R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[Prophet]

OT - So been reading up and trying to find whatever info I can, I came across something. The R27-EM has an updated seeker to detect objects 3m off the ground. This is for the Su33 which makes sense as a fleet defense for anti-ship missiles that skim the surface. It would be interesting to see these missiles invulnerable to the 'fly below 20m' that trashes everything.

[Kula66]

I don't think it's possible to nail someone from behind with an ET if he's flying ABs at app. 30-40km, in LOMAC that is. Anyone actually tried this=?

 

No, but with an R-73 you may have a tail chase range of 2miles, but with a big R-27ET you may have 8miles - hence the reason for having them.

[mcnab]

OT - So been reading up and trying to find whatever info I can, I came across something. The R27-EM has an updated seeker to detect objects 3m off the ground. This is for the Su33 which makes sense as a fleet defense for anti-ship missiles that skim the surface. It would be interesting to see these missiles invulnerable to the 'fly below 20m' that trashes everything.

 

Actually, this is modelled in LOMAC. EM's have better performance against low flying targets then say, R27-ERs.

 

No probably not, but then the actual missile also needs to be able to chase down the target and thats exactly the idea behind the R-27T/TE.....namely that you can obtain better acquisition range via IR in tail aspect than with radar means, but that traditional IR homing missiles are small "dogfight" weapons without the energy to take advantage of this. Hence the idea to stick an IR seeker on a wacking big missile :) .

 

So although the R-27TE missile might not have enough energy to chase down a receeding target at 40 km, it is never the less a lot better equipped for this sort of engagement than an R-73 :)

 

Yeah, it does makes some sense I guess. :)

[D-Scythe]

I also heard that during a live fire excercise an R-27R was used to intercept a stray SAM, than was coming at Mach 3 towards the launcher. Well, only 1 R-27R was needed to intercept that SAM, that's a ~6000 km/h closure rate. But again, this was a VVS R-27, not the R-27RE1

 

Care to elaborate? Sounds interesting.

[Kula66]

It excapes me why the R-27-ET would not use a datalink if the R-27-ER does?

 

Its simple ... its locked on BEFORE launch - so why would it need a datalink?

[Alfa]

OT - So been reading up and trying to find whatever info I can, I came across something. The R27-EM has an updated seeker to detect objects 3m off the ground. This is for the Su33 which makes sense as a fleet defense for anti-ship missiles that skim the surface. It would be interesting to see these missiles invulnerable to the 'fly below 20m' that trashes everything.

 

Well "EM"....unfortunately I think the deal with this weapon it much the same as with the AE :) .

[golfsierra2]

http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/r_27.htm

 

"The R-27RE missile became a base developing a R-27AE and R-27EM missiles. The R-27AE (AA-10C "Alamo-C") is a medium-range missile, featuring an active radarhoming seeker. The R-27EM (AA-10C "Alamo-C") is optimized for a long-range low-level interception on water. Current status of this missile is unknown. Both missiles entered service in 1990."

 

The page does not list any sources for the data. And - the R-27AE is referred to as an Alamo C, whereas most other web pages refer to it as Alamo-E, which I think is the appropriate designator.

 

Additionally, we should ask SwingKid for a source about the R-27AE:

 

http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showthread.php?threadid=21709&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

 

There he wrote in 2004:

 

"With R-27AE, IMHO there is enough uncertainty to make a compromise. I can confirm that this missile was in real production (at least, for export) in Ukraine. Ukraine has no Su-35. Is it possible to use R-27AE with standard Su-27? Maybe the Su-27 radar doesn't need to know if it carries active or passive missiles - R-27AE may theoretically be built with "reverse-compatibility" to R-27ER, and be launched using the same software. R-77 would require the software to be programmed with its flight characteristics."

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Its simple ... its locked on BEFORE launch - so why would it need a datalink?

To increase (possibly double) head on engagement range. This theory depends on how the IR seeker works after the missile launch.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Additionally, we should ask SwingKid for a source about the R-27AE:

 

http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showthread.php?threadid=21709&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

 

There he wrote in 2004:

 

"With R-27AE, IMHO there is enough uncertainty to make a compromise. I can confirm that this missile was in real production (at least, for export) in Ukraine. Ukraine has no Su-35. Is it possible to use R-27AE with standard Su-27? Maybe the Su-27 radar doesn't need to know if it carries active or passive missiles - R-27AE may theoretically be built with "reverse-compatibility" to R-27ER, and be launched using the same software. R-77 would require the software to be programmed with its flight characteristics."

There are claims all over the internet that China is using R-27EA. The only picture(s) of what looked like R-27 EA (as per Yefim Gordon description) I found in Yefim’s books as described in post #161 of this thread.

