Air-to-Air Missile Discussion

[Teknetinium]

Nope, it's just how it's programmed. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

 

 

wrong post.

[Teknetinium]

Not necessarily. The arrangement of the rocket stages for the R-27ER does not necessarily support this.

 

What does support that Aim-120C burns for 13sec:)

The arguments are there and are proven by data that is available to us that ER- 27 should retch non maneuvering target faster then aim-120c. Lofting would extend the range but not the time:)

 

I guise you know where to find those claims on ED forums.

As I understand Chiz agree that ER-27 is a faster missile then Aim-120c.

 

I believe Working on ER-27 is done by ED at the moment. If the missiles will get accordingly to what Chiz proposed, Er should become faster in future updates then AIM-120C.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

What does support that Aim-120C burns for 13sec:)

 

How long it burns for depends on altitude. This is true of all rocket motors.

 

The arguments are there and are proven by data that is available to us that ER- 27 should retch non maneuvering target faster then aim-120c. Lofting would extend the range but not the time:)

No, the arguments are not there, and they are not proven by anything. You actually have to understand what the data means to know what it's telling you Tek :P

 

I guise you know where to find those claims on ED forums.

As I understand Chiz agree that ER-27 is a faster missile then Aim-120c.

He may or may not be wrong. R-27ER has very high acceleration for a short time, then a relatively low acceleration sustainer.

 

AIM-120C is all high-acceleration boost, with less drag.

 

I believe Working on ER-27 is done by ED at the moment. If the missiles will get accordingly to what Chiz proposed, Er should become faster in future updates then AIM-120C.

No, it's done by a bunch of volunteers. You might find that the speed difference will end up being small, and the ER will be significantly out-ranged by AIM-120B and C at mid and high altitudes once good loft algorithms come into play.

[Teknetinium]

How long it burns for depends on altitude. This is true of all rocket motors.

 

 

 

No, the arguments are not there, and they are not proven by anything. You actually have to understand what the data means to know what it's telling you Tek :P

 

 

 

He may or may not be wrong. R-27ER has very high acceleration for a short time, then a relatively low acceleration sustainer.

 

AIM-120C is all high-acceleration boost, with less drag.

 

 

 

No, it's done by a bunch of volunteers, and you might find that the speed difference is small, and the ER is significantly out-ranged by AIM-120B and C.

 

I'll live it here, The source I talk to claims the opposite.

Me and Frostie tested the file done by volunteers and ER-27 was faster by 2 sec from 25km.

It is reasonable for ER-27 to be slightly faster in the game so the one who use ER-27 have a chance to hit the target before Aim-120 hit him. We can at least give it a mutual kill if we cannot prove our claims to 100%.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Which part?

 

As for testing, of course it's faster. Most missiles are too slow, and all missiles will get faster. The R-27 is simply the first missile they started working on.

 

I'll live it here, The source I talk to claims the opposite.

[Teknetinium]

Which part?

 

As for testing, of course it's faster. Most missiles are too slow, and all missiles will get faster. The R-27 is simply the first missile they started working on.

 

I'll really don't believe your claims GG, that AIM-120B should have better range then ER-27 nor faster. AIM-120B should be closer to R-27. and AIM-120C closer to ER-27 in terms of range.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

AIM-120 lofts. R-27 does not. AIM-120 can keep speed for a long range because of this, where R-27 is dragging itself through the air trying to fly at 1g; result, R-27 slows down a lot faster, and AIM-120 has superior range. This is the same as shooting high-to-low with an optimal glide path, only the missile does the work for you.

 

I'll really don't believe your claims GG, that AIM-120B should have better range then ER-27. AIM-120B should be closer to R-27. and AIM-120C closer to ER-27 in terms of range.

[Teknetinium]

AIM-120 lofts. R-27 does not. AIM-120 can keep speed for a long range because of this, where R-27 is dragging itself through the air trying to fly at 1g; result, R-27 slows down a lot faster, and AIM-120 has superior range. This is the same as shooting high-to-low with an optimal glide path, only the missile does the work for you.

