R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[DarkWanderer]

AIM120B and C-5 (C1-4 have a bit another design - they're optimised for close ranges) surely have more range than R-77. (Dont' know about D+ series) It's up to propellant composition, booster design and flight control programmes. But it doesn't mean such a range overwhelming - after 40km both 120C and 77 could be avoided by 4-5G turn.

About R-27 - i meant that 77 has more range with almost the same propellant mass and mixture. So the design with lattice rudders is more effective.

About 12G's - it was said somewhere that 77 "was reported to be able to intercept", not "was projected to intercept". And dont forget its wings arу quite larger than AIM120C+ and are positioned in center of the missile, so its acceptable target acceleration should be larger in cost of range.

But it's all about theory, the fact is that our army is searching for the alternative to the R-77.

[GGTharos]

You are correct, it is all educated speculation.

FYI, AIM-120D has +10cm rocket booster (more fuel), and also 2-way datalink.

[tflash]

No one is comparing with the yet-to-be fielded AIM-120D.

[GGTharos]

That's right, no one is. There was an implied question and there was an answer.

[RvETito]

But it's all about theory, the fact is that our army is searching for the alternative to the R-77.

 

Is the R-77 actualy in service for the Russian Air Force? AFAIK the only serial plane able to use it (MiG-29S, izd.9-13S) was officialy accepted in service in 1994(1 squadron) but... without the missile, by this time developped in independant Ukraine. And to be honest I've never seen a pic of a serial RAF 29S carrying an R-77- ERs and ETs yes but the 77- never.

[GGTharos]

Su-27SM can use them.

[tflash]

The relevance of R-77 is not so much with RuAF, but in its export guise RVV-AE where it seems to become rather prolific and as such a possible threat

[TucksonSonny]

 

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.

 

 

The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120C AMRAAM is in range and manoeuvrability. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant.

 

The missile's manoeuvrability relies on the "potato masher" fins at the rear. The R-77's aerodynamic configuration is claimed to provide superior manoeuvrability than the conventional deltas used on for example the AIM-120. The weapon is reported to be able to handle a target manoeuvring at up to 12g, a substantially higher rate than any manned fighter.

 

Of course we are not discussing the AIM-120D which is prototype/upgrade of the C under development.

 

Thus “12G” is thanks to the "potato masher"! Has nothing to do with what you are talking about…

[EvilBivol-1]

In my view, designing was not that far behind and soviets came up with some ingenious solutions (R-77 lattice rudders)...

Conventional wisdom that may be quite wrong. All design decisions have compromises. It's difficult to say if the benefits provided by the lattice design outweigh the costs, but given that no other air to air missile manufacturer is pursuing this "ingenious" solution, I tend to fall to the opinion that it was not as great as it has been touted. Might've been good for ICBMs - but not so much for air to air. But you're not going to read about that in any Yefim Gordon book.

s the R-77 actualy in service for the Russian Air Force? AFAIK the only serial plane able to use it (MiG-29S, izd.9-13S) was officialy accepted in service in 1994(1 squadron) but... without the missile, by this time developped in independant Ukraine. And to be honest I've never seen a pic of a serial RAF 29S carrying an R-77- ERs and ETs yes but the 77- never.

The R-77 as we know it doesn't exist. As you point out, it (well, certain parts of it - namely the seeker IIRC) were produced in Ukraine. What exists is its export version, the RVV-AE (which is produced in Russia). This is also the missile in Russian service - the export one. Peculiarities of manufacturing post-USSR, when Russia lost many of the production facilities for its weapons.

About the R-27AE - in my view the problem is not lack of evidence that the missile was or could've been produced. It just wasn't produced for the military. Either they didn't care for it or couldn't afford it or didn't like the Ukrainan connection - whatever. Point is, it is not and was not in service. A lot of newer and arguably better assault rifles have been produced by Russian gun designers, but the Army is still using the good old AK.

[GGTharos]

The mass/propellant ratios for both missiles are actually VERY similar (in fact, the 120's is higher) Unfortunately for the R-77, the R-77 is MUCH draggier. Sadly this means that if it did have any extra energy, it's wasting it.

 

The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120C AMRAAM is in range and manoeuvrability. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant.

