R-77 for Sukhoi's

[mvsgas]

So this is the RVV-SD, the first operational R-77 with the VVS?

gpVEWipSx5k

So what are the distinguishable feature or characteristics (If any)? With so little markings, is hard to tell.

Do they have to be loaded on those specific launchers? Is that a DKU-170 or AKU-170

Edited July 17, 2017 by mvsgas

[Esac_mirmidon]

АКУ-170 it´s only the acronymus of Авиационное катапультное устройство, or Aviation Ejector Device.

 

And yes the RVV-SD must use this ejector rack.

 

And as far as i know Syria is the first operational use of the new missiles with the VVS.

 

From the Oficial Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC:

 

Launch range, km:

 

maximum to the front semi-sphere up to 110

minimum to the rear semi-sphere 0,3

Flight altitudes of the targets being hit, km: 0,02 to 25

Launch weight, kg. max. 190

Overall dimensions, m:

length 3,71

diameter 0,2

wing span 0,42

rudder span 0,68

[Alfa]

 

So then why MiG29S has R77 but Su27 doesn't in DCS and how come it took so long to transfer pylons and fire control system from Fulcrum to Flanker in RL?

 

I have always been sceptical about the "MiG-29S" actually existing in the Russian inventory. During the development of the MiG-29M(9.15) in the latter part of the eighties, "baseline" MiG-29s(9.12 and 9.13) were modified and used for testing individual components for the MiG-29M - these included the RD-33K engine, the N010 "Zhuk" radar, and R-77 missile. In the case of the latter, several 9.12s had modified N019 radars in order to support the missile.

 

So when the MiG-29M development was halted in 1992(after the collapse of the SU) and the US started to induct the AIM-120, its not difficult to see where MIG got the idea for the "MiG-29S" as a cost effective R-77 compatible alternative. But whether the Russian airforce actually ever got such a version is another matter - its hard to tell since it is visually indistinguishable from the MiG-29(9.13).

 

Was there some version of Su27S that was R77(domestic version) capable in the meantime?

 

No - the Su-27 version slated for the R-77 missile was the Su-27M(Su-35), which suffered the same initial fate as the MiG-29M. The first "baseline" Su-27s upgraded(Su-27SM) compatible with the weapon entered service much later - as GG said, around 2004.

[Alfa]

I was told 120A. There was no explanation unfortunately.

 

Maybe he simply meant it as the first version of the R-77 being an equivalent of the first version of the AIM-120 :) .

 

The seeker being re-programmable is only a small part of the missile as a whole being re-programmable though. Anyway, not a big deal :)

 

Yes but on the other hand AFAIK the re-progammable bit was the only difference between the AIM-120A and AIM-120B...no?

 

Makes sense. A smaller warhead could also free up a lot of weight.

 

Yes but I don't know anything about the warhead of the RVV-SD.

[Alfa]

So this is the RVV-SD, the first operational R-77 with the VVS?

 

So what are the distinguishable feature or characteristics (If any)? With so little markings, is hard to tell.

 

As you can gather from what Esac_mirmidon wrote, the RVV-SD is a little longer than the RVV-AE, but other than that its hard to tell the difference.

 

Do they have to be loaded on those specific launchers? Is that a DKU-170 or AKU-170

 

Yes they use the same AKU-170 ejector rack as the RVV-AE. I believe at an earlier point, there was also an APU-170 rail launcher for the R-77, but I haven't seen any mention of it in recent years - maybe it was deemed unnecessary and abandoned.

 

Edit: photo of MiG-29M(9.15) with R-77 on APU-170 launcher.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Alfa
added photo

[Svend_Dellepude]

 

Edit: photo of MiG-29M(9.15) with R-77 on APU-170 launcher.

 

Looks very much like a dummy.

[Dudikoff]

So when the MiG-29M development was halted in 1992(after the collapse of the SU) and the US started to induct the AIM-120, its not difficult to see where MIG got the idea for the "MiG-29S" as a cost effective R-77 compatible alternative. But whether the Russian airforce actually ever got such a version is another matter - its hard to tell since it is visually indistinguishable from the MiG-29(9.13).

