Jump to content

R-27ER update?


Schmidtfire

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't be surprised if some R-27R/ER were upgraded with active seekers and sneaky Russians not telling us about it. R-27 family is highly modular design

There is an active seeker model, the R-27EA. We just don't have it in DCS.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As anyone can see. Based to that graph the AIM-7 still has far better range when the target is about 30-60 degree angle, and it has shorter direct head-on distance.

Now if that would be just the kinematic range, it could be understandable that 0 degree is always better.

 

This is incorrect, I believe. I believe the reason why these graphs are shown as such (at least the AIM-7 one, I am still very unsure about what the R-27 one means) is because this is what the pilots are told to launch at. That is, the pilot just needs to know - what is the max range they can launch the missile at a target in the given conditions? It therefore is not just an RCS or kinematic envelope shown - it appears to be the envelope shown with both involved. Where the seeker pickup range is the limiting factor, we see this since the range at 40k feet is only a bit longer than the sea level range. But tail-on, perhaps the RCS is still quite visible at over 15 nm but now the kinematic performance of the missile limits the range. The pilot needs to know only the limiting of the two factors.

 

Evidence: If we look at the 40k launch graph roughly, at ~60 deg. aspect, the x-component is ~8 nm and the y-component is ~20 nm. R = (x^2 + y^2)^0.5 and you get R ~ 21.5 nm. Bang-on with the max seeker range which is therefore the limiting factor (or maybe kinematic range and RCS range intersect here).

 

EDIT: I'm starting the think it may just be semantics between "distance" and "range" on this particular AIM-7 graph because as mentioned earlier, a launch range of ~4.8 nm behind the co-alt co-speed target at SL does not give a 0 "missile total distance". If I were a pilot just reading this high-level information, I would just see that "distance" is used simply as the "distance from the target" in the y-axis. It would certainly be less confusing if they just called both "range" or both "distance".


Edited by SgtPappy
Added and shown above
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is assuming T/ET has to acquire target with IR seeker at the moment of launch (LOBL). It would not make sense to design such a large missile and use it like R-73/Sidewinder.

 

There is no assumption. There is no LOAL capability for the T/ET, and the WCS will not generate the m-link for a non-RF missile.

 

If you go head on/9-3 to minimize IR signature you're making it easier for R to hit you.

 

This is just a game thing.

 

Other possible explanation theories were:

- T/ET only for tail chase rear aspect of fast fleeing targets (rather specific scenario, not very likely)

- rear aspect shots because of seeker/radar issues on early models vs targets going cold (medium PRF).

 

The heat seeker is there due to the poor capabilities of the radars and significant ECM capability as well as the speed of the opposing bombers.

 

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if some R-27R/ER were upgraded with active seekers and sneaky Russians not telling us about it. R-27 family is highly modular design

 

Imagine how surprised everyone was ages ago when it turned out that active seekers on the R-27 family were a paper product, and were thus removed from the game. ARH is the domain of the R-77 and subsequent projects.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incorrect, I believe. I believe the reason why these graphs are shown as such (at least the AIM-7 one, I am still very unsure about what the R-27 one means) is because this is what the pilots are told to launch at. That is, the pilot just needs to know - what is the max range they can launch the missile at a target in the given conditions?

 

You can either give the pilot all the variables that are changing everything, or you give them nothing else than simple term. Like "launch at 20 nmi and you are always good!".

 

 

 

It therefore is not just an RCS or kinematic envelope shown - it appears to be the envelope shown with both involved. Where the seeker pickup range is the limiting factor, we see this since the range at 40k feet is only a bit longer than the sea level range. But tail-on, perhaps the RCS is still quite visible at over 15 nm but now the kinematic performance of the missile limits the range. The pilot needs to know only the limiting of the two factors.

 

Pilot needs to know the all factors so they can train for them. So they can get creative and apply their knowledge in practice.

 

Evidence: If we look at the 40k launch graph roughly, at ~60 deg. aspect, the x-component is ~8 nm and the y-component is ~20 nm. R = (x^2 + y^2)^0.5 and you get R ~ 21.5 nm. Bang-on with the max seeker range which is therefore the limiting factor (or maybe kinematic range and RCS range intersect here).

