Why use R-27R?

[Kenan]

Watching the Syrian footage, it appears the russian Flankers are carrying R-27R version of the missile. If DCS World performance is anything to go by (this being a simulator), the R-27R has a pretty short effective range (15-25km at best + unlike R-27ER, it's hard to get a launch authorization against a cranking target) and if this is ineed true or any similar to RL performance, why would they carry this missile as their primary BVR weapon? Would the ER be better suitable in a BVR scenario?

[McBlemmen]

If DCS World performance is anything to go by

 

It's not. Missiles are ****ed and have been for a very long time.

[pepin1234]

the R-27 missile family is a modular technology. Is possible make a modernization to this missiles any time at the specialized factory.

 

ED cant fallow every modernization. This is impossible. Russia don't use to make public every modernization and blocks versions etc. like the USAF

Edited October 12, 2015 by pepin1234

[Alfa]

Watching the Syrian footage, it appears the russian Flankers are carrying R-27R version of the missile. If DCS World performance is anything to go by (this being a simulator), the R-27R has a pretty short effective range (15-25km at best + unlike R-27ER, it's hard to get a launch authorization against a cranking target) and if this is ineed true or any similar to RL performance, why would they carry this missile as their primary BVR weapon? Would the ER be better suitable in a BVR scenario?

 

This question has come up a couple of times in previous discussions - if you look at the stats published by the manufacturer, you get the impression that the R-27ER only achieves a significant range advantage over the R-27R when imployed against a non-manouvrable target, while it is negliable(a few km) against a manouvrable target like a fighter.

 

A more interesting question(IMHO) is why they aren't carrying RVV-AE missiles although the Flankers in question(Su-30SM) are compatible with this weapon - seems to confirm that the RuAF doesn't have any :) .

 

Anyway, air-to-air capability is probably not that relevant for the current mission in Syria, since the primary objective is to conduct airstrikes against insurgents which don't pose any air-to-air threat.

[Andrei]

Even inside the country during the military exercises there were only very few photos with actual live РВВ-СД. VERY few. Some say only a handful are yet produced and that pilots are likely not trained to use it.

[Boberro]

Russia has a lot of old wrecks there so it is cheaper way to use them, same goes for old bombs.

[Beagle One]

You could ask the same about french and UK aircraft that fly with short range IR missiles only and ground attack ordinance in the region. The U.K.s Tornados are just right now armed with ASRAAM

[Dudikoff]

A more interesting question(IMHO) is why they aren't carrying RVV-AE missiles although the Flankers in question(Su-30SM) are compatible with this weapon - seems to confirm that the RuAF doesn't have any :) .

 

Yes, I guess they never had them and they're waiting for the RVV-SD to get introduced into service.

 

Was it officially announced that it is ready for production and that the RuAF ordered it yet at all? I couldn't find anything.

[Kenan]

This question has come up a couple of times in previous discussions - if you look at the stats published by the manufacturer, you get the impression that the R-27ER only achieves a significant range advantage over the R-27R when imployed against a non-manouvrable target, while it is negliable(a few km) against a manouvrable target like a fighter.

 

Shouldn't having longer legs even against non-manouvrable targets be an important advantage in BVR combat, if nothing to at least "scare away" initially approaching threat? Does constant cranking to one side constitutes "manouverable target"?

 

Just wondering (thanks for the info). :)

 

BTW, I truly believe ED is on to something with their new "shortened" R-27R. I remember watching a RL HUD video showing LA for the R version indeed being some 15 or so kilometeres.

[Cibit]

Or maybe its a less threatening load out, would either side want to be responsible for an international clusterf**k if a pilot decided to pop off a missile BVR and unless those MIG21's that ISIS apparently captured appeared the missiles would only ever be needed for self defense:)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I think they are not really concerned about any long range encounter because that's just not likely to happen. The Su-30SM deployment is probably a mix of discouraging anyone from trying anything 'funny' and the Russian AFs' own interest in using them operationally. It also makes it a good just-in-case weapon against any accidental engagements and such.

 

Both Russia and US defence officials are working together to keep themselves out of each other's yard, and it seems the aircraft have flown reasonably close to each other without incident (at least according to CBS, which said a Su-34 flight was operating 32km from American F-16s).

 

Despite the media wars my impression is that all sides are in good and friendly terms over air operations, with the main concern being mid-airs and such.

 

From what I've seen the loadout right now is 2x R-73 + 4x R-27 + 2 jammers. While lacking the edge of the R-77, this is more than enough to cause 'international clusterf**k'. Same goes for any short range missile coalition aircraft are fielding, by the way. All it takes is one dumb pilot to fly aggressively and either attack - not even hit, but just fire at - another aircraft in the area or put so much pressure into them to warrant being shot down as means of self-defence.

