Are Russian air to air missiles R-27 and R-73 really this bad? (Iron Hand feedback)

[Victor1234]

I really enjoyed playing a different side and learning about Russian missiles and aircraft in the default Iron Hand scenario and it delivered all of the promise that the scenario briefing held out in that respect.

However, the one annoyance in what was implied to be a limited strike to eliminate some key/modern Azerbaijani SAMs was the need to massacre the Azeri airforce and 18 shot down MiG-29's later, I finally won the scenario...aside from the near suicidal tendancies of the AI (especially considering Azerbaijan is only supposed to have 19 MiG's, I would've thought they'd either have more than 1 down for maintenance or stop sending them up 2 at a time when I'm shooting them down very soon after they take off).

Anyways, just for my own knowledge I thought I'd ask if the Russian missiles in 2014 really work in such a way as depicted in the game. Namely, to use any of the long/medium range missiles (AA-10 Alamo, R-27) you need to have your Su-27 continue to illuminate the target by pointing the nose at it all the way until the missile hits, otherwise after 5 seconds of 'running blind' they self-destruct.

Do they have no fire and forget capability or am I just not using them correctly?

Also, even if I keep the target illuminated by the original aircraft that fired the missile by not turning away, often times, the MiG-29's used both DECM and chaff so that even if the missiles ran all the way to target, it would take a ridiculous number of missiles (6-8 per MiG-29) to score a hit. Sometimes even 6-8 wouldn't be enough. Same with the R-73/AA-11 Archer, which at least didn't require the attacker to not maneuver but also had a very poor chance of actually destroying a MiG-29.

The surprising part of it for me is that the Su-27 is considered to be superior to the MiG-29 in air-air combat but the experience of this scenario suggests quite the opposite for me (requiring 4-6 Su-27's to gang up on 2 MiG-29's to have a chance of shooting them down).

[Sakai007]

The R-27R and ER are indeed SARH missiles and need to be illuminated all the way to target. There is an IR and extended range IR version of the R-27, and those are of course fire and forget but difficult to get good data to launch them on at times. The Russians main active radar guided missile is the R-77 (AA-12) Adder. I have read that they didn't produce a whole lot of them, but they have been seen on Russian Su-35s in Syria so they are out there.

[Withstand]

R-27R does require illumination from firing aircraft which may not be possible if the firing aircraft is forced to take evasive maneuver due to an incoming missile.
R73 is a great IR missile which is fire and forget but flares and agile evasive maneuvering are very effective at spoofing IR missiles.

Su-27 is flaunted as the superior aircraft from operational point of view. It has much longer range and the ability to carry more weapons while still being very agile.

However, tactically, the MiG-29 is THE MORE agile aircraft than the Su-27. It just has a much shorter range and more limited weapon-carrying capability.

If a Su-27 faces a MiG-29 in its home turf (operational range) than a BVR engagement could end up in a close knife fight / dogfighting scenario. There the MiG-29 is superior to the Su-27.

[gosnold]

The radar version of the R-27 is severely limited in Command because the launchers aircraft (Su-30 for instance) are modelled with a very narrow radar acquisition cone, around +-30°. So they have to keep heading toward the threat to guide their missiles.

This narrow cone might not be realistic. For instance, the Belgian government recently issued a request for proposal and this how they model the Su-30:

https://imgur.com/pTpevp8

The radar has a +-70° field of view, so the plane can keep its target illuminated while manoeuvring to reduce its closing rate with the enemy.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: gosnold

The radar has a +-70° field of view, so the plane can keep its target illuminated while manoeuvring to reduce its closing rate with the enemy.

This is already modeled in Command. Most radars have significantly larger illumination areas than search radars. The search volumes are constrained to represent realistic operational usages, where frames/trackfile update rates are important. This is explained in the MegaFAQ: Search Volume and Illumination.

Additionally, here's a screenshot of a pair of Flankers illuminating targets with their noses ~60° off. http://i.imgur.com/lwfGOC2.png

[gosnold]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam

ORIGINAL: gosnold

The radar has a +-70° field of view, so the plane can keep its target illuminated while manoeuvring to reduce its closing rate with the enemy.

This is already modeled in Command. Most radars have significantly larger illumination areas than search radars. The search volumes are constrained to represent realistic operational usages, where frames/trackfile update rates are important. This is explained in the MegaFAQ: Search Volume and Illumination.

Additionally, here's a screenshot of a pair of Flankers illuminating targets with their noses ~60° off. http://i.imgur.com/lwfGOC2.png

Ah my bad, I remember reading that in the FAQ now. I'm not using SARH often so I forgot that, and I used Su-30 with R-27 recently and the small radar cone struck me.