R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk, isnt your own thread name asking for a Su-27 with this particular missile ?

I looked and can not find the thread opened by me on this subject. Maybe I opened it, and if did and you can find it, please let me know.

 

I did however, participated in every thread mentioning Russian ARH missiles. And was frustrated by what an on line games turned into (launch four or five AIM-120 and turn your back). And was strongly asking about the reason why the most sophisticated Russian air superiority fighter does not have ARH missile?

 

Then I gave up because I know it does not make sense to have RVV-A missile on Su-27, because we would loose all F-15 lock on pilots.

 

Then I decided to look at the history and try to figure out what happened to Russian RVV-A program and found all kind of documentation and photographs about R-27EA, Russian first generation ARH AA (RVV-A) missile.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Another mock-up?

There is a rule that live, combat ready missile must be brought to international air shows?

Another mock-up?

The EA mock-up, yes.

[Groove]

Hajduk, stop using drugs :D

 

I mean THIS thread, at least it seems you started this thread.

[GGTharos]

Until you show me an R-27EA, and the stamps on the seeker to show that is what it is, then your missile just plain doesn't exist for all intents and purposes. A mock-up is no live round and need not necessarily be in operation in any way, shape or form.

 

No one's going to be buying EA's when they can buy the R-77.

 

As to your question why the Su-27 didn't have an ARH missile? MONEY!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk, stop using drugs :D

 

I mean THIS thread, at least it seems you started this thread.

Ohh, I misunderstood your question. Well, yes, I opened this thread.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Until you show me an R-27EA, …

I am working on it. Be patient.

No one's going to be buying EA's when they can buy the R-77.

The key word is “IS”. However, the R-77 WAS designed for the first su-27s and MiG-29s upgrades (su-27M’s, MiG-31M’s and Mig-29M’s …). K-27 (R-27) family of missiles was designed before that time. So of course that nowadays nobody IS going to buy EA missile. However, 20 (or so) years ago, R-77 did not exist and R-27’s did.

 

As to your question why the Su-27 didn't have an ARH missile? MONEY!

I have not found any pictures of inert, training, mock-up EA missiles on Su-27P and Su-27S. However, plenty of pictures of EA missiles on Su-27K (Su-33) and later updated Flankers. Money certainly could prevent overall deployment of the missile, however I am looking if the missile was deployed even in a single squadron, or even for short period of time on a single squadron.

[zare]

Guys, this is getting boring.

 

1. Su-27S/P can exploit R-27AE. The active Alamo has only different seekerhead, the equipment inside the missile remained same throughout all early pre-production units. Thus, the FCS doesn't recognize the difference, it lists the missile as R-27ER.

 

2. Launching operation is same as in ER scenario, lock, and launch. When terminal stage gets going, the 9B-1103M will activate and go "pitbull". At this time the Su-27 can disengage the lock and do what ever he wants to do. So, the sole difference is between illuminating for the 9B-1101K and disengaging once the 1103M goes active.

 

3. R-27AE was tested on baseline Flankers, usage like described in above paragraph. Results of that tests are unknown to me.

 

4. R-27AE was dropped in favour of R-77. The Alamo features 8G limit, while the Adder has 12G limit, R-77 has smaller range but it's a lot lighter, and it's suitable for internal carriage. Therefore, this missile was chosen as the base for the next generation of medium range AAM's.

 

5. Several of in-service Su-27P's were installed with digital bypass channel, and different dual MCCU datalink, together with new radar logic for the N001, to enable TWS mode and ripple-firing of two R-77s. This was done in late 1990.

 

6. The Union collapsed, so the production of R-77s suffered. Su-27S/P upgrade and Su-27M production suffered together with them. In the meantime, Indian Flankers were upgraded with the same technology that allowed Soviet Su-27's to fire the R-77.

 

Conclusion :

 

If you had an Su-27S/P, and you got your hands on R-27AE, you could just plug it in, and play. But, there's no TWS. Single target fire, and you still have to illuminate because that's the way N001's engage mode works. N001 will transmit MCCU only if it has an positive lock. R-27AE was fitted on Soviet Flankers during '80s, but only for testing. It never saw any active service in VVS, so asking for R-27AE capability in LockOn's Su-27P is wrong. Regarding PLAAF, they purchased a bunch of 1103M seekers in 1994-1996 period, however, their Su-27SKs also lack any kind of TWS that could fully exploit the benefits of active missiles. They could have used them "cold", like i explained before, ditching out 1101K's and putting in the active units. But that's one big "could", nobody has any hard evidence they're doing that. Besides, 1103M's were probably puchased to ease the development cycle for the SD-10.