 

Remember that time an USN F-14 armed with a Sidewinder shot down an USAF RF-4C for example? They didn't need anything long range to f*** up, just one very crazy pilot. Yes, it was domestic, but it shows how the human factor can mess up much further than the weaponry carried.

 

I have no info on this but I would expect that the pilots being sent into the fray are no greenhorns considering the intensity of operations and the guarantee of torture and killing if captured.

 

All things considered, Syria already uses S-200 systems, which have their range in the hundreds, and if and when Syria's S-300 are delivered/deployed, these will be the ones dictating who flies where and when.

[wilky510]

I think they are not really concerned about any long range encounter because that's just not likely to happen. The Su-30SM deployment is probably a mix of discouraging anyone from trying anything 'funny' and the Russian AFs' own interest in using them operationally. It also makes it a good just-in-case weapon against any accidental engagements and such.

 

Both Russia and US defence officials are working together to keep themselves out of each other's yard, and it seems the aircraft have flown reasonably close to each other without incident (at least according to CBS, which said a Su-34 flight was operating 32km from American F-16s).

 

Despite the media wars my impression is that all sides are in good and friendly terms over air operations, with the main concern being mid-airs and such.

 

From what I've seen the loadout right now is 2x R-73 + 4x R-27 + 2 jammers. While lacking the edge of the R-77, this is more than enough to cause 'international clusterf**k'. Same goes for any short range missile coalition aircraft are fielding, by the way. All it takes is one dumb pilot to fly aggressively and either attack - not even hit, but just fire at - another aircraft in the area or put so much pressure into them to warrant being shot down as means of self-defence.

 

Remember that time an USN F-14 armed with a Sidewinder shot down an USAF RF-4C for example? They didn't need anything long range to f*** up, just one very crazy pilot. Yes, it was domestic, but it shows how the human factor can mess up much further than the weaponry carried.

 

I have no info on this but I would expect that the pilots being sent into the fray are no greenhorns considering the intensity of operations and the guarantee of torture and killing if captured.

 

All things considered, Syria already uses S-200 systems, which have their range in the hundreds, and if and when Syria's S-300 are delivered/deployed, these will be the ones dictating who flies where and when.

I wouldn't worry so much about the USAF doing anything brash when you got Arab countries on the borders. Speaking of which, does Turkeys' F-16's carry AMRAAMs on any of those border patrols?

[Cibit]

Maybe this is explanation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502545

 

Russia summoned Britain's defence attache in Moscow to explain reports that RAF pilots had been authorised to shoot down Russian aircraft in the Middle East, the Foreign Office says.

Newspapers said RAF Tornados in Iraq had been fitted with heat-seeking missiles designed for aerial combat.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I saw that today too but the Su-30SM has been flying armed way back. The ASRAAM report looks like a classic piece of 'tabloidry', I think it was first published in The Sun and The Daily Mail. The same people who said a Russian jet was shot down over Turkey.

 

Isn't it standard procedure (as far as I recall) for the GR.4 and any other NATO attack aircraft to carry at least one heatseeker in unescorted combat flights wherever there are any flying assets outside NATO/coalition command? I can't seem to find photos besides the RAAF F/A-18Fs carrying the AIM-132 but I thought that was the deal anyway.

 

I wouldn't worry so much about the USAF doing anything brash when you got Arab countries on the borders. Speaking of which, does Turkeys' F-16's carry AMRAAMs on any of those border patrols?

 

I don't think any of the neighbours means trouble though. This is a rough sketch of the situation:

 

 

• Saudi Arabia: cooperating with Russia (an official SA delegation went to Sochi yesterday to work on a common path of work in the Syria situation, and there have been many military meetings over this year).
  
• Iraq: good terms with Russia, with the latter giving it intense military assistance early on against ISIS ('express delivery' Mi-28s, Mi-35s and Su-25s) and Iraqi officials recently hinting at a partnership, though this is unlikely
  
• Turkey: While they have a hot history of air defence, shooting down Syrian aircraft and regularly tangling with Greek jets (fun read), the economic partnership between Russia and Turkey has awarded a merely symbolic response from the Turkish government to the Russian airstrikes. "Turkey cannot lose relations with Russia for political interests in Syria", to quote their deputy PM.
  
• Jordan: The Jordanian king has meet Chairwoman of the Federation Council Matviyenko in Amman since the airstrikes, and reiterated the relationship between countries is deep. During the same visit Jordan signed a parliamentary cooperation agreement with Russia to increase and improve communication and cooperation between the countries.
  
• Lebanon: Russian FM Lavrov stated on Oct. 3 that Russia is going to modernise the Lebanese armed forces and internal security forces so they can effectively deal with ISIS and Al-Nusra, and equipment delivery agreements have been signed.
  
