F-15C + AIM120 So Unfair!

[GGTharos]

I would suggest also trying to look for information relating to these things released under the Freedom of Information act - sometimes these documents find their way to the net and sometimes they are -extremely- revealing.

 

I provided a highly specialized source. It is a Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon and Peter Davison. However, that source was dismissed as inaccurate. That’s all right. I am now looking for a Flanker book from a different author and when I get some money I’ll get it and compare data.

 

K-27 missile program was developed with easy seeker interchangeability in mind. The missile body was going to be the same for all of the missiles, and the only difference was going to be in the seeker. I will speculate to say that we all might have seen R-27EA many times however were not able to distinguish it from R-27ER due to similarities.

 

That was the reason I asked GGTharos and others on this forum, if he had an actual photograph of R-27EA so that we can compare it with R-27ER and try to find distinguishable feature on it.

[Pilotasso]

I provided a highly specialized source. It is a Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker by Yefim Gordon and Peter Davison. However, that source was dismissed as inaccurate.

 

Why was that? was it a book making referrences to future upgrades that never hapened? what?

 

I am now looking for a Flanker book from a different author and when I get some money I’ll get it and compare data.

 

Ok Report back to us when you do that Im looking forward for novelties. Make sure the book is recent. It has to be. Not even mine as of late as 2003 were too updated about it.

 

K-27 missile program was developed with easy seeker interchangeability in mind. The missile body was going to be the same for all of the missiles, and the only difference was going to be in the seeker. I will speculate to say that we all might have seen R-27EA many times however were not able to distinguish it from R-27ER due to similarities.

 

That was the reason I asked GGTharos and others on this forum, if he had an actual photograph of R-27EA so that we can compare it with R-27ER and try to find distinguishable feature on it.

 

I read somewhere that there were differences between the EA and the ER in the shape of the seekers radome to better suit the radiar functionality (sidelobes that dont exist on the ER?). It poped up on my mind when kenan AHEM :D HRZ mentioned the photograph. Conveniently it was blanketed by a pre-fligh safety cover.

 

As GG said it is not important that the head of the missile is interchangeable or not. Whats important is that the R-77 was the intended final product with the EA as a stopgap missile. If it was to be left in lockon it should be modeled with much poorer perfomance...and that should be on the J-11, not the Su-27. ;)

[ViperEagle]

The Gordon book is fairly biased. It lists a DACT exercise that never happened @ Langley in 1992. Over at the Aircraft Resource Center message boards there is a poster called Murph, who flew F-15's for the 1st FW. He had friends who were there at the time, and dismiss the account. I trust Murph explicitly, if something did happen, he would simply say he couldnt talk about it. However, he did give details and says no DACT ever happened.

 

What was said is that the Russians broke formation and got onto the tail of a F-15D. The F-15 pilot tried to do some minor manuvers to get the SU off his tail, but the SU stayed on him. This proves basically nothing, and is a pathetic example of "SU vs. F-15" fights in DACT.

 

I think it's also on Hyperscale too.

 

The Gordon book is very good for pictures and modeling perspectives, but it's "preformance data" is suspect.

[Alfa]

Well, here’s official United States government site referring to R-27EA missile in China.

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm

 

If that's "official" then things are looking rather bleak :D . As far as I can see this is yet another "unspecified" internet ressource trying to compile bits an pieces from a host of independant sources in a "research paper" :) . A lot of it is correct, but an equal or larger part is just pure speculation and some is just plain wrong - e.g. the reference to a ""Yakhont-M" as being a "smaller ASM" and a derrivative of the Kh-31A is quite amusing :) .

 

It can’t get any more official than this. Anyway, we here have very valid source conformation that R-27EA exist.

 

....ROFL.

 

Next, I need to look for more info on the whole R-27EA project.

 

There isn't much to find - "the whole R-27AE" projects" consists of the - now Ukrainian - manufacturing plant for R-27 missiles proposing a version of the missile using the universial 9B-1103M ARH seeker developed by AGAT.

