The IRCCM is modeled in the form of post-launch FoV reduction just like the R-73 and Magic 2, however the reduction is not as much as the latter missiles… it still has roughly half the FoV of non-IRCCM types.
It is 1.33 degrees I know, but 1 tap flaring at 700 meters basically means in practical terms, it’s like It doesn’t exist.
If the 1.33 is not documented, Maybe gaijin should reduce it to 1.0? R-73 is 0.75 so 1.0 would still be easily flareable . This clearly is garbage tier IRCCM.
It is first generation IRCCM methods employed by the Soviet Union… of course it is not very good. It is realistic according to known documentation.
The only thing that is not modeled is the electronic filtering methods for IRCCM. No missile in-game has this, but it doesn’t do much for us anyway and isn’t really necessary.
Will gaijin be able to add a new version of 27T? Because it doesn’t have a new name, but from what I understand it is still in service with the same name. “R-27T/ET”
I hope su-35 doesn’t get same seeker version of this missile lol
Gaijin can add R-27T with dual band array OS-27T seeker that should have only slightly better IRCCM than we have on R-27T in game should have, but it won’t be historically accurate. Allegedly such R-27T were delivered to China from Ukraine.
1 Like
Probably more historically accurate than German Mig-29 getting 27ET/ER it never even had access to, F-16AJ, or Swedish T-80 U /Mi-28A with Ataka missiles
1 Like
Su-35 will have R-77 types, why are you worried about R-27T/ET? Regardless, the R-37M and others exist… I am not so sure I will be wasting time with even the improved R-27T variants if that is the case.
I like long range IR missiles. R530E is one of my favourite missiles, even though it is pretty garbage, it can get very good range at high altitude with it’s long burn time
1 Like
Well, this is a clear error in the rocket setup. At that distance, she wouldn’t have reacted to Flare
1 Like
How do we report this? Can we report this?
It was said a long time ago, the developer ignored it
1 Like
Why gaijin why :(
1 Like
That is the perfect example of it failing to work
There was an about two 12 foot flames coming out that jet that was never obscured from the seekers view. Does not matter the aspect of the fighter. It should have functioned.
However, one can argue since the missile was fired at such a long range the gate width was reduced as designed, but was still able to see the decoys being so far off.
The fov can only narrow so much, that you may have been too far and the missile did not get in range in time for the irccm to function optimally.
Is that real? I don’t think so.
The R27T/ET should have a better IRCCM capability because it’s designed specifically for range…. It’s definitely a copy paste of the R73 IRCCM and shouldn’t be imo.
it definitely has gotten incrementally worse since the flanker was released. It was actually decent when the SMT came out. But I do not bother with them anymore… they will let you down more often then not.
It’s like Gaijin wants to force use to only use R27ERs. Which is wrong. The R27ER is not a replacement to the regular R or T, it’s just an extended range radar version of it. But in WT, it’s more maneuverable that the R though being much heavier with the same exact control surfaces and takes off much faster off the rail as well.
They nerfed the IRCCM of the T/ET. Additionally the ET does not have the same range as the ER and falls out of sky when it’s motor burns out.
So I only use ERs now. When I used to carry 2x R27Rs for dogfighting, 2x ER for range and speed, 2x ET long range sneak attacks. Maybe when the aim120 comes they will make T/ET as good as they can be. Hopefully.
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