Is FOV reduction actually an accurate way to model the effects of a crossed array? I had heard it was more sophisticated in capability than that but when I try researching it on my own the explanations of its functioning are way beyond my understanding
1 Like
How can we report this? This is clearly garbage tier and practically useless İRCCM that is probably wrong
Edit: Does anyone know how crossed array works?
Check this out guys, 9Lima without IRCCM vs garbage 27T/ET
@BBCRF @MiG_23M @Ziggy1989 @The_Generic_Guy
10+ flares dont work at 1KM+ vs 9L, full afterburner
1 flare defeats “IRCCM” garbage 27ET at 700 meters, full afterburner
1 Like
because if you make an interference protection R-27T as in real life.Then the forum will drown in tears.
There is also a problem that clouds do not affect the A2A missiles with an IR head in any way
4 Likes
How strong would it be?
1 Like
Yep
But not in close combat
1 Like
I am afraid @BBCRF is correct. They (GJ) knows how vicious the irccm of the T/ET is. But they have it set for balance purposes right now. Just like the aim54, F-14 Radar and Flanker radar is still held back.
I am certain all this is on schedule to be implemented once these lesser support type fighters like Harriers etc get their Aim120s. Then the big dogs will shine.
I do believe we will get the active R27 too. So do not despair. We should continue to research though, keeping it in the minds of the community. How good the T/ET are and how the USSR/Federation invested a lot in IR weaponry & detection. Not just focused on radar guided like the west.
That’s exactly what the crossed array does… scans in a wider FoV and then when it finds the heat source it wants to track it narrows the FoV so that countermeasures are less effective. Other methods such as the AIM-9M’s “push-ahead” can be used in conjunction with this such as on the Magic 2 (IRL, not in-game)… then of course there is another method which is to use two different bands of seeker (IR/UV such as on the AAM-3 IRL, not in-game)… and then on top of all that there is programming the seeker to know when a flare is detected based on rise time, shift of trajectory, etc… this programming is not discussed on a variety of missiles and so we don’t know exactly how they work…
But knowing you are tracking a flare doesn’t make it possible for the missile to suddenly just not be blinded / distracted by it. What we know is that missiles using this kind of software based counter-countermeasures normally are also used in conjunction with IRCCM methods such as “push-ahead”.
To be clear, push-ahead in the way I am using the term is referring to when the seeker is leading the target and keeping it on the trailing edge of the FoV so as to reduce the time flares are in the FoV. Then there is another definition of push-ahead wherein the seeker simply detects sudden rise of IR intensity and knows a flare is present. It will turn the seeker off briefly, push the seeker FoV in last direction of travel of the target and then try to find the target again.
In the case of the Magic 2, there are two infrared elements providing signals to the guidance unit for computation. These signals allow it to determine if the sun, a flare, etc is within the FoV and improve its’ resistance to such things to the point that Matra claims the Magic series of missiles are non-sensitive to the sun’s gaze and can track targets silhouetted by the sun (or nearly). This resistance is modeled in-game with a bias in the rangeBands within the datamine. They are favorable towards target IR signature rather than flare IR signature… but will only really take advantage of this bias when rear aspect against afterburners. We know that in real life these 70s and 80s IR missiles would have a hard time being flared off of a afterburning target even when large caliber countermeasures are used thanks to AIM-9L documentation.
It matches the known data, until newer data is shown that suggests it is underperforming there is nothing to report. It is unfortunate, I know you want the missile to perform better but we would need better documentation in the future to tell us how well it is performing compared to real life. Testing in-game shows good resistance to countermeasures when target is afterburning and from rear-aspect but it underperforms against 100% throttle targets (all IR missiles do, currently…)…
2 Likes
Very clear and nice explanation thank you
1 Like
So, now with the ARH testing period this dev server, do you guys think we should get the ARH versions of the R-27 for the 12.0+ planes that can guide them?
No
Why not?
Because the active radar variants of the R-27 were vaporware that never saw operational service and likely never were even tested.
It was
They were heavily tested, and the R-27EA and 27EM lost to the R-77 in the end.
pack it up r27 bros its over
That hasn’t stopped Gaijin before. the Me 262 A-1a/U4 has the Mk.214a 50mm, even though it was only ever tested with the BK 5 from the Me 410s.
Gaijin has a rough estimate for the stats such as the range, the Seeker specs, etc, they could totally add it. Especially seeing as the AIM-120A and R-77 aren’t really equals.
Thanks for this picture, it proves they were produced and tested at least.
1 Like
What is the point of that picture? It’s just Su-27M with R-27ER and RVV-AE, R-73 mockups. This plane was even built only after R-27A/EM were canceled. For R-27EM only some seeker heads were made, missile itself wasn’t even ever built. And R-27A and R-27EM never were a competitor to R-77, especialy SARH R-27EM, it just money shortage that didn’t let to make everything that was planned.
3 Likes
Not really used an R-77 will outshine it anyway.