 

But, if this is an "missile wishlist topic", i would just want things to be more realistic. That includes fixing up the 120, downgrading the ET (no lock, no launch), and including the R-27P/EP on the Flanker's payload. They were and are in the VVS active service from late 1980's. First hand information.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

R-27AE was fitted on Soviet Flankers during '80s, but only for testing. It never saw any active service in VVS, so asking for R-27AE capability in LockOn's Su-27P is wrong.

Interesting info. What is the source of your information.

 

Also, if EA never entered service, why even today, AGAT still offeres 9B-1103M seeker. BTW, this is updated seeker, the original one was 9B-1103.

[nscode]

Well.. you can use it for AAM, SAM, or even as a fancy garden chair, for all they care ;)

[Pilotasso]

Guys, this is getting boring.

 

1. Su-27S/P can exploit R-27AE. The active Alamo has only different seekerhead, the equipment inside the missile remained same throughout all early pre-production units. Thus, the FCS doesn't recognize the difference, it lists the missile as R-27ER.

 

2. Launching operation is same as in ER scenario, lock, and launch. When terminal stage gets going, the 9B-1103M will activate and go "pitbull". At this time the Su-27 can disengage the lock and do what ever he wants to do. So, the sole difference is between illuminating for the 9B-1101K and disengaging once the 1103M goes active.

 

3. R-27AE was tested on baseline Flankers, usage like described in above paragraph. Results of that tests are unknown to me.

 

4. R-27AE was dropped in favour of R-77. The Alamo features 8G limit, while the Adder has 12G limit, R-77 has smaller range but it's a lot lighter, and it's suitable for internal carriage. Therefore, this missile was chosen as the base for the next generation of medium range AAM's.

 

5. Several of in-service Su-27P's were installed with digital bypass channel, and different dual MCCU datalink, together with new radar logic for the N001, to enable TWS mode and ripple-firing of two R-77s. This was done in late 1990.

 

6. The Union collapsed, so the production of R-77s suffered. Su-27S/P upgrade and Su-27M production suffered together with them. In the meantime, Indian Flankers were upgraded with the same technology that allowed Soviet Su-27's to fire the R-77.

 

Conclusion :

 

If you had an Su-27S/P, and you got your hands on R-27AE, you could just plug it in, and play. But, there's no TWS. Single target fire, and you still have to illuminate because that's the way N001's engage mode works. N001 will transmit MCCU only if it has an positive lock. R-27AE was fitted on Soviet Flankers during '80s, but only for testing. It never saw any active service in VVS, so asking for R-27AE capability in LockOn's Su-27P is wrong. Regarding PLAAF, they purchased a bunch of 1103M seekers in 1994-1996 period, however, their Su-27SKs also lack any kind of TWS that could fully exploit the benefits of active missiles. They could have used them "cold", like i explained before, ditching out 1101K's and putting in the active units. But that's one big "could", nobody has any hard evidence they're doing that. Besides, 1103M's were probably puchased to ease the development cycle for the SD-10.

 

But, if this is an "missile wishlist topic", i would just want things to be more realistic. That includes fixing up the 120, downgrading the ET (no lock, no launch), and including the R-27P/EP on the Flanker's payload. They were and are in the VVS active service from late 1980's. First hand information.

 

If any missile had only 8G or 12G limit they wouldnt look like they could turn at all. Regarding radar compatibiltiy I would ask Alfa for better info, I highly doubt that Su-27P could ever take the R-77 just like that. Reason why they dont carry it to this day.

[Force_Feedback]

the G limits mentioned are for the TARGET, you know that, don't turn this into a 'What you said makes no sense' kind of agrument. The G-limit for the missile itself is like 4 times higher. But if some pesky F-16 is violating your soveign airspace, and it knows a R-27 is coming, it does some kind of last minute 9G maneuver, well, no lock with that one. The R-77 can deal with 12G targets, partiallty due to its control surfaces, which are NOT draggy as some 'experts' suggest on the Internet. I've touched the control surfaces of a dismantled R-27R (not a mock-up, but a real missile sans pyrotechnics), and its canards are quite sharp and sleek. Now the cheese graters on the R-77 are razor thin, yes, 2mm at most, probably 1mm or less across. So the surface drag might smaller than on the R-27, making it keep its kinetic energy better.

This may very well be the case why the R-77 is better, range wise. The R-27EA was meant as a stop gap before the R-77, since nobody bought the seeker, well, it's not in service, so ED won't add it. Hadjuk, real missiles have a yellowish radome, clearly visible black proximity fuses and sleek control surfaces which don't have rivets, so find us a photo of a R-27EA with a yellow -ish radome, and proximity fuses, then everybody will agree that this missile is is service somewhere. 95% of the R-77 photos are mock-ups as well, so that makes this missile non-existant? no you just have to find photos of an in-service, live missile.

