R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes

 

2Hajduk - can you wrote a link to this source?

http://www.missiles.ru/foto_9B1103M-150.htm

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well, I found a picture of the R-27EA missile as described in Yefim Gordons book "Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons", page 48 (description), page 49 (drawing).

 

Here is the picture ( http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/MAKS-2005_weapons/CRW_9639.jpg )

 

[Force_Feedback]

http://www.missiles.ru/foto_9B1103M-150.htm

 

Again, the translation from Russian (you guys know that that's my 1st language, right?)

The seventh colomn in that illustration says:

Year of introduction

[GGTharos]

You found a picture of an inert captive carry mock-up. The Russians have shown off weapons that were never used in this manner other times as well, like the Kh-41.

 

Well, I found a picture of the R-27EA missile as described in Yefim Gordons book "Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons", page 48 (description), page 49 (drawing).

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Post #77 on this thread explains color scheme for Soviet/Russian missiles. White missile with black stripes is a missile with fully operational seeker head, right?

 

GGTharos, the picture shows EA missile. We now know that. There are two sources with matched description/picture of the missile.

 

Next, I need to figure out/find what radar system was needed to guide EA missile.

 

Certanly, Soviets/Russians could hang none working or none operational missile(s) on their airplanes. In the case of EA, we know that the active radar seeker was available and that K-27 missile program was from the get go about modular design (replace the seeker, you get a different missile).

 

So now, we have a real photograph (credible) and a book (fairly credible), two totally separate sources, telling us the same thing. It is getting more and more difficult to deny existence of the missile …

 

Before you say anything else, you need to see a color picture on a page #189 of Yefim's book ...

[GGTharos]

Let me quote you post #77 ...

 

BLACK STRIPES, WHITE BODY=Training dummy, this can be either a non-working dummy, but with the correct drag and weight distribution, OR it is a captive training missile, to practice with the seeker, this version has a seeker, be it IR/radar/passive.

 

So it doesn't necessarily have any working parts in it what-so-ever. Further, this is an air-show, where you might potentially see your stuff get stolen so ... why put all your newfangled tech there?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

So it doesn't necessarily have any working parts in it what-so-ever.

The quote clearly said that those missiles HAVE seekers for PRACTICE purpose. So the picture shows a missile that HAS A SEEKER in it.

 

GGTharos, the EA missile is out there. Evidence is overwhelming. The question is what airborne radar system is needed to make use of EA missile.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Again, the translation from Russian (you guys know that that's my 1st language, right?)

The seventh colomn in that illustration says:

Year of introductoin.

While “year of introduction” may be anything, the fact is the first generation 9B1103, of active radar seekers was available about six/seven years before Su-33 entered the service. At the time Su-33 entered the service, the second, updated seeker 9B1103M was available as well.

 

One may argue that the missile was not very good due to the weight and the wingspan (multiple missile could not be carried inside the 5th generation of fighters). And the R-77 came to solve those problems. However, there is more and more evidence that R-27EA existed and most likely still exist.

[Mugatu]

Ah I vote to put it on the plane, nothing else is that accurate anyways! :surrender:

[Dudikoff]

The quote clearly said that those missiles HAVE seekers for PRACTICE purpose. So the picture shows a missile that HAS A SEEKER in it.

 

GGTharos, the EA missile is out there. Evidence is overwhelming. The question is what airborne radar system is needed to make use of EA missile.

 

I can believe this thread is still on. This is too funny. The quote clearly says it's a dummy missile or can be a training dummy with real seekers but you see it as a proof that it has a real seeker? A training dummy with seeker is meant for training purposes. Would you make a missile for training when the project is cancelled and the missile is not in service so there's no need for anyone to train for it?

 

And there is no much use for a training dummy with active/semi-active radar seekers anyway. The missile doesn't need a lock on before launch so the radar STT lock within certain parameters is all you need. And you would still need a modified WCS/radar to do it.

 

If they we're really showing off the real seeker, wouldn't they present it as separated from the mssile and make a special note of it for potential customers? What's the point of taking the dummy missile with the seeker if it can't be seen? You might as well present a plain dummy missile which they most certainly did.

[nscode]

And they did present the seeker. The seeker's existence is not a question. The question is whether it was used on this missile.

[Dudikoff]

And they did present the seeker. The seeker's existence is not a question. The question is whether it was used on this missile.

 

I know that. That's not in question. What was in question was why would they present a dummy missile with a seeker on it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I like your computer specs!

