Kula66

Oh great ... I can see it now - Typhoon will fly with partially populated AESA array to save money! Perhaps the UK MOD could 'spin' the reuse all those old SkyFlash missiles to sound like something positive!

But you said 19nm in post #51 ... I was using your figure as a basis ;)

Ok Hajduk, this from Janes: "R-27EA, had a multifunction monopulse Doppler seeker, AGAT's 9B-1103M, which has a lock on range of 20 km against fighter aircraft targets, and a weight of 14.5 kg excluding the radome. The radome itself had a distinctive conical shape, unlike that of any other R-27 version."

Well, from a trusted source I get: "110 km for R- 27EM" So you're looking more like trebble the range - I know single range figures mean squat, but we are guessing big time here. So, assuming a head-on shot from 110km at high alt, the F-15 can't ignore the threat ... can it get within range for a 40km (assuming 25mile range for AMRAAM-B/C) return shot?

Ok ... here is some info from a reasonably trusted source: "six versions vary from the smallest (R-27T), which is 3.80 m long, has a body diameter of 230 mm and a launch weight of 245 kg, to the largest (the R-27AE and R-27EM), which are both 4.78 m long, have a body diameter of 260 mm and launch weights of 350 kg." So, the AE and EM are longer than the rest!

How can you distinguish it visually from the ER? Also, do you have any pictures of 33 carrying 27s while operating on the Kuz? Nothing I've found show any missiles apart from 73s.

Indeed, but my original post was hypothetical AEs v early AMRAAMs. If you compare a 1990s weapon with a 2005s weapon sure ... but that wasn't the post ;) EDIT: Infact GGT, mentioning the D model, this isn't just classified it isn't even in production!! So how you can quote ranges I can hardly guess!

That would be the mission editor. Well the range of AMRAAM (and probably the R-27s) is classified - so unless you are divulging classified infor you are guessing. Given that the R-27Es have significantly larger rocket motors it is very unlikely AMRAAM has a similar range. AMRAAM is less draggy due to size and small fins so it will bleed speed at a lower rate (if only WAFM had made it into LO :( ) ... So we can only draw deductions based on physicals and some guess work ... and AMRAAM and R-27ER having a similar range don't really add-up. The later AMRAAMs have a longer range than the earlier AMRAAMs ... thats all we KNOW.

I think you missed the whole point of what I was saying ... its hyperthetical based on the time frame of LO. What time period are you trying to describe? LO time frame is somewhere between mid-80s and mid-90s, so there would have been plenty of REs and If the USSR hadn't gone pop, there would have been plenty of AEs too! 1. Like almost everyone else, I believe the evidence suggests the AE was never in production. 2. I do watch the news ... 3. This was the whole Soviet doctrine ... numbers v quality. 4. So range is no advantage ... interesting idea. Try reading some history - it is littered with examples of range being a great advantage, especially when combined with greater speed (read fuel load). You suggest that the older R/Ts have lasted longer than the newer RE/TEs - what evidence do you have for this?

Well, all other things being equal (which I know they were not) it gives you first shot and puts your enemy on the defensive. Plus given USSR usually had a numerical advantage, could 2 F-15s with 16 AMRAAMs handle 6 SU-27s with 48 R-27AEs and 12 R-73s - especially given that the SU-27s would shoot first. The 15s would have to wade through a wall of R-27s! The Su-27s could then just turn and run from the suvivors using all that internal fuel. Many reports speak of the Russian disappointment with the R-77, especially in range when compared to the 27. Those fins were just too draggy! Shame this isn't reflected in LO :(

None that I could say are of the EM explicitly ... but these pictures are captioned Su-33 and show an interesting weapon load ... mock-ups I presume or perhaps a 30? Seems to be very few pictures of 33s on the Kuz carrying missiles ... perhaps they can't take-off with a missile load - too heavy? ;)

Why do you think this is an EA? It looks more like an ER, an E and a 73. The information I read was that the EA, as planned, has a more conical nose cone than the ERs - see attached. This cone doesn't look conical. BTW: What is a P-27PI93PI)? Anyone? Is that the passive homing 27? Perhaps that's what the picture below shows.

Why a better interceptor? Similar range, EF has significantly better sensors (unless the MOD are flying blue circle again) and has speed up high ... something the Tornado is notoriously bad at! The only thing the ADV has is a second crew member for the pilot to chat to.