 

From what I've read at several places (and I had to refresh my memory), of the less than 50 made, only 16 made it to VVS in 1992, with only one squadron fielded at Shaykovka AB and shortly used by 73 GvIAP (which arrived from East Germany) after which they went to 14th IAP at Kursk. The other 4 were delivered to test centers (2 went to Lipetsk and 2 went to Akhtubinsk). But, of course, since the VVS never bought the R-77 missiles except a small quantity for tests, even if they were fielded, it wouldn't have made much difference.

 

I've also found on some forum claims that they were recently converted to SMT and deployed to Armenia.

 

But, you've probably read this already.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Alfa]

Looks very much like a dummy.

 

Yes the missile does, but the associated launcher doesn't and if you zoom in(near the middle of the R-77), you can see that it says "АПУ-170" on it......which was the interesting bit about the photo :)

[Svend_Dellepude]

Got ya!

[Alfa]

From what I've read at several places (and I had to refresh my memory), of the less than 50 made, only 16 made it to VVS in 1992, with only one squadron fielded at Shaykovka AB and shortly used by 73 GvIAP (which arrived from East Germany) after which they went to 14th IAP at Kursk. The other 4 were delivered to test centers (2 went to Lipetsk and 2 went to Akhtubinsk). But, of course, since the VVS never bought the R-77 missiles except a small quantity for tests, even if they were fielded, it wouldn't have made much difference.

 

I've also found on some forum claims that they were recently converted to SMT and deployed to Armenia.

 

But, you've probably read this already.

 

Yeah I have Dudikoff(except the part about conversion to SMT/Armenia) - the problem is that we don't really know where this information came from originally and since you cannot tell a 9.13S from a "regular" 9.13 externally, its difficult to determine whether they have the radar modification or not :) .

[Esac_mirmidon]

In the end it doesnt matter any more.

 

Before they where no R-77 to benefit from, and now the new models ( SMT, Su-35, Su-27Sm, Su-34, PAK-FA ) are going to use a new RVV-SD. So for practical use there is no need to discuss much more about R-77.

 

Of course for DCS debate is still interesting the guess about Mig-29S with R-77.

[GGTharos]

Maybe he simply meant it as the first version of the R-77 being an equivalent of the first version of the AIM-120 :) .

 

I can try to dig up that discussion again but not sure I want to spend the time - the question was about capability; maybe it's re programmable but doesn't have enough R&D put into it to really make it that superior to the 120A. I don't know, it's pure speculation from things I've heard.

 

Yes but on the other hand AFAIK the re-progammable bit was the only difference between the AIM-120A and AIM-120B...no?

 

No, but it was the most significant difference IMHO - EEPROMs were used for almost every module - seeker, guidance, fuze, autopilot. :)

 

Yes but I don't know anything about the warhead of the RVV-SD.

 

Yep, it's not listed. OTOH the R-77 warhead is 22.5kg. Comparing to the 120, I suppose they have enough room for improvement in there to shave off some 5kg. In any case, that's 20kg of useable weight that could be approximately 14kg of extra fuel total (based on average weight ratio of rocket motor to rocket fuel contained within) ... which is a LOT of extra fuel.

[JunMcKill]

I think that the real problem is not to simulate the R-77 flight profile in DCS, but to really find the info about the HUD/radar modes to launch it for several targets at the same time, not using the standard STT lock mode like the SARH missiles and currently simulated in the DCS MIG-29S

[mvsgas]

АКУ-170 it´s only the acronymus of Авиационное катапультное устройство, or Aviation Ejector Device.

And yes the RVV-SD must use this ejector rack.

And as far as i know Syria is the first operational use of the new missiles with the VVS.

 

 

As you can gather from what Esac_mirmidon wrote, the RVV-SD is a little longer than the RVV-AE, but other than that its hard to tell the difference.

 

Thanks, I was just hoping they where like western missiles where information is stencil on the outside of the missile and are (in some occasions) easy to tell apart. ie AIM-120A fins vs A-120C. Also the band color code, the yellow band indicating explosive and the brown ban indicating rocket motor, blue inert or training etc.