 

No amount of evidence, pictures, on this thread, will be enough to prove existence of R-27EA missile. A part of lockon.ru forum community made up their mind and will deny and spin any evidence presented here about R-27EA existence.

 

The quote clearly says it's a dummy missile or can be a training dummy with real seekers but you see it as a proof that it has a real seeker?

The quote clearly states that white missiles with black stripes are “dummy” missiles WITH fully operational seeker.

 

Would you make a missile for training when the project is cancelled and the missile is not in service so there's no need for anyone to train for it?

The picture is from the MAKS 2005. That is 17 years after original AGAT 9B1103 seeker’s “year of introduction”. With everything I know (and present here) about the R-27EA it is difficult for me to accept that the project was just canceled?

 

And you would still need a modified WCS/radar to do it.

Where did you find this info? What do you know about how original 9B1103 AGAT active radar seeker work?

 

If they we're really showing off the real seeker, wouldn't they present it as separated from the mssile and make a special note of it for potential customers?

Agat web site actually shows real seeker and in its spec's where it refers to R-27 missiles. There are reports that China uses R-27EA’s. There are no pictures I am aware of showing R-27EA’s on Chinese Su-27’s. Although few R-27 pictures on Chinese Su-27’s on parking areas, have the missiles radome covered. Therefore, one can not say if the missiles are ER or EA’s. :)

 

Поздрав,

[Pilotasso]

GGTharos, the EA missile is out there. Evidence is overwhelming.

 

Im sorry to say yet once again, but I have seen nothing but assumptions from you based on a cylindrical cap and outdated infromation from old books.

 

All we have is the "possibility" it has been sold to china at some time. We dont even know if it was for a fact nor if theres a single unit in service anywhere at all.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Im sorry to say yet once again, …

No comments.

 

…. but I have seen nothing but assumptions from you…

Pilotasso, it is not MY assumption, the EA missile description is from the book, “Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons”, page 48.

 

… based on a cylindrical cap…

Cap? Cylindrical? What are you talking about? Maybe radome, and the shape is conical.

 

… and outdated infromation from old books.

Ohhh, boy! Outdated book? First published in 2004.

 

All we have is the "possibility" it has been sold to china at some time. We dont even know if it was for a fact nor if theres a single unit in service anywhere at all.

We now know that the missile exist. I presented publicly accesable photograph. Also, I will challenge you to tell me what missiles are those: http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r274.asp

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r271.asp

 

You can not say for certain because you can not see radoms.

[Kula66]

Well, I found a picture of the R-27EA missile as described in Yefim Gordons book "Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons", page 48 (description), page 49 (drawing).

 

Here is the picture ( http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/MAKS-2005_weapons/CRW_9639.jpg )

 

 

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.

[Pilotasso]

Nice mockups, because all they are is mockups. Live weapons are never left in the planes when theres public all arround them. You wouldnt believe how many people in my country could swear we wave AIM-120C5's because they saw training rounds in PR photos. And thats in the official squad website. obvioulsy their pilots wont confrim or deny, but Im 99% sure they are all B's with the training rounds bearing common bodies (cut wing tips) to every other operators, including the US.

 

Fans went wild on speculation and they believe what they want, despite what very few people (myself incuded) do to try bring some reason over bias.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Su-34(Su-32Fn), T10V-4, carrying two R-27AE(A?) missiles under the wings? Impressive.

 

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

BTW: What is a P-27PI93PI)? Anyone? Is that the passive homing 27? Perhaps that's what the picture below shows.

This is a good question? I have no idea how the R-27P radome looks like.

[Prophet]

IMO, this whole arguement is futile.

 

The timeline of Lock-On has always been this floating hypothesis and such. So why not just let people use it if they want to? I think better options for Admins needs to be in place so they can decide what ordinance they want to allow.

 

I mean we really cant say we are going for realism when the F15 is so neglected as far as navigation and display options, and the AIM-120 so poorly modelled.

 

People can choose to LOPE R77 on if they want I guess, so I really dont see the problem.

[Pilotasso]

Current EA ingame has a G limit =1.

 

Hajduk Im still wayting to find out how you spot these phamtom missiles. Honestly.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk Im still wayting to find out how you spot these phamtom missiles.

First you need to answer the question from the post #303.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Why do you think this is an EA? It looks more like an ER, ....

The EA missile has conical radome. ER and R missiles have ogival shape radome. It is easy to see the difference once you take a closer look.

[BBL]

This is R 27 eaeaeeea!

 

[VMFA117_Poko]

R-27 Electronic Arts®