R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[GGTharos]

The older the better, more in favor of my assumption that R-27A was available long time ago.

You failed to make your case. I provided photographs. You provided your opinion.

You might have a point here, however, I am looking for a good picture to prove that point.

Every photograph I found in the beginning was on Su-33. Su-27K(Su-33) came ten (10) years after Su-27S and su-27P. Su-33 entered the service after R-77 and AIM-120 entered the service. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that Su-33 was not able to carry and use some kind or Air to Air ARH missile. Most likely candidate was R-27A (EA, AE).

 

And therefore, there's WMDs in Iraq :D

[S77th-konkussion]

OH look a photo of the Loch Ness monster! That proves it. Phew! glad to have that matter resolved.

 

 

http://www.lochness.co.uk/livecam/images/lochnessmonster.jpg

[Deadman]

The older the better, more in favor of my assumption that R-27A was available long time ago.

 

Well you know what assumption means An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, in other words, that is treated for the sake of a given discussion as if it were known to be true. So you don't even lnow if its true or not

[GGTharos]

OH look a photo of the Loch Ness monster! That proves it. Phew! glad to have that matter resolved.

 

 

http://www.lochness.co.uk/livecam/images/lochnessmonster.jpg

 

 

THat's an obvious fake! This is Godzilla, not Nessie! Shame on you!

 

 

PHOTOSHOPPER!!!

[Pilotasso]

If you look at the back it doesnt have a hole either! :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

You'd have to lift the tail first to see that. :D

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The R-77 has never entered service THEN. It entered service NOW with the Su-27SM's.

Flaming Cliffs manual page 131, very first few sentences on the top of the page proves you wrong. Other available sources are citing the same timeframe.

If the Su-33 cant take the R-77, neither it would take R-27AE.

False analogy.

Theres was never the upgrade and the missile never entered service. Your speculating again.

There was nothing to upgrade for K-27 family of missiles. They were designed from the get go to fit the Su-27 family of aircraft.

Im sorry if I sound harsh, wich is not my intention but you simply want to push that idea forward in the absence of evidence and youll stick to that untill we prove otherwise.

You don’t sound harsh at all. You do not take available evidence as evidence. Rather you take them as a proof who is right and who is wrong. It does not matter who is right or wrong on this thread. What matters, is what are all those R-27A (EA, AE) missiles, real or mock ups, doing on those Su-33’s and Chinese Su-27’s.

Its not right, it should be proven that it is in the first place, and never taken granted untill then.

I am quoting doctors of sciences with their names. I am quoting professional world renown experts on Soviet Union and Russian military aviation and I show photographs. I try to make sense of these information. And I do speculate as well. However, I (try to) make sure that I say that I speculate.

 

There are many unanswered questions about R-27A (EA, AE) missiles.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Not to be mean or anything, but those are for sure R-27R bodies (on the Flanker in the foreground), and the lack of forward vanes on them and the big black stripes do indicate captive (inert/training/whatever, just not combat) rounds.

You are not mean, however, I do not understand where do you all come up with the idea that “forward vanes” are sometime removed from training (captive) missiles? What is the purpose of changing the missile aerodynamics by removing vital components from it? BTW, “forward vanes” (missile wings) are actually not removed from the missiles in the foreground. They are clearly there. What lacks on those missiles is canards. And in my opinion those canards are not there because those are not R, ER, T, ET or EM missiles (they all have canards on them).

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Incorrect. The AE was removed not because of user request but because the team knows that the missile has never entered Ru service and it was unrealistic to include it. As simple as that.

-Matt

Wags, here you imply that the missile existed but never entered Russian service. I would like to hear your comment about the existence of R-27A (AE, EA) missile. Thanks.

[SwingKid]

Wags, here you imply that the missile existed but never entered Russian service. I would like to hear your comment about the existence of R-27A (AE, EA) missile. Thanks.