 

K-27 missile program was developed with easy seeker interchangeability in mind. The missile body was going to be the same for all of the missiles, and the only difference was going to be in the seeker.

 

Not quite - the R-27 design also involves two different engine sections :)

 

I will speculate to say that we all might have seen R-27EA many times however were not able to distinguish it from R-27ER due to similarities.

 

.....yes speculations ;) .

 

 

- JJ.

[Frostie]

Ok enough of all this squabbling , I have the ultimate proof that will finally stop the doubters in their high and mighty footsteps,

Check this official pic of an Su actually engaging F15 with a live R27AE and prepare to apologise

 

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q189/apFrostie/AE.jpg

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

There isn't much to find - "the whole R-27AE" projects" consists of the - now Ukrainian - manufacturing plant for R-27 missiles proposing a version of the missile using the universial 9B-1103M ARH seeker developed by AGAT.

Twenty five years ago it wasn’t Ukrainian only. Nevertheless, Alfa, do you have a photograph of the R-27AE (EA)?

[Alfa]

Twenty five years ago it wasn’t Ukrainian only.

 

No and that's why I said "- now Ukrainian - manufacturing plant" - but the -AE variant was proposed after the break-up of the Soviet Union :)

 

Nevertheless, Alfa, do you have a photograph of the R-27AE (EA)?

 

No and to be honest I am not sure one exists - I cannot recall having seen even an airshow "mock-up" of this weapon.....same goes for the "R-27EM" by the way :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Kula66]

Alfa,

There are a few photos on Janes showing the 27AE electronics section 'naked' (apparently called a AGAT 9B-1103M) and the front 1/4 of the 27P ... taken a defence show.

[Ruthless12]

Boy oh boy do i feel like the new boy at school in 6th grade... fine whatever lets deal with that.. In all honesty i feel like your overwhelming knowledge has at least partially clouded your judgement. At least that goes for most of you. Maybe i m just too much of an idealist, but i wonder why nobody ever made a simulation about Hiroshima.. hmm jee maybe because nobody would want to play the Japanise side.. the game wouldnt be balanced now would it ? Some of you seem to be tuned into all the info you have come across in years about any plane you re into that you will never be satisfied with anything u get your hands on as far as simulation goes. As far as i know, and i dont know much, the game is not realistic as it is, and it s not fair either. Now hearing "hey that s the game take it or shut it" isnt exactly good to improve on the audience. Also, sure a great pilot laughs at the F15 but then i have to tell you you cant read.. i said PILOT ASIDE, if you fly the 15 you are at an advantage. Basically take 2 noobs, put one in the 15 and the other in the SU.. guess which will never come out as a winner ? Are you starting to get the point now ? For someone who is learning like me this is a GREAT PAIN THE REAR !!! Honestly why should i care if the F15 is actually a much superior fighter (true or not that s not something i m really interested in) in real life ? So basically you re telling me the game was designed to make one side win from the start by giving it the advantage ? That s absurd in my mind. I m sure it makes all the sense in the world when u r an F15 fanboy. People talk about time frame for this timeframe for that.. as far as i know the 120C shouldnt have been included if the game respects any sort of timeline.. And lets just stop here for 1 second.. .. back it up a bit.. What s all this fuss about the plane ?? I think the F15 should be improved on, as far as graphics go, what bothers me it s not the F15, it s the missile i m pi$$ed about, i dont really think much of the 15 to be completely honest, it probably has the worst cockpit of them all. It looks like you could play pong on the mfd.

 

Rhein, Kon, thanx for the input guys and sorry if i m pissing ppl off.. i can hardly keep something i havent digested in.. i usually have to spit it out.

I might be wrong, and i might change my mind on the future and come back and laugh at this thread but that s the way i feel right now.

Iron, my friend (not that i ever met you or even heard your voice on coms - but i ve heard it on tracks) thanx for the unvaluable help i got from your trainings, i got the divx videos before i had the game :D

 

Read all of the above in the context pls.. as in pilots always makes a difference one way or the other sure but that s not the issue, sure if u r experienced and know how to take adantage of this and that you will come out ahead, that s not the point either cause that goes both ways.

