which doesn't make R-77 whit bigger legs than ER-27.

 

While ER/R/R-73 is compered to diagrams that have speed and alt :)

Edited August 7, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

You don't know my claims, you have seen zero documentation that says I'm wrong, and you have done zero actual research to show that I am wrong.

 

You're interjecting an opinion based on something you saw for two minutes without context and without the complete body of work that has gone on for a long time - a lot of it an effort in understanding how those things work.

 

So with all due respect, you and your claims are wasting everyone's time, including your own.

 

I know your claims, it just that I have not seen any documentation on it that proves your statements.

[GGTharos]

Actually yes it did. It's Russian intelligence diagram for some sort of AIM-120A prototype, created years before AIM-120A even entered production.

 

The diagram that showed aim-120x going longer than ER had no values of speed or altitude.

[Teknetinium]

You don't know my claims, you have seen zero documentation that says I'm wrong, and you have done zero actual research to show that I am wrong.

 

You're interjecting an opinion based on something you saw for two minutes without context and without the complete body of work that has gone on for a long time - a lot of it an effort in understanding how those things work.

 

So with all due respect, you and your claims are wasting everyone's time, including your own.

 

Volk showed diagrams and from them tried to get out some facts that are much more convincing than your words.

 

Ill stop here, me and Rage made some test today comparing ER/aim-7/aim-120b/C, results will be posted soon. We might be able to make some conclusions from the tracks.I have no opinion about chaff yet. Its the missiles speed and range that i'm sceptic to.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

No, he did no such thing. Volk is doing exactly what I'm doing: Researching stuff he has, and he doesn't have everything he needs.

 

Volk showed diagrams and from them tried to get out some facts that are much more convincing than yours.

[Ragnarok]

How do you know how many missiles climb higher after the launch, and what are the differences between SARH and ARH in this fact??? Give me any kind of document. Do not tell me how long you read the internet. This is the factor with which you can manipulate with a range of up tomorrow!!!

[GGTharos]

Do your own homework, and when you find something interesting that can actually be simulated, I'm sure ED will consider it. :)

[Svend_Dellepude]

This thread is funny! :D

[GGTharos]

All missile threads are funny :)

[Druid_]

GG will never learn. He can't help himself when he sees a missile thread. Take it from me (ex-RAF) , he knows his stuff. The short of it is that DCS isn't perfect and its not a missile simulator so it's unlikely it ever will be. Are we working towards making it better? yes, of course. GG is one of those responsible for improving it which means he has access to his research and some of EDs. Why people continually disagree with him without proof is beyond me but I guess that's the nature of Internet virtual pilots.

[Teknetinium]

GG is one of those responsible for improving it which means he has access to his research and some of EDs. Why people continually disagree with him without proof is beyond me but I guess that's the nature of Internet virtual pilots.

 

Because some make their own research. To control if things are corresponding to facts we know, at the moment they are not if you look at Volks diagrams.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Teknetinium

[71st_Mastiff]

All missile threads are funny :)

 

all missiles are funny, you can not accurately sim a missile, there's is way to many variables, time of day, time of day when they loaded the fuel into the missile. The altitude, the angle of attack, the positions of the universe, the sun magnetic poles shifting, gamma rays, well you get the picture. :pilotfly:

[Ragnarok]

how much RCS at F15 when wearing a 3x Fuel tank?

RCS for MiG29 is 5m2, F15-12-15m2, Su27-15-20m2, (full load and maximally exposed aspect)

 

all missiles are funny, you can not accurately sim a missile, there's is way to many variables, time of day, time of day when they loaded the fuel into the missile. The altitude, the angle of attack, the positions of the universe, the sun magnetic poles shifting, gamma rays, well you get the picture.

 

all the little variations. Basic physical laws are sufficient!

Edited August 7, 2013 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

Tek, you will never have all the facts. These are a lot of things that are said behind closed doors that will either not be repeated, or will not be sourced because the sources do not wish to be named in public (no, they're not doing anything illegal, they just don't want or need you to know who they are - they have nothing to prove to you, they just have info for ED).