[Alfa]

To increase (possibly double) head on engagement range. This theory depends on how the IR seeker works after the missile launch.

 

The IR seeker needs to lock on to target before the missile can be launched Hajduk, so while what you propose might work in principle, it is not the case for the R-27T/TE - it is pure IR and has no LOAL capability.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The IR seeker needs to lock on to target before the missile can be launched Hajduk, so while what you propose might work in principle, it is not the case for the R-27T/TE - it is pure IR and has no LOAL capability.

That is exactly why I used the word “theory”. Anyway, the only flight manual I have is the “MIG-29 Flight Manual (Schiffer Military History Book) (Paperback) by Alan R. Wise (Author) “. This flight manual is about MiG-29A and does not have any mentioning of R-27T/ET missiles.

 

Do you know where can one buy Su-27 flight manual?

[Dudikoff]

The IR seeker needs to lock on to target before the missile can be launched Hajduk, so while what you propose might work in principle, it is not the case for the R-27T/TE - it is pure IR and has no LOAL capability.

 

Too bad about this no-LOAL limitation. I wonder if the combination of the passive radar radiation seeker (perhaps even combined with a more advanced RWR to select the type fo radar) which would switch to IR-seeker (maybe even active radar) in the final phase, would have been an interesting concept. The passive radiation seeker would replace the need for mid-course updates and there would be no need for a radar lock thus making the target unaware of the possible missile launch. You'd fire them at incoming fighters and then turn to lure them in.

 

Do you know where can one buy Su-27 flight manual?

 

There used to be scanned copies available on eBay. You might check there once in a while.

[Pilotasso]

LOAL capability on non IIR missiles is counter productive. Russia already contemplated it with their ultra high off boresight and rear firing missiles and they got canceled not only due to costs but because of the risks of fracticide. The west has also donne much the same for the very same reasons. I have a book litered with missile programs with this capability in the 80's that got cancelled. It was only with the latest seekers that it became more practical, but even that is/will be avoided.

[Dudikoff]

LOAL capability on non IIR missiles is counter productive. Russia already contemplated it with their ultra high off boresight and rear firing missiles and they got canceled not only due to costs but because of the risks of fracticide.

 

I can see the issues in short range missiles but I mentioned the RWR-programmed passive radiation seeker. The IR-seeker would be switched to only when the radiation strength passes a certain treshold. Some ROE would be present (i.e. you wouldn't use this if your fighters are mixed with the enemy) and it couldn't be used if the opposing side has the same radars but during the cold war, it might have had potential.

[HubMan]

Ah yes that may well be the case - maybe I am using the term "CW" incorrectly to describe what I mean....namely that with an STT lock the radar continiously illuminates the target rather than periodically as is the case with a "TWS lock" :) .

 

 

 

No but while target aircraft RWR might not be able to determine the actual launch, the switch to STT(which it can detect) should be a clue that something is "cooking" :) .

 

 

 

Heh yeah - thats probably why I didn't quite get question there :) .

 

- JJ.

Hi Alfa :)

 

No problem and thanks for your post

Actually I was asking the same question than ijozic that made our points clearer here .

 

Sorry for the lack of precisions and the post slightly out of topic :)

 

Anyway, I still don't know what to believe : (old) flight manuals or personnal conclusions :) : I'm almost sure, that most of the modern Fox 1 can still steer themselves on a target :

 

- even if the plane radar lock has been broken by the target or the shooter, (with lower pk if the target changed its heading/speed : the seeker needs to be able to "find" back the target and the missile may be largely off the new inteception course) :)

 

- by using a "scan" / "tws" mode and not a "stt" one, but due to the fact that the updates will not be frequent enough to get enough accuracy during the end game, firing all the way a Fox 1 against anything else but a lumbering bomber on a steady heading / altitude will almost be useless :)

 

I wish I could put my hands on the firing procedures of a recent Alamo C :) (and not getting as a result a one way ticket to Siberia ;) :) )

 

Hub out :)

[GGTharos]

There's nothing simple about an ARM seeker...probably not too easy to combine it with what's needed to intercept an aircraft in a reasonable sized package yet.

 

I can see the issues in short range missiles but I mentioned the RWR-programmed passive radiation seeker.

[golfsierra2]

AA-10, Alamo R-27AE, is reported to be operational and in service since 1995. Got that from a friend who owns a (very expensive) 2004 Jane's CD "Air-launched Weapons'.

 

At least THEY confirmed that the AE made it into active service.

 

Any other reliable sources (I consider Jane's pretty much reliable..) ?

