R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[S77th-konkussion]

The entire topic itself is a big blob of irrelevance.

[Geier]

Radome shape. It is documented that the EA missile is only 20-something millimeters longer (or shorter) then the ER missile. The only way to distinguish between the two is the radome shape. EA missile has conical and ER is ogival radome shape.

 

I am on a business trip in Mongolia and don’t have my book with me. When I return, if needed, I can, tell what page in the book provides this info.

 

Regards,

 

Ok )) But tell me is this book an official issue of the Russian MA that prooves your opinion?

[Force_Feedback]

Does anyone know the story behind the photo? Was it done for the movie, or did it happen during practice/testing and then used on the big screen.

 

And it is relevant for this topic :)

 

For the movie.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Ok )) But tell me is this book an official issue of the Russian MA that prooves your opinion?

There is nothing official in this book. :) It is a book with a lots of very, very good pictures and very interesting text.

 

At this point I am looking for facts and am not interested in expressing my opinion on the subject of EA missiles. It looks like there is a lot's of pictures with inert EA missiles all over arround. Interesting ...

 

BTW, what is the "Russian MA"?

[Pilotasso]

you have to scan that part of the book where the author claims a cone shaped radome is attributed to the R-27EA. I would also want to see where he came about the factory specs confirming that difference. I doubt theres relies on any but on the word of interviewed people at airshows.

[Geier]

There is nothing official in this book. :) It is a book with a lots of very, very good pictures and very interesting text.

 

At this point I am looking for facts and am not interested in expressing my opinion on the subject of EA missiles.

Clear:)

It looks like there is a lot's of pictures with inert EA missiles all over arround. Interesting ...

Oh, mate, don't take it close to your hart;) I was just curious

BTW, what is the "Russian MA"?

Russian Military Agency):)

[Geier]

=4c= Hajduk Veljko

Would you be so kind to scan your book with EA info and data?

[Pilotasso]

I already asked that ok? :lol:

[Geier]

I already asked that ok? :lol:

Yep PA, +1:)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

=4c= Hajduk Veljko

Would you be so kind to scan your book with EA info and data?

No. I don't want to infringe copyright laws. That book is dirt cheap. It is something like 50 bucks or so.

[GGTharos]

Scanning excerpts is legal. Scanning the whole book is not.

[RedTiger]

Scan the excerpt? You guys must have had one hell of a fancy research paper in highschool/college! :lol: What ever happened to a bibliography?

 

 

Hajduk, how about a quote with a cite of the title and author of the book? I don't particularly care about the topic, but a simple quote and cite should be sufficient. You could also give the ISBN and maybe a link to a place that sells the book. I'd be interested in buying the book, actually.

[GGTharos]

I did! And beyond, too.

And really, I hated the daylights out of citations throughout it all. There's no need to go beyond what is suffient and he has already provided a link to the given book ;)

Besides which a quote is not sufficient; we're talking about pictures as well.

 

Scan the excerpt? You guys must have had one hell of a fancy research paper in highschool/college! :lol: What ever happened to a bibliography?

[X_Man]

Wait a sec? Isn't the R-27EA still in the game but has been reduced to a 1G limit? Is this a suggestion to remove the 1G limit and add the missile back in the game? Or am I just way out in left field?

[Force_Feedback]

Wait a sec? Isn't the R-27EA still in the game but has been reduced to a 1G limit? Is this a suggestion to remove the 1G limit and add the missile back in the game? Or am I just way out in left field?

 

The people who play online will start whining then, why I don't know, as there are loadout control scripts by now. So, what's the deal, afraid some 12 yrs old will shoot down your glorious virtual F-15 :megalol: It's a game ^

[RedTiger]

I did! And beyond, too.

And really, I hated the daylights out of citations throughout it all. There's no need to go beyond what is suffient and he has already provided a link to the given book ;)

Besides which a quote is not sufficient; we're talking about pictures as well.

 

If he provided a link to the book, and everyone is really set on proving him wrong, I'm sorry but its now the nay-sayer's responsibility to verify the source. This would be like a college professor expecting me to provide xerox copies of every page I cited in my write up. It just isn't necessary. I've read graduate theses with miles of foot notes, but not one reproduction of the source they were citing. We might be able to chalk this up to different disciplines so YMMV

 

If someone was really interested in seeing if I'm credible, I would kindly tell them that they must now track down my sources and do their own verification. I already did my legwork. ;) I do this from time to time on sources people cite on Wikipedia, for example.