Good point ... apparently the Soviets had examples of early 7s while they were designing the Apex. Certainly by DS1 (7M?) it was a reliable weapon

Well, was the Apex ever tested to the extent that the 7 was? And not as publically. Where was it used in real combat? As we all know the early 7s were terrible v fighters - again never designed for such targets. I thought that Apex had a much longer Max range - quoted as 35Km (I know, launch/target conditions allowing - so assume head-on). The IR seeker would not have been able to lock before launch. So how would they fire the IR model "According to doctrine"? I understand that the search FOV of the early IR missiles were very narrow ... but they did deployed them widely and 23s are usually seen with mixed weapon loads IR & SAH with the IR model LOBL. EDIT: Interesting quote from FAS.org "The R-23 and R-24 missiles were superior to the K-25 Sparrow-ski in versatility and range, as well as interference immunity, signal processing logic, and other characteristics" Also quotes the max IR range as 15km .. so I guess your right, the one-two salvo would have been at shorter range.

Yes Acrid is R-40 ... and you're, it was never design for use against fighters, but what about Apex? Mig-23s weapon - the Soviet match for the F-4.

I know this isn't very relaistic (because it would expose you to AAA), but after attacking a target, I simply pull up into a loop to reverse course - works a treat in the A-10. The 25 is a bit more difficult because it tends to roll off the heading as it slows.

There was a comment in that reference that stated that the 77 was limited to M3 due to heating of the nose cone. As to IR AAMs, the Soviets always seemed to produce IR and SAH versions of missiles - in addition to 27, the Acrid and Apex spring to mind. The Acrid certainly had a significantly longer range than 10km. I'm sure they also expected to attack figthers as well as fleeing bombers, but, if the launch characteristics were heavily mismatched, this wouldn't follow with doctorine of firing the IR shortly after the SAH was fired.

Interesting comment that the R-77 is limited to M3 ... I thought the 120 is an M4 missile ... Also it would be nice to seem R77 blead energy much faster than the 120 - they are obviously not close in RL! Also mentions (as mentioned in many other places) that standard Soviet doctorine was to file an R-27R followed by a T. If the T was lockon before launch how would this work at the range a 27R was fired? Could this indicate some sort of lockon after launch?

BGP, this doesn't sound right - stealth faceting (as used in 117) concentrates reflected energy in a very few directions, and the aim is to deny the transmitter a long look in that direction. So if you turn they get a flash of reflected energy as the a/c presents that face ... after that nothing. Other stealth a/c, like the B-2, F-22 etc use combinations of sstealth technology in difference bits of the a/c. So, wings and tails are alligned as in the 117.

Well, I tend to 'fly' the vanilla 25 - raw avionics, no HUD, slightly less sluggish than the T, bouncy flight, glass under carriage and just as ugly! The trick I think is don't be tempted to overload it and keep the speed up ... but I've crashed plenty!! 100s! I've just fitted some peddles (Simpeds) and am re-learning the AFM with those. My first attempts at ground steering were just like in a RL Cessna - weaving all over the taxi-way with the airlerons flapping wildly! If the A-10 is nearly as good in RL than in LO, then that is one great plane!

A major factor is the engines ... optimsed for low-level. Apparently they need to use AB to A2A refuel if done too high just to keep up with the Tristar/VC-10! And then you can't get the fuel in as quickly as its used in the AB via the hose! But out over the Atlantic hunting Bears/Blinders/Backfires (ie. nothing that turns too well or runs too fast!) ... that's its playground. BGP: Apparently the F-15E is a really rough ride down low ... due to low wing loading!

Now that the patch is being talked as 'if' rather than 'when' - what incentive have ED to do any patch? It will not pay the wages of those programmers who write it ... I'm sorry to say I think we are just stuck with 'arcade' missiles, until 'the next project' - perhaps my kids will get to play it one day ... I'm not holding my breadth. But hey, ED have given me good value for my money - Ј60 has bought me many hours of fun! SO BIG THANKS ED!

There was an F-18 HUD video ages ago that showed the pilot do a 25deg pull up before a loft shot ... he was getting steering queues from the HUD. All helps the missile!

The shear ugliness will repel the enemy! ;)