[GGTharos]

They also confirmed that the Su-33 carries a whole bunch of stuff that it in fact does not, then admitted their mistake at some point, but failed to correct/retract the information.

[Kula66]

AA-10, Alamo R-27AE, is reported to be operational and in service since 1995. Got that from a friend who owns a (very expensive) 2004 Jane's CD "Air-launched Weapons'.

 

At least THEY confirmed that the AE made it into active service.

 

Any other reliable sources (I consider Jane's pretty much reliable..) ?

 

I've just checked the Janes on-line service and it doesn't say that now ... sorry

[darkstarRAF]

Ohh, how tiring this post, I mean, really, look at you, speculating (in some cases), shouting, etc.

First:

R-27AE/EA/A/etc was never in service, nor it will be, program was closed, cause R-77 was made instead.

Second:

While it's questionable, China may did buy R-27AE license, but I can't see any reason to manufacture it, again there's R-77 exists, and China has Su-30MK in service, so there's no need to do it.

Third:

Su-33 never ever carried any AA missile other than R-60, R-73, R27T/ET/R/ER. There's questionable speculation about R-27P, but nobody knows for shure.

Fourth:

ED has non-questionable materials about any russian jet they're modeling, and of course they know about it's payload, it's not so closed information now and if they say that there was no R-27AE in service in russia, then this is what they know for shure and I, as man who live in Russia and have some contacts with pilot's fully agree with ED. So please stop this nonsense at last, it just annoying and flustrating people.

[Dudikoff]

There's nothing simple about an ARM seeker...probably not too easy to combine it with what's needed to intercept an aircraft in a reasonable sized package yet.

 

Is the needed guidance that much different from HOJ? Besides, it would just use it to get close enough to the enemy aircraft before switching to IR/ARH seeker so it doesn't have to be that precise as if it would need to be if it was guiding all the way to the impact.

[Pilotasso]

AA-10, Alamo R-27AE, is reported to be operational and in service since 1995. Got that from a friend who owns a (very expensive) 2004 Jane's CD "Air-launched Weapons'.

 

At least THEY confirmed that the AE made it into active service.

 

Any other reliable sources (I consider Jane's pretty much reliable..) ?

 

I have several books mentioning that as well but they also say between the lines "when it enters service", another similar case is the NOVOTOR untra long range AWACS killer missile thats still in the drawing board and has been already reported as suported weaponry on board of many Su-27 variants for years. The common evil with these publications is that they all rely on russian Hype happy sources.

 

IF anyone ever had any R-27EA's it would be the chinese. They wanted it in the 90's But with the introduction of the R-77 (or RVVAE or whatever its called) and its derivative SD-10 AMRAAM'wang (almost identical to the AIM-120 externaly as well) it seems that missile was rapidely forgoten and replaced by these newer and perhaps more reliable missiles.

 

The ease that the EA was discarted seems to point to an immature and poor performing missile, and not just because R-27's depended on Ukraines assets.

 

I bet if it was going to be accuratly modeled in this SIm it would miss even more miserably than the AMRAAM and have its users curse it and swich to R-77 anyway.

[golfsierra2]

Is the needed guidance that much different from HOJ? Besides, it would just use it to get close enough to the enemy aircraft before switching to IR/ARH seeker so it doesn't have to be that precise as if it would need to be if it was guiding all the way to the impact.

 

Need an old 8 inch floppy drive ? :megalol:

[Alfa]

Sorry for late reply Hajduk,

 

That is exactly why I used the word “theory”. Anyway, the only flight manual I have is the “MIG-29 Flight Manual (Schiffer Military History Book) (Paperback) by Alan R. Wise (Author) “. This flight manual is about MiG-29A and does not have any mentioning of R-27T/ET missiles.

 

No and and the R-27TE isn't compatible with the MiG-29(baseline 9-12) - none of the "longburn" versions are(originally meant for the Su-27)......only upgraded MiG-29 variants are made compatible with those.

 

I am not even sure that the R-27T is used with the MiG-29, but then IIRC the manual doesn't even make any mention of the R-73 either altough we know that this missile certainly is part of the MiG-29 armament.....it might be because the manual being made public is a very early one or that the part concerning the R-73 is missing....don't know.

 

Do you know where can one buy Su-27 flight manual?

 

No sorry can't help you with that - but as Ijozic mentioned the Su-27SK(export version) manual has been available as web download in the form of scanned pages, so you really need to be able to read Russian to get anything out of it.

[Alfa]

The ease that the EA was discarted seems to point to an immature and poor performing missile, and not just because R-27's depended on Ukraines assets.

 

Possibly but you could also ask why the US didn't make an ARH version of the AIM-7, but instead opted for a new missile design(AIM-120) :) .