[RedTiger]

The people who play online will start whining then, why I don't know, as there are loadout control scripts by now. So, what's the deal, afraid some 12 yrs old will shoot down your glorious virtual F-15 :megalol: It's a game ^

 

My observation: The online Lockon community walk a very fine line between trying to argue what is realistic and just admitting they want fairness. For example, say someone cites the fact that a Su-27 can't carry an Aim-54. This is 100% correct. However, they will then use this realism argument to justify what is fair.

 

Which are you really in favor of? You can basically have both in my example but arguing for one as a means to really promote the other is just plain surreptitious.

 

The problem is, realism /= fair. Let GG give you his opinion (as he will, as often as you ask for it ;):P:D) about how a 4 ship Eagle vs. 4 ship Flanker would REALLY end.

 

Either just be honest and say "I don't think x missile would be fair on x plane" and own up to the idea that you're basically asking a flight sim to make concessions for fairness. In some cases (like my Su-27 Phoenix example) your desire for fairness might be congruent with the realism arguement, but certainly not all the time!

 

The other option is argue in favor of realism with no regard as to what is fair. Notice how you never hear people do this? Who ever argues that they want their favorite plane nerfed because its too powerful? Its always the OTHER way 'round. ;)

 

EDIT: The Su-27/Aim-54 example is probably going to throw people off. I'll make it simple: the argument of "balance" in a combat flight sim is of very limited value. Realism is what we're after, right? You can argue for balance until you find yourself in a MiG-21 study sim at the business end of a F-15 study sim, and then your argument is just foolish. If you really want to play multiplayer and have things balanced, Unreal Tournament is that way =>

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk, how about a quote with a cite of the title and author of the book? I don't particularly care about the topic, but a simple quote and cite should be sufficient. You could also give the ISBN and maybe a link to a place that sells the book. I'd be interested in buying the book, actually.

 

Quote from the book:

"Outwardly the R27-AE can be discerned from the R-27ER by the conical shape of the radome instead of the usual ogival one, a feature which has reduced overal length by 45 mm (1 49/64 in)" End of quote.

 

Book name: Soviet/Russian Aircarft Weapons Since World War Two

Author: Yefim Gordon

Page: 48

ISBN 1-85780-188-1

Book can be found at Amazon.com for $29.67.

 

 

Same book on page 189 shows a picture of the Su-27SKM, 305 Gray, (test bed) with clearly reckognizible inert AE missile.

 

show inert AE missile on Su-27K (Su-33), on page 57.

 

Many pictures on this thread support Yefim's claim about the radome shape.

 

I have never found a picture of the "live" AE missile. One possible explination is that most live missiles we see picture of, have radome covered with red protection cap and one can not say for certain if the missile is ER or AE looking from a distance.

[mvsgas]

First of, =4c= Hajduk Veljko, good for you man, you have kept this thread open for a year now and wow, still fighting your cause. Anyway, I don't think non of us is going to be sure about any weapon system (aircraft, missile etc.) unless we develop or work on them. No matter how many book, web sites or photos you see, 90% of that info in inaccurate in some level, one way or another. So unless you are directly involve with a weapons system, you are going to get inaccurate specs from any source. I think anyway.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

First of, =4c= Hajduk Veljko, good for you man, you have kept this thread open for a year now and wow, still fighting your cause. Anyway, I don't think non of us is going to be sure about any weapon system (aircraft, missile etc.) unless we develop or work on them. No matter how many book, web sites or photos you see, 90% of that info in inaccurate in some level, one way or another. So unless you are directly involve with a weapons system, you are going to get inaccurate specs from any source. I think anyway.

Yes, you are right. Economy of the Soviet Union was in ruins for decades. Soviets were always behind western world in manufacturing and sometime designing military weapons. And because they were behind and we are talking military here, naturally, they kept their secrets as tight as possible. So we will never know facts about certain weapons programs. In my view, designing was not that far behind and soviets came up with some ingenious solutions (R-77 lattice rudders) that gave the Soviets the edge in some areas… BTW R-77 was designed for 4+ generation of fighters.

 

R-27AE is an interesting missile because it was born as part of the first Soviet A-A missile of a modular design. This was a missile designed for the 4th generation fighters. K-27, product 470, series of missiles shared modules (module 1 – seeker, module 2 - proximity fuse and autopilot, module 3 - rudders, module 4 - warhead, module 5 – solid fuel rocket motor). Section 4 is the same for all missiles and other sections can be mixed and matched for range and specific mission type.