 

Wags also checks information and confers with people, just like ED have people to check and consult with on the Russian side, including bona fide RuAF officers.

 

That said, even then not all information is available. Case in point: A lot of kinematic and rocketry information is available for the R-27 family, but there's no drag profile.

 

There's no drag profile for any other missile, either - we can make reasonable guestimates and we know people who understand these things better than we do. But even then, when they provide missile simulations, 120C's are mad mad mad dogs going so fast it's not funny.

 

And here's the whole point which you still haven't understood: These guys know things a lot better than volk does (don't get me wrong. Like I said, volk is doing great work, but he is missing a bunch of information, and so is everyone else working on these things).

 

You don't even know what we know or don't know, and yet you make judgement on who's right or wrong.

 

Not everyone works publicly Tek, and not everyone will - not everyone has to explain themselves to you, you don't even have to know these people exist, and ED will not always tell you about them either ... but that's where ED gets their knowledge. People like volk and I are just the tip of the iceberg, just a couple of guys who given a certain direction can sometimes correctly fill in missing gaps of information, because people who know are either too busy doing other things, or can't talk about these things.

[GGTharos]

Really? According to who? Because so far, no matter how long you've been reading the internet to get those numbers, you won't find a single source that's credible beyond doubt. No one knows where those numbers came from. Is this another 'it makes sense' thing, like the datalink on the R-27ET?

 

Do F-15's that don't fly out of Iceland ever carry 3x Fuel tanks?

 

how much RCS at F15 when wearing a 3x Fuel tank?

RCS for MiG29 is 5m2, F15-12-15m2, Su27-15-20m2, (full load and maximally exposed aspect)

[71st_Mastiff]

 

I'm waiting to see whom will push the missile button?

 

 

 

[Teknetinium]

You don't even know what we know or don't know, and yet you make judgement on who's right or wrong.

 

Unfortunately I have no access to EDs info and I can only go by facts that are shown in public, at the moment they insist that ER should have longer legs then aim-120B/C.

[Ragnarok]

like the datalink on the R-27ET

 

ET has no data link. But may I ask? Why are ED talking about advanced flying model missiles, when only includes an additional factor of energy loss!? Missiles again abnormally turning at low speeds and high altitudes. The load on the wings of a missile is not in accordance with the laws of physics...

And why go to all missile in full interception immediately after as they launch? Semi interception does not exist now in fc3

Edited August 7, 2013 by Ragnarok

[Teknetinium]

A slider in DCS options which change missile effectiveness would solve all this problems. The slider could affect Chaff resistance or Gs missile can take. That would be best solution to all disagreements.

 

But then again, I would never ask anyone in a squad match to lower their missile effectiveness. That in mind it would probably not be a good solution for competitive multiplayer games.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Ragnarok]

A slider in DCS options which change missile effectiveness would solve all this problems. The slider could effect Chaff resistance or Gs missile can take. That would be best solution to all disagreements.

 

I support this. Unless ED documents prove that there is no need for this. ED should submit documents because FC is not just for gaming but also for education.

[GGTharos]

You're several years behind on those questions :P

 

ED's missile FM is fairly good. It isn't perfect, but there are diminishing returns when it comes to adding features.

Speaking of features, each missile has its own drag profile, lift profile, and thrust profile - quite a bit more than what there used to be, not 'just energy loss' as compared to the previous model.

 

By the way, do you know how a missile turns at high altitude? Do you know why? Do you know what difference, if any, there are when a missile has strakes vs not having them?

 

ET has no data link. But may I ask? Why are ED talking about advanced flying model missiles, when only includes an additional factor of energy loss!? Missiles again abnormally turning at low speeds and high altitudes. The load on the wings of a missile is not in accordance with the laws of physics...

And why go to all missile in full interception immediately after as they launch? Semi interception does not exist now in fc3