[Dudikoff]

I think that the real problem is not to simulate the R-77 flight profile in DCS, but to really find the info about the HUD/radar modes to launch it for several targets at the same time, not using the standard STT lock mode like the SARH missiles and currently simulated in the DCS MIG-29S

 

They already did and some approximation of it has been in the FC3 for a long time - the dual target engagement mode (SNP2) that the real 9.13S supported.

[Dudikoff]

Yeah I have Dudikoff(except the part about conversion to SMT/Armenia) - the problem is that we don't really know where this information came from originally and since you cannot tell a 9.13S from a "regular" 9.13 externally, its difficult to determine whether they have the radar modification or not :) .

 

Of course, these could just be repeated rumors, but the story sounds convincing enough. 9.13S did enter production and it was planned to enter VVS service.

 

It sounds perfectly plausible that deliveries to operational and test units started, but were stopped when SU fell apart and VVS couldn't pay (or didn't need?) for the rest so the remaining produced units were reused for export (e.g. Malaysia) and perhaps some further test variants.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Dudikoff

[*Rage*]

Not a picture of it on an aircraft, but here is a little bit on the long range RVV-BD from Vympel's web site: http://vympelmkb.com/products/rvv-bd-raketa-klassa-vozduh-vozduh/170/

 

Thanks Alfa, nice to see you around again. Is it operational? Which airframe is it designed for?

 

I think its better we stop using 'R77' except in historical terms as only the RVV-AE and RVV-SD are operationally relevant.

Edited July 18, 2017 by ///Rage

[Dudikoff]

I think its better we stop using 'R77' except in historical terms as only the RVV-AE and RVV-SD are operationally relevant.

 

What about R-77-1?

[*Rage*]

Izdeliye 170-1 = R-77-1 = RVV-SD, no?

[Dudikoff]

Izdeliye 170-1 = R-77-1 = RVV-SD, no?

 

RVV-SD is the export variant, while R-77-1 is the RuAF variant. I'm not sure what internal differences are there between them, but during Soviet times there was a practice of making the export variants slightly less capable (e.g. some ECCM capabilities of the seeker).

 

Either way, if we're talking about operationally relevant designations, IMHO R-77-1 should be used in the context of RuAF planes since (unlike the R-77 apparently) this variant has been put in active service.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Esac_mirmidon]

Yes, is more accurated to talk about R-77-1

[*Rage*]

I wasnt aware that RVV-SD is available for export! What are chinese purchased Su35s equipped with?

[Sweep]

I wasnt aware that RVV-SD is available for export! What are chinese purchased Su35s equipped with?

 

PL-12s?

[JunMcKill]

That is not true, you dont need to STT any target to launch a missile that will be guided to an aproximate point using INS and his own radar in the final stage (pitbull), what is the point to STT one target if you will launch two missiles to differents aircraft? absurd, they did that in DCS because the logic used in all the FC3 russian aircraft use STT, thats all

 

Of course, these could just be repeated rumors, but the story sounds convincing enough. 9.13S did enter production and it was planned to enter VVS service.

 

It sounds perfectly plausible that deliveries to operational and test units started, but were stopped when SU fell apart and VVS couldn't pay (or didn't need?) for the rest so the remaining produced units were reused for export (e.g. Malaysia) and perhaps some further test variants.

[IASGATG]

I am speaking for ignorance here, so feel free to correct me.

 

Most (Apart from very modern) SARH's don't have rear receivers, so they have no "M-link" "Missile Message" "Data-link" guidance. They fly purely on the returns on the (typically) HPRF track of the radar into their radar receiver. As far as I'm aware, the R-27 has no rear receiver, nor do any other weapons launched by the MiG-29/Su-27.

 

So the question comes, does the MiG-29/Su-27 radar possess the ability to transmit messages to missiles with a rear receiver? Even in the radar is able to TWS a target, it doesn't mean it is able to communicate that information to a launched weapon.

 

Looking at the AWG-9 in the F-14, it can TWS targets, however it cannot communicate to the AIM-7 via missile message. In fact it cannot communicate to the AIM-54 via missile message if its locking a target STT.

 

Presumably a radar upgrade would be needed?