 

So your evidence is: "Just launch at 20 nmi range and you always hit the target regardless of anything". No need for any graphics, no need to train the pilots for anything about the missiles, radars or flying, just tell them to get to 20 nmi range with the AIM-7 and launch it.

 

EDIT: I'm starting the think it may just be semantics between "distance" and "range" on this particular AIM-7 graph because as mentioned earlier, a launch range of ~4.8 nm behind the co-alt co-speed target at SL does not give a 0 "missile total distance". If I were a pilot just reading this high-level information, I would just see that "distance" is used simply as the "distance from the target" in the y-axis. It would certainly be less confusing if they just called both "range" or both "distance".

 

There is reason why you have "distance" and "range" for two different axis, and why you have BOTH sides, left and right angle of the target.

 

I am requesting that someone gives the few pages before and after that graphic that are explaining everything in detail that how that graphic should exactly be readed.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
R-27T/ET have INS

Not.

IR missiles 27T/ET have not INS.

Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can either give the pilot all the variables that are changing everything, or you give them nothing else than simple term. Like "launch at 20 nmi and you are always good!".

 

Pilot needs to know the all factors so they can train for them. So they can get creative and apply their knowledge in practice.

 

That is what the manual is for. This is meant to be a high-level, intuitive, illustrative image to give an idea of what the range is like. The pilot will get the general idea here, but of course they still need to read the weapons manual for the F-15 to learn how to properly employ the weapon for every situation that is not a sea level or 40,000 ft co-alt, Mach 0.9 co-speed engagement against a 2m^2, non-maneuvering target at ISA day (or whatever they tested these at).

 

So your evidence is: "Just launch at 20 nmi range and you always hit the target regardless of anything". No need for any graphics, no need to train the pilots for anything about the missiles, radars or flying, just tell them to get to 20 nmi range with the AIM-7 and launch it.

 

There is reason why you have "distance" and "range" for two different axis, and why you have BOTH sides, left and right angle of the target.

 

lol what? My evidence is the Pythagorean formula to find the length of vectors to prove that the ranges shown on the graph align at 0 deg. aspect and 60 deg. aspect which can only mean that the RCS is the limit at these aspects on THIS particular graph. "Launch at this range and you will hit the target for sure in real life" was not a conclusion there. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

 

I am requesting that someone gives the few pages before and after that graphic that are explaining everything in detail that how that graphic should exactly be readed.

 

This is the link, but I don't think it helps much: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf It does however on the very last page say that "the missile may be launched with this envelope". Note it says "may be launched" with no indication of Pk. This implies that the envelope in the page above really does just show a launch envelope and not a "range" vs "missile travel distance". I'm fairly convinced it's got to just be a graph showing 2D space with the x and y axes.


Edited by SgtPappy
Added pdf for the sparrow graphs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The E rocket is a pretty zippy rocket. It's FAST.

 

Yeah I know.

 

That's up to their assumptions. Maybe they're not the same parameters for the two statements.

 

Well they are illustrated as comparative specifications, so I don't know. Maybe they are just trying to make the -R look a little better than it is :) .....it does look a little funny that they state a rather loose "50 -60 km" for that and a very specific "60 - 62,5" for the -ER :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine how surprised everyone was ages ago when it turned out that active seekers on the R-27 family were a paper product, and were thus removed from the game. ARH is the domain of the R-77 and subsequent projects.

I was not aware it never entered production, shame.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC the datalink operation time is pre-computed for the given launch distance to cover a certain portion of the TOF, after that it assumes the seeker has taken over. The missile's operating time is 60sec according to the manual, though I've seen graphs for slightly longer times for the ER.

 

Yes you are right - the operating time is not specifically for datalink operation, but the total operating time for the electronics as such(I guess duration for the onboard power supply).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not.

IR missiles 27T/ET have not INS.