 

Which is basically BS, since in the purest sense of execution is requires a 60g airframe minimum. The gridded fins generate huge amounts of drag at certain velocities, and very little at some others. THAT is their advantage, not 'increased maneuverability'. The moment that missile attempts to make some ridiculous, high-AoA, high-G turn, it'll be out of airspeed. That's all there is to it, and it's no different from the 120 or anything else. Conventional fins are entirely capable of pulling a 60g turn - even the sidewinder can do it (it's just that it would disintegrate trying) ... pulling G's is -strictly- a matter of airspeed, so please, stop repeating stuff that ain't true.

 

The missile's manoeuvrability relies on the "potato masher" fins at the rear. The R-77's aerodynamic configuration is claimed to provide superior manoeuvrability than the conventional deltas used on for example the AIM-120. The weapon is reported to be able to handle a target manoeuvring at up to 12g, a substantially higher rate than any manned fighter.

 

No one was discussing the AIM-120D.

The potato masher has nothing to do with what you're talking about, either. ;)

 

Of course we are not discussing the AIM-120D which is prototype/upgrade of the C under development.

 

Thus “12G” is thanks to the "potato masher"! Has nothing to do with what you are talking about…

[Pilotasso]

One has to wonder why the chinese opted for the fins а la AMRAAM for the PL-12 instead of the potato mashers from the RVV-AE wich it was based on. Guess they learned from the russian experience?

[TucksonSonny]

The mass/propellant ratios for both missiles are actually VERY similar (in fact, the 120's is higher) Unfortunately for the R-77, the R-77 is MUCH draggier. Sadly this means that if it did have any extra energy, it's wasting it.

 

[/font]

 

Which is basically BS, since in the purest sense of execution is requires a 60g airframe minimum. The gridded fins generate huge amounts of drag at certain velocities, and very little at some others. THAT is their advantage, not 'increased maneuverability'. The moment that missile attempts to make some ridiculous, high-AoA, high-G turn, it'll be out of airspeed. That's all there is to it, and it's no different from the 120 or anything else. Conventional fins are entirely capable of pulling a 60g turn - even the sidewinder can do it (it's just that it would disintegrate trying) ... pulling G's is -strictly- a matter of airspeed, so please, stop repeating stuff that ain't true.

 

Has nothing to do with speed!

 

12G is 12G even with different speed! ;)

 

You just said it “MUCH draggier”

 

These potato mashers are much draggier and as a result the missile can pull more G’s.

 

I am not saying that the R-77 is faster. I am saying that it has better range (even on lower speed).

If you want to boost the missiles (cruise)speed then you have to waste more propellant and as a result you have less range.

 

 

BTW a Mirage2000 can pull 13.5G. Airframe minimum?

[GGTharos]

Wrong. How many G's a missile can pull is a matter of airspeed. To hit a target maneuvering at 12g's you need to pull 60g's if you're a missile. Most missiles can physically achieve that g'loading if they don't disintegrate trying to reach it, for a VERY SHORT TIME, and a very narrow part of their flight envelope. Most missiles will disintegrate by the time they reach anything near 60g (or even 50 for that matter).

 

 

So you see, it has EVERYTHING to do with aisrpeed, and your options are as follows:

1. Have enough airspeed to pull 60G, but disintegrate trying.

2. Don't have enough airspeed to pull 60G, and miss.

[RedTiger]

Has nothing to do with speed!

 

12G is 12G even with different speed! ;)

 

EDIT: GGTharos beat me to it :(

 

He means that you have to have speed to pull Gs. If a missile is traveling really slow, say like 200 kph, it isn't going to pull as many Gs as if it were travelling 1200 kph.

[*Rage*]

Surely the most prolific thread ever:megalol:

[Pilotasso]

It even beat my R-27ET thread by 10 pages! :shocking:

 

I guess people like pet hatred threads :D

[mvsgas]

Surely the most prolific thread ever:megalol:

I know dude, and it's like over a year old and people are still arguing. It 's great:D

[*Rage*]

Hehe, ive been away for 9 months and thought id check the forums to see whats happening. Some things never change. You can set your clock to these 2 threads

 

Patch request thread

 

Missile thread

 

Still, nice to see new members as well as some old faces around.