 

Lofting is not usfull from 25km ;)

It is reasonable for ER-27 to be slightly faster in the game so the one who use ER-27 have a chance to hit the target before Aim-120 hit him. We can at least give it a mutual kill if we cannot prove our claims to 100%.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Where did you get that idea? Any time you can establish a better glide path than flying straight at the target, range increases and available g at termination increases.

 

And actually, after doing the math, the difference in speed between these missiles would be very small if drag is not taken into account. If it is, AIM-120C is likely to be slightly faster.

 

Lofting is not usfull from 25km ;)

Edited November 4, 2013 by GGTharos

[blkspade]

Nope, it's just how it's programmed. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

 

My idea there is that there would be a trade off somewhere in the programming. That if one were coded differently without the other it would result in undesired/less realistic results. Of course I don't know how any of it is programmed now, like not every hit does maximum damage, but whats it based off of if there is a specific fuze trigger point without there being fragmentation.

[GGTharos]

I see what you're saying. I don't really agree, but it doesn't matter - these are very complex interactions.

[blkspade]

Lofting is not usfull from 25km ;)

It is reasonable for ER-27 to be slightly faster in the game so the one who use ER-27 have a chance to hit the target before Aim-120 hit him. We can at least give it a mutual kill if we cannot prove our claims to 100%.

 

Your argument is pretty much null since the 120 doesn't require terminal guidance. If you find yourself frequently engaging human F-15 pilots not maneuvering and continuing to "guide" 120s past pitbull, then sure maybe you have a point. Still that requires the (near) same launch parameters from both sides. Even still there are even now rare circumstances where the ER does reach an F-15 before pitbull, but they almost never happen in PVP engagements. If that situation is likely, I'll cheapshot.

[Darkwolf]

How about doing a crowdfunding, buy a few missile and test them ? :)

[Teknetinium]

Your argument is pretty much null since the 120 doesn't require terminal guidance. If you find yourself frequently engaging human F-15 pilots not maneuvering and continuing to "guide" 120s past pitbull, then sure maybe you have a point. Still that requires the (near) same launch parameters from both sides. Even still there are even now rare circumstances where the ER does reach an F-15 before pitbull, but they almost never happen in PVP engagements. If that situation is likely, I'll cheapshot.

 

 

Exactly a faster ER-27 would not change anything since you have a pittbull befor ER-27 reach you. But I would always want to kill a bandit faster then slower. Faster ER-27 would not make a game changing, it increases the mutual kill scenario if both lunch from, lets say 10km.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Teknetinium

[TZeer]

How long it burns for depends on altitude. This is true of all rocket motors.

 

How so?

 

I guess the temperature could maybe make it change a bit, but not much.

[GGTharos]

The outside pressure is what changes things. I don't recall the physics of it any longer. The change isn't much, a few seconds maybe; and it also doesn't matter since it applies to all rocket motors.

 

The only thing to be careful about is when someone gives you data - then you want to know if the rocket operation time is an SL bench test, or some other specific altitude.

 

How so?

 

I guess the temperature could maybe make it change a bit, but not much.

[pepin1234]

AIM-120 lofts. R-27 does not. AIM-120 can keep speed for a long range because of this, where R-27 is dragging itself through the air trying to fly at 1g; result, R-27 slows down a lot faster, and AIM-120 has superior range. This is the same as shooting high-to-low with an optimal glide path, only the missile does the work for you.

 

You are wrong. The R-27ER have more fuel and powerful rocket. I assume you get your wrong conclusion because the R-27ER aerodynamic configuration. You must have much more info about times of engine on and fuel performances to get your personal and partial conclusion.

 

Also the R-27ER lose speed and range fire down with the same proportion than a straight shoot at same altitud... Something contrary to the physic, specialy when the R-27ER is heavier than Aim-120.

[TZeer]

Aaaah. So the higher up it goes, the less pressure is acting on the nozzle from the outside, easier for the fuel/reaction to exit the nozzle, the quicker it will burn.

 

Simplified of course :D

 

Correct?