 

Since I haven't tried LOMAC online, I can't really comment on how big a problem AMRAAM-spamming is, nor how uber the F-15 is.

 

However, if the game or match is unbalanced, then that's a design flaw in the setup and that should be addressed by modifying the setup of the match (or scenario.) The answer (this applies to wargames as well as simulations) to this is to change the setup to be more balanced rather than to change the parameters of the platforms and weapons. For example, if the F-15 + AMRAAM really is (and I'm not saying it is or not) at a significant advantage over the Su-27 in real life, then that should be reflected in the game. So to make it balanced, rather than trying to fiddle with the AIM-120 parameters to make it less useful, rather the Russian side should probably get more Su-27's or an AWACS or some other advantage to make it balanced. If the game developer started messing with parameters of missiles to make the game more "balanced" rather than realistic, then the game would cease to be a simulation of anything. Heck, in that case, you might as well just replace the skin of the F-15 3-d model with the model of the Su-27 and pretend it's the Su-27.

 

That said, if the game allows unrealistic tactics to be used (missile-spamming, for example) successfully and without any penalty, then that's a design problem with the game that should be addressed if possible. A good sim design would reward good, realistic tactics with success and punish unrealistic or bad tactics.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Ruthless, that's one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. The "spamming" of missiles could EASILY be addressed with persistent damage to airfields. This would affect your logistics and make it so you might not be able to air that many AIM-120s on your next flight. Your a2a tactics would have to evolve. Either that, and/or, your Hog and Frog drivers would have to make a MUCH bigger difference in Air Quake than they do now. :D

[D-Scythe]

Or ED could model it so that the missiles hit something in their NEZs once in a while. Than the next 7 missiles following behind that one would be a waste.

[Force_Feedback]

They can also model that maddogged missiles don't have insta lock, and home on to the biggest rcs, and not what's in front of it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No and to be honest I am not sure one exists - I cannot recall having seen even an airshow "mock-up" of this weapon.....same goes for the "R-27EM" by the way :) .

I found two photographs of R27EA (AE) in Yefim Gordon’s and Peter Davinson’s Su-27 book.

 

On page 57, top left hand corner is a Su-33 (79 Blue) in demonstration hangar at Kubinka AB. There is a fully white R-27 EA (AE) on pylon #3. It appears to be a mockup, however, the R-73’s on the same picture are also mockups.

 

The second picture is on page 92 of the same book. The picture is a close-up (the exact Su-27 model can not be seen) and the R-27EA’s (AE’s) are installed on mounts underneath each engine intake. Visitors are seen in the background of the picture suggesting that this was some kind of an airshow somewhere. Now these two missiles have black stripes on them suggesting they were not fully operational missiles.

 

So the main difference between ER and EA (AE) missiles that I could see was in the front canards. AE (AE) missiles don’t have them. EA (AE) looks a bit shorter as well.

[Pilotasso]

I found two photographs of R27EA (AE) in Yefim Gordon’s and Peter Davinson’s Su-27 book.

 

On page 57, top left hand corner is a Su-33 (79 Blue) in demonstration hangar at Kubinka AB. There is a fully white R-27 EA (AE) on pylon #3. It appears to be a mockup, however, the R-73’s on the same picture are also mockups.

 

The second picture is on page 92 of the same book. The picture is a close-up (the exact Su-27 model can not be seen) and the R-27EA’s (AE’s) are installed on mounts underneath each engine intake. Visitors are seen in the background of the picture suggesting that this was some kind of an airshow somewhere. Now these two missiles have black stripes on them suggesting they were not fully operational missiles.

 

So the main difference between ER and EA (AE) missiles that I could see was in the front canards. AE (AE) missiles don’t have them. EA (AE) looks a bit shorter as well.

 

we would like to see it. Can you scan that picture?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

we would like to see it. Can you scan that picture?

