R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[zare]

Ok, noted. However, every time i discussed MRAAM's, it was "for granted" that mentioned G-limits were target ones. However, when discussing SRAAM's, mentioned G-limits refer to airframe itself. Habbits, habbits... ;)

[Alfa]

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

 

No they aren't - the max target G-load stated for the RVV-AE is 9 - it is 12G for the thrust vectored R-73.

 

Besides, what was the test platform for the R-77's..

 

MiG-29M(9-15), MiG-29K(9-31) and Su-35(T-10M) with NIIR-N010 and NIIP-N011 slotted arrays respectively? - those were the radars the R-77 was originally designed for in the late 1980ies.

 

...don't you think they needed to convert some of their aircraft for airborne missile tests?

Apart from having seen early photos of a R-77 test launch from a MiG-29M, there is the MiG-29S(9-13S) with upgraded N019M from ~ 1993(IIRC), enough airframes to equip an air regiment were produced and have been in active service with the Russian airforce for many years now.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Inert R27-EA missle on Su-27SK(M?).

 

Image found at Sukhoi web page.

 

[Pilotasso]

We have Inert AIM-120C5 missiles, doesnt mean we have the real deal. Im still trying to figure out wich model we do have... B or vanilla C.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Another picture of (inerrt) EA missile.

 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1189794&size=L&TopOfYest=yes

[yar]

if Su-27 gets R-27EA, the F-15 should get a aim-120-c4 (1999) or aim-120-c5 (2000)

 

 

Im still trying to figure out wich model we do have... B or vanilla C.

none .. A/B/C are faster, have a bigger range and so on....

 

a real aim-120a would be better than those "aim-120c" in lock on ;)

[192nd_Erdem]

Please, let this thread die.

[yar]

Please, let this thread die.

i think close should be enough ;)

[Azrayen]

Please, let this thread die.

Ahem, answering isn't the best way to do so, is it ?

(sorry, didn't mean to be rude, as I know this dilemma, too) ;)

 

Hajduk Veljko => Legend of the pic :

"This flight is a part of making the movie "The Mirrored Wars" at the South of Russia."

That's a movie, a fiction. I didn't see it, but remembered of the trailer : a sort of russian mix of James Bond and True Lies.

I personnaly don't take Die Hard 4 as a reference on the specifications of the F-35 ;)

 

Cheers,

Az'

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk Veljko => Legend of the pic ...

Oh, well, I do know where the picture comes from. I can read englsih too! :thumbup:

 

 

Cheers bro,

[yar]

if Su-27 gets R-27EA, the F-15 should get a aim-120-c4 (1999) or aim-120-c5 (2000)

short question to veljko: whats wrong with it?!? :blink:

what problem do you have with this sentence?

[nscode]

Ahem, answering isn't the best way to do so, is it ?

(sorry, didn't mean to be rude, as I know this dilemma, too) ;)

 

Hajduk Veljko => Legend of the pic :

"This flight is a part of making the movie "The Mirrored Wars" at the South of Russia."

That's a movie, a fiction. I didn't see it, but remembered of the trailer : a sort of russian mix of James Bond and True Lies.

I personnaly don't take Die Hard 4 as a reference on the specifications of the F-35 ;)

 

Cheers,

Az'

 

So what if it's for a movie? It's a real plane with real inert missiles. Don't think anyone disputed the existence of either Su-35 or inert models anyway ;)

[Geier]

Another picture of (inerrt) EA missile.

 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1189794&size=L&TopOfYest=yes

Why do you suppose this missile is EA and not simple ER?

[D-Scythe]

Why do you suppose this missile is EA and not simple ER?

 

Because anything not explicitly labelled as an R-27ER is automatically an EA.

[Geier]

Because anything not explicitly labelled as an R-27ER is automatically an EA.

LOL, interesting suggestion.

Something like that old attorney's joke - You're not guilty till it'll be proved by the court:P

[tflash]

Why do you suppose this missile is EA and not simple ER?

 

Geier, your sentence summarizes, characterizes and exemplifies this classic thread in a most elegant and concise way.

 

I guess you've won a prize or something. :smartass:

[MiGMadness]

Why do you suppose this missile is EA and not simple ER?

 

 

Missile radome shape.

[yar]

:blink: right, there is realy a difference:

 

R-27ER

 



R-27EA

 

 

 

please tell me, if im wrong, but:

 

on the picture i can see a Su-35 but not a Su-27 (i know, the '35 is a improved '27).

so you cant suggest - if the Flanker E can carry it, the Flanker B can it too

on the other hand: if the su-27 is ready to use the 'EA, im not shure if this can realised (because of costs etc.)

[Alfa]

Missile radome shape.

 

Why would the radome shape be any different for a SARH versus an ARH seeker? :)

[GGTharos]

It's more of a case of it being different for a different radio band, but then again, going to a cone from a bullet tip would probably just distort things more ... I thought the conical tips were dummy missiles ;)

 

Besides. Only one person here doesn't seem to realize that the R-27EA was never and will never be fielded for reasons mentioned a long time ago ;)

[Alfa]

It's more of a case of it being different for a different radio band, but then again, going to a cone from a bullet tip would probably just distort things more

 

The R-77 has an ARH seeker very similar(same manufacturer) to that proposed for the R-27AE - yet the R-77 does not have a conical radome :) . The length of the radome may be altered for a particular radar seeker type in order for its antenna to have room to move inside it, but the shape is all down to aerodynamics.

 

... I thought the conical tips were dummy missiles ;)

 

......for which neither radar seekers nor doing ~ Mach 4 is much of a concern ;) .

[RvETito]

Hey Alfa, good to see you back mate ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Why do you suppose this missile is EA and not simple ER?

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,

[Azrayen]

So what if it's for a movie? It's a real plane with real inert missiles. Don't think anyone disputed the existence of either Su-35 or inert models anyway ;)

 

Yes, you're perfectly right.

 

I just meant that, because it's from a movie, it doesn't mean that R-27EA has been / is / will be used on operationnal Su-27/35.

And why speaking of operationnal planes ? Well, long time ago at the beginning of this thread, this was the subject ;)

 

Cheers

Az'

[nscode]

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 :)