R-27T on center pylon

[Alfa]

 

Why autopilot?

 

Read the quote I posted:

 

– destabilizers are installed on the homing head body forward of control planes. When the head is replaced by another type, constant static stability reserve is maintained by changing the area of the destabilizers;

 

– the missile stabilization principle and the autopilot equipment used to implement it provide for the missile's high dynamic characteristics in all flight modes, aeroelastic stability and compensation of launch disturbances for both missile versions which significantly differ in terms of weight, inertia, and stiffness characteristics. To adapt to a wide range of flight conditions, a nonlinear law of missile control surfaces manipulation is used to change coefficients depending on the flight time, altitude, and speed;

 

The "autopilot" section of the missile is the equivalent to an aircraft's flight control system - in other words it needs it to fly :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[D-Scythe]

No. Radar, or EOS must Lock on, no IR seeker R-27T.

 

Why autopilot? You wrong logic, R-27T not datalink like Amraam, but IR seeker no needs Lock on before launch.

 

No, you're wrong. Every air-to-air missile NEEDS an autopilot to fly to its target. The autopilot has nothing to do with the missile's datalink.

 

Anyway, I think GG, Swingkid and Alfa have made it painfully clear that the R-27ET has no LOAL ability. At least, not in any useful capacity.

[Pilotasso]

What puzzles me is how there werent any better missiles between the R-27's and the R-77's. The russian birds are starved of better missiles.

[Colt40Five]

What puzzles me is how there werent any better missiles between the R-27's and the R-77's. The russian birds are starved of better missiles.

 

You couldn't tell that from playing lockon...the Russian missiles pwn all NATO missiles by a loooooong shot. :music_whistling:

[nscode]

What puzzles me is how there werent any better missiles between the R-27's and the R-77's. The russian birds are starved of better missiles.

 

When a friend of mine wanted to study architecture at the university here, she had to learn all sorts of stuff for the entrance exams and amongst other things, examples of modern (>1950) architecture.. so, they learn about french buildings, italian buildings, american buildings, plans of russian bulidings... why plans? whell... it turns out they had some briliant architects, but not the money to actually build them. does that answer your question? :)

[Pilotasso]

I know there were lots of monetary restrictions, but if russia kept so much stuff still operating like subs and destroyers, tanks and intercontinental nukes (they dont need so many), they could have given airpower, the dominat factor in modern military power today, a chance by at least having better AA missiles than 15 year old stockpiles of R-27's. Their priorities do confuse me somewhat.

[D-Scythe]

Maybe they've been playing Lock On and think that a Su-27/MiG-29 with R-27ER/Ts actually stand a chance against F-15s with AIM-120s :joystick:

[Kusch]

Translate?

 

"Pocisk R-27R po zejściu z wyrzutni naprowadza się inercyjnie z korekcją radiową* lub bez niej. Zakres korekcji radiowej zapewnia naprowadzanie pocisku rakietowego wedlug sygnalow RLPK-29 (N019) do przechwycenia celu przez glowice samonaprowadzania i przeznaczony jest do zwiekszenia maksymalnej odleglosci odpalenia pocisku rakietowego do celow o malym RCS."

M. Fiszer, J. Gruszczynski. "MiG-29 in air combat"

 

Jak widac R-27R ma kierowanie radiowe wiec niby dlaczego R-27T niemoglby miec?

 

*Takie możliwości ma pocisk R-27R1 z glowica 9B-1101K, od roku 1986/87. Istnieje tez pocisk z oznaczeniem R-27T1.

 

 

R-27R1 seeker;

 

 

And, why 9.12 not carry R-27T? Why 9.13S with N0M19M can carry R-27T and R-77?

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

I know there were lots of monetary restrictions, but if russia kept so much stuff still operating like subs and destroyers, tanks and intercontinental nukes (they dont need so many), they could have given airpower, the dominat factor in modern military power today, a chance by at least having better AA missiles than 15 year old stockpiles of R-27's. Their priorities do confuse me somewhat.

Let me illustrate a possible answer to that by way of an old Russian joke.....

 

Two Red Army Tank generals are sitting in the sun outside a cafe on the Champs Elysees enjoying a coffee.

1st General: Aaah Paris, what a lovely city.