 

I think that this journal contains some of the most recent, complete and accurate research on this topic:

 

http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?TVO-200602

 

Good luck,

 

-SK

[TucksonSonny]

Talking about the Lockon timeframe: I guess we have to remove the aim-120C’s (should be 120B’s).

BTW, the Su-30’s DO have R-77 in the same Lockon timeframe.

And a lock using AWACS datalink with the Su-27 while having his radar OFF should be possible in the same timeframe.

[Prophet_169th]

^^^

 

If locking with datalink is possible, that would be real interesting to see operating in game.

 

Sure would give those F15's a run for the money then.

 

Of course, with AWACS now and the Russian jets, it already give a really big advantage. Most the time if there are AWACS in the mission and I fly a russian jet, I hardly ever use the radar, almost always EOS.

[nscode]

I don't think anyone said it doesn't exist?

Only that it isn't equipped. Hajduk took it upon himself to find some imaginary R-27A/EAs in photographs.

 

Several people did.

 

So we should model everything that existed but didn't enter service?

 

No.. it was just for people I mentioned above :)

 

^^^

 

If locking with datalink is possible, that would be real interesting to see operating in game.

 

Sure would give those F15's a run for the money then.

 

Not really. It should then be added to both missiles (77 and 120).

[Pilotasso]

Flaming Cliffs manual page 131, very first few sentences on the top of the page proves you wrong. Other available sources are citing the same timeframe.

 

Made operation is not = In service, is it?

And the sentence near the bottom you apparently missed clearly states that its compatible with Mig-29C, Su-30 and Su-35, the later 2 never put into russian service...wheres the Su-27 or the Su33? :) oops you tripped again. :)

 

False analogy.

There was nothing to upgrade for K-27 family of missiles. They were designed from the get go to fit the Su-27 family of aircraft.

 

Oh? False? says who? you?

your saying because it fits in the missile rack its automaticaly compatible with the weapon? You have been told numerous times before, that means squat. The body maybe the same but the brains are not. And the plane wont talk to the missile.

Heres another analogy for your size:

Youll be able to mount evey BVR missile in the west into my countries block 15 F-16's. AMRAAM B/C/D, MICA, Derby, METEOR etc etc, but as you can guess they wont fire any of those weapons. ;)

 

You don’t sound harsh at all. You do not take available evidence as evidence. Rather you take them as a proof who is right and who is wrong. It does not matter who is right or wrong on this thread. What matters, is what are all those R-27A (EA, AE) missiles, real or mock ups, doing on those Su-33’s and Chinese Su-27’s.

 

You didnt present any evidence at all but R-27R's examples, mockups or otherwise. I dont see any difference between the missiles body from the R variant appart from the missine blades at the front wich being mockup (black stripes) are not needed for anything since those are only to make the aircraft feel like loaded with them , not actualy fire them.

I wont take you word that those are EA's just because you say so. Specialy if you arbitrated that conclusion yourself from photos on the internet and you havent provided a shred of any single referrence that the Su-33 can carry them. You just suppose they can.

 

Suposition from you is not evidence to me or any other, no matter how many turns arround the issue you give it.

 

BTW you told that chinese photo was false, why do say the contrary now? Your simply not consistent with anything you say about the missile.

 

Several people did.

If your talking about me then you are wrong. I dont think anyone else said it either. I didnt say the missile didnt exist, just that it isnt on the Su-33 in any of those photos.

If you browse my posts youll see that I know that it once existed and was proposed but not adopted by the RuAF. Theres a difference. Whatever it is in chinese service or not that is debatable, but I have to tell you that Im skeptical about it, but then again will have an open mind for future evidence that is is (or not). Even they do admit they would better off with the PL-12 and the R-77, so I wouldnt make much a fuss about it ingame because it would probably miss more often than the AMRAAM does. ;)

 

 

On nother note I dont give a rats a$$ about LOMAC's time frame. I just dont want it to be used as an argument to ditch the AMRAAM because the Su-27 doesnt have the R-77 or the R-27EA. On the other hand if theres only info for the APG-63. let it be so (its good enough IRL even today). If theres enough info on the Su-30MKI by all means let it be modeled. As long as the western aircraft are brought at least to a level where the real world tactics can also be used ingame, its fine by me.