 

:)

[GGTharos]

You are wrong. The R-27ER have more fuel and powerful rocket. I assume you get your wrong conclusion because the R-27ER aerodynamic configuration. You must have much more info about times of engine on and fuel performances to get your personal and partial conclusion.

 

It has a bigger rocket and it is also much heavier. Did you know that AIM-120 can easily be faster than AIM-54? AIM-54 has a huge rocket also ... but it's also a heavy, draggy missile. Not quite like the R-27ER, but same idea.

 

Also the R-27ER lose speed and range fire down with the same proportion than a straight shoot at same altitud... Something contrary to the physic, specialy when the R-27ER is heavier than Aim-120.

 

R-27ER might be heavier, bit it also draggier - that means the force of drag is greater and this is a big deal.

[GGTharos]

Actually it burns longer at high altitude IIRC ... but I don't recall very well :)

 

Because of the outside pressure, indeed the gas exits at higher velosity and so thrust is increased.

 

Aaaah. So the higher up it goes, the less pressure is acting on the nozzle from the outside, easier for the fuel/reaction to exit the nozzle, the quicker it will burn.

 

Simplified of course :D

 

Correct?

 

:)

[blkspade]

Exactly a faster ER-27 would not change anything since you have a pittbull befor ER-27 reach you. But I would always want to kill a bandit faster then slower. Faster ER-27 would not make a game changing, it increases the mutual kill scenario if both lunch from, lets say 10km.

 

The ER is crazy fast at high altitude. So it already does what you want it to, you just need to change your launch parameters. At 10km separation you're almost always down in the dirt, and the 120 has significantly less drag.

[*Rage*]

I still maintain that alot of this discussion is pointless till the SARH seekers are sorted out. Although im glad the AFM is being worked on.

[GGTharos]

It isn't pointless at all. Right now the FM is what is being worked on, among other things. The priorities are what they are, and they're not always what we want them to be.

Indirectly, a faster missile also means fewer chances for countermeasures to affect said missile, as far as current code is concerned.

[Kuky]

It has a bigger rocket and it is also much heavier. Did you know that AIM-120 can easily be faster than AIM-54? AIM-54 has a huge rocket also ... but it's also a heavy, draggy missile. Not quite like the R-27ER, but same idea.

 

R-27ER might be heavier, bit it also draggier - that means the force of drag is greater and this is a big deal.

 

I think you got this wrong... yes the AIM-54 is heavier and has more drag but it somehow still ends up lot more range then 120? :)

 

ER is in same boat... the inertia (due to higher mass) at high altitude is much higher for ER (same as for AIM-54) then 120 so it should be decelerating slower... not faster. The ER at high altitude should definitely have more range than 120.

 

ER has more powerful engine, its heavier... but this doesn't matter because because its engine actually gets it faster... now with that higher speed (when engine stops) the high inertia (higher mass) should keep it in flight longer. At very high altitude drag is less and less effective... so inertia is what matters most, and the ER has more of it.

[GGTharos]

The AIM-54 has a higher range because of the profile and altitude of flight. There are other factors also, but the 120 itself has a pretty scary range. Launched at the same parameters as the 54, it has a range of around 80nm, and that's from USAF docs planning for certain types of aircraft to use it.

 

ER flies NO LOFT profile. It is to the 54 what the 7 is to the 54. Although the ER gains tremendous speed, it loses it quite quickly by comparison. This is all about speed retention, and you retain speed by keeping altitude high and AoA at minimum ... the 7 before the P version and the 27anyversion do not do this. They fly 'straight' at the target, other than APN maneuvering.

 

I think you got this wrong... yes the AIM-54 is heavier and has more drag but it somehow still ends up lot more range then 120? :)

 

ER is in same boat... the inertia (due to higher mass) at high altitude is much higher for ER (same as for AIM-54) then 120 so it should be decelerating slower... not faster. The ER at high altitude should definitely have more range than 120.

 

ER has more powerful engine, its heavier... but this doesn't matter because because its engine actually gets it faster... now with that higher speed (when engine stops) the high inertia (higher mass) should keep it in flight longer. At very high altitude drag is less and less effective... so inertia is what matters most, and the ER has more of it.