 

There is no secret that AGAT makes Active Radar seeker 9B-1103М, for R-27 missiles, updated version of the original 9B-1103 seeker. So, the seeker is available, the rocket motor is there, the proximity fuse is there, numerous pictures of the inert AE missiles are all over around, well, it might be interesting to continue researching the interesting history of this missile …

 

Regards,

[Pilotasso]

The missile may be "there" but only gathering dust and rust. No doubt it existed, once. Maybe the few examples ever made got sold out, but long since past their service lives. Remenber were talking about early 1990's here.

 

There would have to be alot more than Yefin gordons book to prove the missiles is still carried today, or if ever it was in service by any operator at all.

[GGTharos]

Design was no so far behind that the R-77 couldn't be produced, but ARH seekers were neither terribly new at the time (the US had one since the AIM-54, and miniturization was the problem that prevented them from putting it on Sparrow in a timely fashion), nor were the lattice fins ever a new solution - they were used on long range ballistic missiles. It was a neat idea to use them on an AAM, but thanks to their peculiar aerodynamics, they very likely shortened the range of the R-77.

This, combine with electronics manufacture defficiencies, takes away any real or imagined edge the R-77 may have had over the AMRAAM, and gives it to the AMRAAM, which is continuously developed and updated.

This and other reasons is why the Russians are looking to replace the R-77 with a new missile.

 

As for the whole 'modular missile' thing, Russia started building modular missiles when they captured a US Sidewinder missile ... I wonder why? ;) The US has been using the modulatiry of its missiles almost since conception, enabling upgrades of specific components, or turning something like the Sidewinder into an IR/SAR/Anti-Radiation missile. The Sparrow also received an AR seeker, and was subsequently called the Shrike. The same was done with a version of the Standard missile.

 

. In my view, designing was not that far behind and soviets came up with some ingenious solutions (R-77 lattice rudders) that gave the Soviets the edge in some areas… BTW R-77 was designed for 4+ generation of fighters.

[DarkWanderer]

GGTharos, compare the range and maneuvrability of 77th and 27th (not E). They have almost the same propellant charge - snd with that almost same range, though 27th is limited by 8G, while 77 - 12.

The wave interaction drag you're talking about considerably acts only on speeds<~1.5M, where the missile capabilities are already limited.

[mvsgas]

...And because they were behind and we are talking military here, naturally, they kept their secrets as tight as possible...

...There is no secret that AGAT makes Active Radar seeker 9B-1103М, for R-27 missiles, updated version of the original 9B-1103 seeker. So, the seeker is available, the rocket motor is there, the proximity fuse is there, numerous pictures of the inert AE missiles are all over around...

Regards,

 

I did not meant secrets, I will try to explain. If I bring an old subject sorry but after page 10 of this thread I got lost. Anyway, what I mean is that any document or photos of a weapons system ( aircraft or weapons etc.) will get out dated fairly quickly. Even the manuals created by the company or air force (any country) that determine how to maintain or repair that equipment will change as often as every moth or so in some cases. Lets say that the company that manufactures the equipment find a cheaper fuel (burn the same amount of time same thrust) but the new fuel performs or it is store better at a different temperature. That alone would affect the missile manuals and it operational limitations. Sorry to draw out my point, what I'm trying to say is that just by changing the fuel on that system you have completely change the specks, making manuals/ information inaccurate. Unless you can get information updates every month from the air force (again any countries air force) or the company that created, designed or maintains that equipment, I believe, you will get inaccurate information. Sorry but I keep hearing people quoting books, web site , photos or old air force document. Most of this things are outdated in some way, even when they are a month old, not to mention 10 years old. I do not know anything about R-27 (any version) nor do I know how does it work IRL. I don't care if it's used in the game or not, I'm only questioning the information available to us, the general public. Wow that was longer than I wanted to, sorry.

[GGTharos]

You are correct - but consider this: The missile must usually accelerate from M0.9 or so to its top speed. So it is accelerating through that area of high drag, meaning propellant energy is being wasted on 'pushing through' this area. This decreases missile range, since it basically lowers top speed. If you launch the missile from mach 1.5 or so, then things are different (lattice fins are less draggy at this point than conventional surfaces IIRC).

 

I'm fairly certain the R-77 isn't really 12g target terminal - it's probably 9 ... this already means it needs a 50g airframe.

 

But - if you are saying the R-27R and R-77 have similar range, then the AIM-120 outranges the 77 ... so I think 77's aerodynamics probably give it significant range over the R-27 (whose max. range at 10000m is about 35km ... for AMRAAM-C is it about 70).

 

GGTharos, compare the range and maneuvrability of 77th and 27th (not E). They have almost the same propellant charge - snd with that almost same range, though 27th is limited by 8G, while 77 - 12.

The wave interaction drag you're talking about considerably acts only on speeds<~1.5M, where the missile capabilities are already limited.