• Israel: It's no secret that Netanyahu is a hothead, but just like Erdogan, Russia is a different issue. Back in Sept. 22, before Russia's operation was fully public, Netanyahu went to Moscow and said he and Putin had agreed on "a joint mechanism for preventing misunderstandings between our forces".
  

TL;DR: All regional players are in close contact with Russia, and despite the diverging interests, all sides are quietly making room for everyone to operate safely.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell
Edited to avoid creating second post

[Cibit]

The Sun and Daily mail pffft say no more:lol:

[Lucas_From_Hell]

The 'finest' sources for quality military and political journalism :D

[Alfa]

Even inside the country during the military exercises there were only very few photos with actual live РВВ-СД. VERY few. Some say only a handful are yet produced and that pilots are likely not trained to use it.

 

No but then the RVV-SD is the new and quite recent version of the missile, so thats not surprising :) .

 

I was refering to the fact that the Su-30SM is compatible with the RVV-AE(which has been around for ages) and the claim by some, that the VVS has stocks of this missile although there is no evidence for this nor any sightings of them having trained with that either.

[Alfa]

You could ask the same about french and UK aircraft that fly with short range IR missiles only and ground attack ordinance in the region. The U.K.s Tornados are just right now armed with ASRAAM

 

Not quite the same though is it? :) . The R-27R is a medium range radar guided AAM just like the RVV-AE - just less capable.

 

 

Anyway, the French and Brits use their multirole fighters directly for the bombing campaign, whereas Russia has sent several dedicated strike types covering all aspects of the same mission.

 

So when they send an air-to-air oriented multirole fighter type along with them, its presumably because they feel the need to cover that aspect as well, in which case it would seem odd not to arm them as well as possible for the task.

[Alfa]

Yes, I guess they never had them and they're waiting for the RVV-SD to get introduced into service.

 

Thats my guess as well :)

 

Was it officially announced that it is ready for production and that the RuAF ordered it yet at all? I couldn't find anything.

 

Yes I believe it was although I cannot think of any source for this right now.

[Alfa]

Shouldn't having longer legs even against non-manouvrable targets be an important advantage in BVR combat, if nothing to at least "scare away" initially approaching threat? Does constant cranking to one side constitutes "manouverable target"?

 

I don't think having a missile with slightly longer range is really going to scare anyone away - if anything you would "scare" them by locking them up with your radar(which you can do at longer range than the missile can cover anyway).

 

BTW, I truly believe ED is on to something with their new "shortened" R-27R. I remember watching a RL HUD video showing LA for the R version indeed being some 15 or so kilometeres.

 

Yes I think so too - but mostly going by the account of Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots, who IIRC said something about the radar having good enough performance(range wise), but the range of the R-27R being "dissapointingly short".

[wilky510]

TL;DR: All regional players are in close contact with Russia, and despite the diverging interests, all sides are quietly making room for everyone to operate safely.

I think the USAF are RuAF are fine for operating safely too. Even if the media is stirring up from both sides. After reading the USAF UAV's shadowed by the RuAF fighters assures me that everything is fine. The USAF wasn't complaining, they said their flights weren't impeded and the RuAF wasn't out of line.

 

Though, these things can turn the wrong way quicker with one wrong move.

Edited October 12, 2015 by wilky510

[Alfa]

I think they are not really concerned about any long range encounter because that's just not likely to happen.

 

I don't think so either

 

The Su-30SM deployment is probably a mix of discouraging anyone from trying anything 'funny' and the Russian AFs' own interest in using them operationally. It also makes it a good just-in-case weapon against any accidental engagements and such.

 

I think its a mix of several things - with the exception of the Su-34 the tactical aircraft deployed don't have much in the way of "self escort" capability, so the Su-30SMs might simply be there for the unlikely event that they would need such as well as discouraging anyone from interfering with the operations of their strikers.

 

I suspect that another task could be to enforce some degree of national sovereignty on behalf of the Syrian government - at least there have been reports(don't know about their accuracy) of Russian fighters turning away military aircraft of other nations entering Syrian airspace.

[Emu]

Watching the Syrian footage, it appears the russian Flankers are carrying R-27R version of the missile. If DCS World performance is anything to go by (this being a simulator), the R-27R has a pretty short effective range (15-25km at best + unlike R-27ER, it's hard to get a launch authorization against a cranking target) and if this is ineed true or any similar to RL performance, why would they carry this missile as their primary BVR weapon? Would the ER be better suitable in a BVR scenario?

There is an EA variant (active radar) with a range of 130km.

[Emu]

Maybe this is explanation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34502545

The original report said, they were authorised to shoot if endangered. Which basically means, fire if fired upon, i.e. standard RoE. Bad and dangerous journalism.

[Pilotasso]

Alfa, the RVV-AE is an export missile only supposedly using commercially available components due to original manufacturer AGAT being located in Ukraine after the USSR splitup. The RVV-SD is the new domestic all Russian and improved version.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Pilotasso