I can but I will not. I do not want to brake copyright laws. However, book is very inexpensive and you can get it from Amazon.com

[HRZ]

Hey Veljko, any word on Su27's basic AG capability, AG modes etc?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Greetings HRZ,

 

Although the T-10 program was originally conceived with ground attack capabilities in mind, the Su-27P and Su-27S did not have radar that would allow them accurate ground targeting. However, both of them were capable of dropping iron bombs. Su-27K (Su-33) should be the same as P and S.

 

PS

All my in-laws live in Zagreb. I was in Zagreb last year for my vacation.

 

Best regards,

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Haaaa! Now that I know what I am looking for, I spot another, this time color, picture of R-27EA (AE).

 

It is in the same book on page # 68! Again it is on Su-27K (Su-33). This airplane is in the hanger with its wings folded up and extended refueling probe.

 

All of the R-27EA (AE) photographs I spotted are on Su-33. What we need here is pictures of Su-33 fully armed!

 

I wish somebody buys this book and confirms my findings.

[Pilotasso]

Hadjuk I would be carefull with the conclusions your taking. As you know very well there were never real R-27EA's on Su-33's. Everybody will arrive at the conclusion either the author missidentifyed an R-27 for an R-27AE body or the photos in question depict the all too comon mockups for proposals.

 

What are the external diferences for those missiles?

 

I have photos of my countries F-16 carrying what looks like AIM-120D's but those are mockups. I have seen them up close. They have no rocket nozzles. The live missiles are of the B version. The Photo your referring to could be very well one similar case.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hadjuk I would be carefull with the conclusions your taking.

I am careful Pilotasso, all I am doing is collecting info about Russian ARH program.

 

Check this picture out and tell me what is that missile hanging underneath the engine intakes:

 

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/gallery/su-33_2.htm

 

And here's another picture:

 

http://www.danshistory.com/su33.html

[Pilotasso]

That missile seems to be none other than a baseline R-27R. I have never seen an EA but on that chinese photo and the ingame model and both seem to be longer than the missile your showing to me, wich look alot more like the R variant to me. I was looking for other details like the nose cone and the antennas right behind it. The chinese photo shows some but these photos dont even apear to have the datalink bulges.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Pilotasso,

 

Look closely at the pictures when you click on links in post #177. Those missiles there clearly DO NOT have canards. Same as with pictures in Gordon’s and Davison’s book. Look closely and you will clearly see wings, vertical stabilizers (on second picture) but no canard winglets whatsoever.

 

Every R, ER, T, ET and EM missile I know about has canards.

 

And you are right about Chinese pictures. Those are definitely ER missiles because of rather obvious presence of the canards.

[Pilotasso]

Dude, I have been seeing R-27R's without cannards for decades. Dont tell me its because thats an EA. If any of the photos are real I would choose the chinese. And if you even believe that the chinese photo is fake then the discussion you started because of it gets its leg cut off by your own arguments over old pictures. Yes, these pictures are OLD.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Dude, …

Dude, what?

I have been seeing R-27R's without cannards for decades.

You did? How did you know they were R missiles? Or you were looking at EA and never known what they actually were? BTW, where did you see those canard-less R missiles? Are you saying Eagle Dynamics 3d model of the R missile is wrong?

And if you even believe that the chinese photo is fake then the discussion you started because of it gets its leg cut off by your own arguments over old pictures.

I never claimed pictures are authentic or fake. Please reread post # 136. At that time I did not have a photograph of the EA missile and I asked for a comment on those Chinese pictures

Yes, these pictures are OLD.

By old, do you mean you’ve seen them before? If you did, and you thought they were R missiles, then you were wrong.

 

If, by old, you meant they were OLD, then it is another one in favor of the fact that at one time, EA existed.

[Pilotasso]

Yes I have seen pictures like that for years and years on the internet and in books.

 

Simple mathematics: By mid 80's there wasnt a proposal for EA's yet. Much less live examples all over the press and no one guessing it but you. ;)