2nd General: I'm glad it is all finished. By the way who won the Air War?

[Dudikoff]

Let me illustrate a possible answer to that by way of an old Russian joke.....

Two Red Army Tank generals are sitting in the sun outside a cafe on the Champs Elysees enjoying a coffee.

1st General: Aaah Paris, what a lovely city.

2nd General: I'm glad it is all finished. By the way who won the Air War?

 

They are just not being fair. If the Sturmoviks hadn't harassed the German supply lines so much, perhaps the Germans would have had enough ammunition to stop all the generals' tanks ;)

[Groove]

i think radar dude referred to the fulda gap scenario of the middle of 80s

[Dudikoff]

i think radar dude referred to the fulda gap scenario of the middle of 80s

 

I believe so also. Now. ;/ I did wonder why Paris is mentioned, though. Never mind, I can always try with lobotomy.

[nscode]

I know there were lots of monetary restrictions, but if russia kept so much stuff still operating like subs and destroyers, tanks and intercontinental nukes (they dont need so many), they could have given airpower, the dominat factor in modern military power today, a chance by at least having better AA missiles than 15 year old stockpiles of R-27's. Their priorities do confuse me somewhat.

 

text in bold reflects why nobody will want to try for them selves if those old stockpiles work anyway ;)

[some1]

Hi.

 

Here is translation of two last Kush's posts:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=222375&postcount=73

MiG-29 pilot:

"R-27T is fully autonomic self-guided weapon, we don't have it (Polish MiGs-29 9.12 can't carry it).

In case of regular Alamo (R-27R), estimated intercept point is computed before the launch, missile goes in that direction untill it's seeker starts making corrections"

 

So why 9.12 can't carrty R-27T, if it's guidance is so simple (same as R-73)? ;)

MiG-29 9.13S or Malaysian MiGs-29 which have N019M(Topaz-M) can carry R-77 as well as R-27T. Only with this and newer radar models it's possible to use R-27T/TE. This leads to a conclusion that there exists "datalink" for R-27T

 

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=222604&postcount=83

 

From M. Fiszer, J. Gruszczynski. "MiG-29 in air combat"

"R-27R missile has inertial guidance with radio correction* or without it. Radio correction allows guidance using signals from RLPK-29 (N019) untill the target is seen by missiles sensors and is used to extend the maximum launch distance against target with small RCS (Radar Cross Section).

 

*Such ability has R-27R1 with 9B-1101K warhead since 1986/87. There exists also R-27T1."

 

This shows that R-27R has radio guidance, so R-27T should have it too.

[Pilotasso]

text in bold reflects why nobody will want to try for them selves if those old stockpiles work anyway ;)

 

 

And thats why I also said they didnt need so many. North korea got perhaps ONE , and now nobody wants to mess with them. Having nukes doesnt always work for regional conflicts and other hotspots where you realy be silly by waving the nuclear flag threat for everything and for nothing.

[Alfa]

Hi.

 

Here is translation of two last Kush's posts:

 

Thanks some1 :)

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=222375&postcount=73

MiG-29 pilot:

"R-27T is fully autonomic self-guided weapon, we don't have it (Polish MiGs-29 9.12 can't carry it).

In case of regular Alamo (R-27R), estimated intercept point is computed before the launch, missile goes in that direction untill it's seeker starts making corrections"

 

Which is all correct.

 

So why 9.12 can't carrty R-27T, if it's guidance is so simple (same as R-73)? ;)

 

MiG-29 9.13S or Malaysian MiGs-29 which have N019M(Topaz-M) can carry R-77 as well as R-27T. Only with this and newer radar models it's possible to use R-27T/TE. This leads to a conclusion that there exists "datalink" for R-27T

 

Thats a case of jumping to conclusions if I ever saw one Kuch :) . How about this:

 

As I mentioned earlier, the R-27T is to be considered a supplement - mainly for tail chase engagements - to the radar guided R-27R version. The MiG-29(9-12) can only carry R-27 missiles on its two most inner wing pylons - so if those pylons are used for the R-27T, it cannot carry any radar guided weapons. In other words I think the reason why MiG-29s aren't usually seen carry R-27Ts is due to a tactical consideration, rather than a technical issue :) .