[golfsierra2]

EDIT: GGTharos beat me to it :(

 

He means that you have to have speed to pull Gs. If a missile is traveling really slow, say like 200 kph, it isn't going to pull as many Gs as if it were travelling 1200 kph.

 

Depending on the rate of turn....

It's not all about speed. Speed it one of the two major factors.

Actually, G-force is a combination of rate of turn (Deg/sec) and speed.

 

At 200 kph, a hard turn will almost stop the missile's movement, because it will bleed off all it's speed (forward motion), however the missile would be able to generate still some G's, provided it's maneuverability allows for hard turns.

 

Try a hard turn at 50 mph in your car and you will know what I mean.... :smilewink:

[RvETito]

Su-27SM can use them.

 

So do many other planes like MiG-29M/2/35/K bla-bla Su-27SM/30MK/34/35 bla-bla-bla, but none of them is officialy in service for the RAF yet, except for the Su-34. Not sure whether the 27SM has passed the trials and is fully operational within the RAF. My question was whether the missile has been officialy accepted in service( even the export version RVV-AE which is the only one ever been in serial production), AFAIK in Russia that happens with decree of the president.

[RedTiger]

Depending on the rate of turn....

It's not all about speed. Speed it one of the two major factors.

Actually, G-force is a combination of rate of turn (Deg/sec) and speed.

 

At 200 kph, a hard turn will almost stop the missile's movement, because it will bleed off all it's speed (forward motion), however the missile would be able to generate still some G's, provided it's maneuverability allows for hard turns.

 

Try a hard turn at 50 mph in your car and you will know what I mean.... :smilewink:

 

 

Well...YEAH, obviously. I would think that the turning part is taken for granted, wouldn't you? How many Gs does your MiG pull when flying straight and level? To get the Gs, you have to turn. I was just stating it in simple terms; to get Gs, you need speed. You can't always expect something slow to turn hard and pull as many Gs as something moving fast and also pulling hard.

[EvilBivol-1]

So do many other planes like MiG-29M/2/35/K bla-bla Su-27SM/30MK/34/35 bla-bla-bla, but none of them is officialy in service for the RAF yet, except for the Su-34. Not sure whether the 27SM has passed the trials and is fully operational within the RAF. My question was whether the missile has been officialy accepted in service( even the export version RVV-AE which is the only one ever been in serial production), AFAIK in Russia that happens with decree of the president.

The Su-27SM is in operational service with one active regiment (two squadrons). Just a couple of weeks a go, a second regiment received its first two -SMs, so hopefully there will be another two squadrons flying it in the near future.

 

We're yet to see any photos of RVV-AEs onboard in-service Russian aircraft, but as far as I know, the missiles have been in low production for domestic use, in addition to export. What the Air Force has been doing with them, I don't know. There is no one reliable source for this, just various posts by various people who I trust to have reliable information.

[RvETito]

Copy, tnx.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The Su-27SM is in operational service with one active regiment (two squadrons). Just a couple of weeks a go, a second regiment received its first two -SMs, so hopefully there will be another two squadrons flying it in the near future.

I wonder what missiles are under thier wings? Any pictures?

[tflash]

The Su-27SM is in operational service with one active regiment (two squadrons). Just a couple of weeks a go, a second regiment received its first two -SMs, so hopefully there will be another two squadrons flying it in the near future.

 

We're yet to see any photos of RVV-AEs onboard in-service Russian aircraft, but as far as I know, the missiles have been in low production for domestic use, in addition to export. What the Air Force has been doing with them, I don't know. There is no one reliable source for this, just various posts by various people who I trust to have reliable information.

 

Fact is and remains that this is a realistic threat missile and that of course NATO forces would train in the expectance of facing a missile with its capabilities. Both Russia and China have the industrial depth to (re)produce it in sufficient numbers in a conflict scenario.

 

I honestly find nothing unrealistic in mounting this missile on Mig-29 or Su-27 in Lockon. It would be if we were to simulate historical events, but Lockon is not made for that. It has no reference to a clear timeframe or conflict.

 

This contrasts sharply with the likelyhood that you would ever face an R-27EA(AE).