[nscode]

Naah.. it wasn't you. don't remamber who it was, and i'm too lazy to look for it now. :) i go back to my pumpkin pie now :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Made operation is not = In service, is it?

And the sentence near the bottom you apparently missed clearly states that its compatible with Mig-29C, Su-30 and Su-35, the later 2 never put into russian service...wheres the Su-27 or the Su33? :) oops you tripped again. :)

Pilotasso, I’ve never said EVER, enywhere, that R-77 was in service on Su-27 or Su-33. I said that Su-33 entered service when R-77 entered service.

 

You didnt present any evidence at all but R-27R's examples, mockups or otherwise.

It is amazing that you and GGTharos are claiming that the missile that looks different from R-27R is R-27R. Just where is the sense of claiming that those photographs show R-27R with canards removed for training purpose? Somebody is loosing sanity here. Or there is something else going?

 

Those missile that I show photograph of, could be mockups, however, they are not R-27R mockups.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And yes, go ahead ;)

Here it is.

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/gallery/su-33_2.htm

 

Two missiles underneath the engine intakes are clearly missing the canards. They are not R, nor T missiles because every R or T missile has canards.

 

I really would like to know the meaning of the color code of the missiles. There is completely white, completely red and different paint schemes with black stripes.

[Pilotasso]

Black stripes are training rounds. You have been told that. Not wanting to go more in rethorics with you again. Im just here sitting wayting untill theres any referrence (not your assumptions) to the EA's on those photos.

 

Good luck in finding that. :)

[D-Scythe]

Hajduk, missing canards/whatever are INDICATIVE of a training missile. It's NOT a new missile. Militaries do it ALL the time.

 

[Pilotasso]

^^^^hypersonic AMRAAm's heh? ;)

[Force_Feedback]

Here it is.

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/gallery/su-33_2.htm

 

Two missiles underneath the engine intakes are clearly missing the canards. They are not R, nor T missiles because every R or T missile has canards.

 

I really would like to know the meaning of the color code of the missiles. There is completely white, completely red and different paint schemes with black stripes.

 

WHITE=Model, either for ground only (airshows), or airworthy, usually just the missile casing with bolted on moving parts, very little details.

 

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.

 

RED=Test missile, usually lacking a real warhead, but it has all the real missile systems, including rocket motor, used to test missiles by firing them, it can also be a ballistic test missile, so it has all the fins like the real deal, but no guidance section, and no warhead.

 

The 'missile' on that su-33 is a R-73 captive training missile, it stays on the rail, but it has a working seeker, so pilots can train locking things up with it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The 'missile' on that su-33 is a R-73 captive training missile, it stays on the rail, but it has a working seeker, so pilots can train locking things up with it.

Thanks for providing info on color scheme for Russian AA missiles.

 

I would question your assessment about the type of the missile underneath those Su-33 engines. They can not be R-73’s. Here’s the link again:

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/gallery/su-33_2.htm

[GGTharos]

R-27R.

[Pilotasso]

Its terrible when you have nothing else to hang on. :D

[Guest Pit.]

In 1986 is begun the work on creation of inertial- semi-active RGS-31 seeker for the advanced missile K-27EM (OKR “Malakhit”). During July 1991 of work on the theme “Malakhit” were stopped.

 

In 1989 of the Ministry of Defence because of reduction in the size of financing, connected with the reconstruction (Perestroika), forewent the continuation of works on rocket K -27A with ARGS of 9B-1103 and decided to concentrate efforts on the rocket R -77 with ARGS of 9B-1348 (NIR " Soyuz"). This GSN was created from 1982 together with GNPP “Istok”.

 

No K-27EA or EM ever, sorry.