 

The MiG-29S(9-13S), on the other hand, is compatible with the R-77 missile which can be carried on all six wing pylons, so you could have a payload of e.g....

 

- R-73 or R-77 on pylons 1 & 7

- R-77 on pylons 2 & 6

- R-27T/TE on 3 & 5 (most inner pylons)

 

....which would provide a good mix of both radar and IR guided weapons.

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=222604&postcount=83

 

From M. Fiszer, J. Gruszczynski. "MiG-29 in air combat"

"R-27R missile has inertial guidance with radio correction* or without it. Radio correction allows guidance using signals from RLPK-29 (N019) untill the target is seen by missiles sensors and is used to extend the maximum launch distance against target with small RCS (Radar Cross Section).

 

*Such ability has R-27R1 with 9B-1101K warhead since 1986/87. There exists also R-27T1."

 

Again 100% correct.

 

This shows that R-27R has radio guidance

 

Of course - it is a radar guided weapon.

 

.... so R-27T should have it too.

 

[headshake]

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Groove]

The question im asking myself is how long the missile can fly before the coolant is all used or other said when will the seeker performance drop down to a point where aquiering of a target is more a lottery than a high percent chance.

[Pilotasso]

The R-27ET missiles as stated numerous times, are for tail chases, in wich case the target is closer and burning hard. I actualy do this online, and its quite a fun feeling to make the target go defensive and then send on ET up his tailpipe at 15Km.

[Groove]

wasnt the E in r27-ET for "energia" ? = more powerfull motor ?

[Dudikoff]

As I mentioned earlier, the R-27T is to be considered a supplement - mainly for tail chase engagements - to the radar guided R-27R version. The MiG-29(9-12) can only carry R-27 missiles on its two most inner wing pylons - so if those pylons are used for the R-27T, it cannot carry any radar guided weapons. In other words I think the reason why MiG-29s aren't usually seen carry R-27Ts is due to a tactical consideration, rather than a technical issue :) .

 

Why would it have to carry two R-27 missiles of the same type? Two differently guided missiles were happily used on MiG-23. Mixed R/T loadout makes even more sense considering the negative effect a single R-27 has on maneuvering.

 

On the other hand, the IR guided one has a shorter range so both can hardly be fired at maximum range. Still, I don't see this as a reason not to support the T version on the 29A.

[GGTharos]

The MiG-23 needed the mixed payload even more, given that it couldn't look-down. The MiG-29 on the other hand, -can- look down, so tactically it makes a little less sense to carry both if you want any BVR capability, when it'll pretty much give you an effective range similar to an R-73 in -most- cases.

 

But you're right, technically, there -seems- to be no reason to not be able to carry the T.

[Pilotasso]

Actualy it did make sense for the 29 since its look down capability was very poor and the radar would be easly disrupted during R-27 shots against targets flying lower.

[Kusch]

As I mentioned earlier, the R-27T is to be considered a supplement - mainly for tail chase engagements - to the radar guided R-27R version. The MiG-29(9-12) can only carry R-27 missiles on its two most inner wing pylons - so if those pylons are used for the R-27T, it cannot carry any radar guided weapons. In other words I think the reason why MiG-29s aren't usually seen carry R-27Ts is due to a tactical consideration, rather than a technical issue

 

 

So this is insufficient entirely answer :)

[GGTharos]

Actualy it did make sense for the 29 since its look down capability was very poor and the radar would be easly disrupted during R-27 shots against targets flying lower.

 

Er, no. The lameness of the MiG's radar pertains to its search capability - once locked on, it holds on about as well as everything else (Well, maybe not -quite- but well enough)

[Kenan]

R-27T On center pylon (Part 2)

 

I decided to open a new topic since the old one got pretty long (10 pages+) and apart from the real photos of RuAF aircrafts, we now have additional information that backs our belief Su-27S can deploy more then 2 ETs.

 

Taken from the 'World Aircraft Information Files'

[bright Star Publishing, ISSN 1369-6483] book, referrence file 270, sheet 11:

 

 

 

This is, as far as I'm concerned, sufficient argument from a valid source.

I and some of my fellow squadmates will try to make these realistic payloads available online - not because we are some ET spamming whores but because...well, we -are- ET spamming whores, but nevertheless, we strongly believe this is what it's supposed to be like IRL and should be presented in the sim.