And then we return to the old dilemma, unlike the US and various NATO planes that fly with live ordnance once in a while (terrorism paranoia) Russian VVS/PVO planes fly with mock-ups most of the time, as there is no need to endanger the crew for some far-fetched occasion that some, preferably Islamist terrorist is going to do a 911 Part Deux :P. I wish you all the best with your search, but I don't think you'll find those photos. Hell, finding photos of ordinary, live R-27s is hard.

[Groove]

is this a yellowish radome ?

 

[GGTharos]

Actually FF, you're wrong on the dragginess of the R-77's uh, 'cheese graters'. They -are- less draggy above a certain mach speed, and airbrakes below a certain mach speed (and then 'normal' IIRC, when subsonic) ... it's all about the shape of the shockwave they form. Below a certain speed that shockwave touches the opposing foil, which apparently generates tremendous drag.

[Force_Feedback]

At what speed do you think that 'shockwave' (where is it coming from, not the wing fences themself, that's for sure) will be coming from? The actuators can't even turn those things to the angles of attack you propose, it's not some Python 5, the actuators just cant turn those things that far at maximum speeds. In that live fire video you can see the missile pitch up, but not with ridiculus turn rates.

 

Yes, that's the yellowish radome, same color for the R-77

[GGTharos]

The shockwave comes from -any- leading edge, the moment you go supersonic. It has nothing to do with turning the actuators, it's just bow shockwaves. What angles did I propose? There was no mention of angles there.

 

The idea behind this is simple ... your fin is made up of a numbr of cells that look something like this: <>

 

Each leading edge creates a shockwave - at 'low' superconic speeds, the missile isn't moving fast enough to prevent the shockwave from interacting with the opposing side of the cell. Once you get past a certain speed you're basically outrunning that effect.

[nscode]

In that live fire video

 

 

what video? :)

[Force_Feedback]

what video? :)

 

http://www.irkut.com/en/gallery/video/su30kn/

[tflash]

Zare's comments make perfectly sense.

[Pilotasso]

They wouldnt for those who realy understand the hardware or others who have heard otherwise.

[nscode]

You've shown how you really understand hardware... :music_whistling:

 

;)

[Pilotasso]

didnt include myself in that category ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Please do not turn this into R-77 thread. Open a new thread if you wish to discuss other mssiles.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

…so find us a photo of a R-27EA with a yellow -ish radome, and proximity fuses, then everybody will agree that this missile is service somewhere.

I doubt I will find a photograph of live R-27EA. Unless something, suddenly, pops up out of China. Something like this (with radome cover off):

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r274.asp

 

What I would like to have now is the Su-27K(Su-33) flight manual. Even late Su-27S/P flight manuals. But, ten maybe 15 years down the road, flight manuals will be declassified. I am here for a long run.

[zare]

Interesting info. What is the source of your information.

 

It's reliable information from an reliable non-www source. Thus, i cannot "prove" it. So it's up to you to accept it or not ;)

 

Also, if EA never entered service, why even today, AGAT still offeres 9B-1103M seeker. BTW, this is updated seeker, the original one was 9B-1103.

 

Because if you mount an 1103 onto the R-27ER, you'll get R-27EA. They are targeting R-27 users for potential upgrades. It doesn't make much sense now that RVV-AE is doing good on the export market together with new Flankers and Fulcrums, but latest ROE issue has R-33E listed also...that's an downgraded variant of the first Amos variant, and that first Amos variant isn't in active service anymore. So you should really question Russian export tactics.

 

If any missile had only 8G or 12G limit they wouldnt look like they could turn at all.

 

The 8G and 12G are respectable target limits for R-27 and R-77 series.

 

Regarding radar compatibiltiy I would ask Alfa for better info, I highly doubt that Su-27P could ever take the R-77 just like that. Reason why they dont carry it to this day.

 

Before you ask for "better" info, read my posts right. Specially modified Su-27P was used on R-77 tests. Stronger DSP which allowed TWS'ing two targets, some minor changes in FCS and an digital bypass channel on the radar to allow dual MCCU. In essence, this test-modified N001 was the base for N001M/V/VEP variants of Su-27SM/SKM and Su-30MKK. As you may know, they all use the same old, 80's vintage cassegrain antenna. Besides, what was the test platform for the R-77's, don't you think they needed to convert some of their aircraft for airborne missile tests?

 

I said that Su-27P can take R-27AE "just like that". With several big limitations. No TWS, no multiple engagement, and you still need to illuminate. The only difference is the terminal mode, with the ER you must stay with the target couple of seconds, with the EA you can go home and let the missile do it's job.

[Pilotasso]

The 8G and 12G are respectable target limits for R-27 and R-77 series.

 

Well then, be more specific next time. You didnt mention wich kind of limit it was, thus I assumed you were speaking of the airframe itself by default. :)