 

I am not talking about radio corrections (which it does not have), just inertial systems for flight stabilisation etc.

The missile still needs inertial sensors because it adjusts its outputs based on speed and altitude.

MiG-29 manual says that the R-27T/ET only differs from the R-27R/ER by the seeker and the absence of the radio correction line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is assuming T/ET has to acquire target with IR seeker at the moment of launch (LOBL).

 

Thats not an assumption - thats how it is.

 

It would not make sense to design such a large missile and use it like R-73/Sidewinder.

 

Its not used as an R-73.

 

Again, the chart shows recommended launch ranges vs fighter type target head-on aspect well above the range that IR seeker might be expected to obtain the lock so it is probably either autopilot or autopilot+datalink with terminal IR guidance.

 

No its just to show comparative kinetec launch ranges for the T/ET because there are aerodynamic differences between these and the radar guided variants, which leads to the IR variants having somewhat shorter range.

 

Soviet BVR tactics supposedly recommended salvo launch T and R to make it more difficult for the target to defeat missiles with two different guidance methods (makes sense, vs R you want to turn and run on afterburner, but then you're presenting an ideal target for T with that 4 meter flame coming out of your engine). If you go head on/9-3 to minimize IR signature you're making it easier for R to hit you.

 

Yes and thats basically the purpose of the R-27T/ET variants - i.e. unlike with R-73 you have a missile capable of taking advantage of the IR seeker's long acquisition range in tail aspect.

 

Other possible explanation theories were:

- T/ET only for tail chase rear aspect of fast fleeing targets (rather specific scenario, not very likely)

 

Its not that specific - you have just described it yourself above.

 

- rear aspect shots because of seeker/radar issues on early models vs targets going cold (medium PRF).

 

A radar(seeker or otherwise) is always going to work better against a head-on target than a receding one, while the opposite is the case for an IR seeker.

 

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if some R-27R/ER were upgraded with active seekers and sneaky Russians not telling us about it. R-27 family is highly modular design

 

I would :) . An R-27 variant(R-27AE) with an active seeker was proposed and may even have been tested for a short while back in the eighties, but it has long since been abandoned in favour of the new R-77/RVV-AE design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R-27T/ET have INS but no datalink (no datalink antennas visible at least compared to R-27R/ER).

 

It does not have an INS.

 

So they can be fired at a head on target from long range using lock on after launch as long as the target does not maneuver to much. This procedure is explained in the manuals.

 

IIRC the procedure in question has more the nature of a "last ditch" effort, in which you basically uncage the seeker and launch the missile without a target in the hope that something with sufficient thermal energy will pass through the narrow FOW of the IR seeker and cause it to lock on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not talking about radio corrections (which it does not have), just inertial systems for flight stabilisation etc.

The missile still needs inertial sensors because it adjusts its outputs based on speed and altitude.

 

The IR sensor of the R-27T/ET uses basically the same navigation principles as the R-73 - no one claims that this has an INS.

 

MiG-29 manual says that the R-27T/ET only differs from the R-27R/ER by the seeker and the absence of the radio correction line.

 

Like I mentioned before - the INS(with radio correction) is an integral part of the SARH seeker unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC the procedure in question has more the nature of a "last ditch" effort, in which you basically uncage the seeker and launch the missile without a target in the hope that something with sufficient thermal energy will pass through the narrow FOW of the IR seeker and cause it to lock on.

 

That procedure is for jettisoning the missile because those rails aren't carted to drop the payload otherwise. IIRC the seeker may not even be cooled at that point and any combat use of it is the equivalent of using FLOOD mode and other back-up things ... effectively you've got nothing else left and you're hoping that maybe this will work. DCS doesn't model the factors that make this a poor shot.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what the manual is for.

 

Exactly, and we do not have manual....

 

 

 

lol what? My evidence is the Pythagorean formula to find the length of vectors to prove that the ranges shown on the graph align at 0 deg.

 

You can laugh yourself. What you put as evidence is "Launch at 20 nmi and all is fine" as there is no reason to tell anything else in the manual as one graphic explains it all so.

 

It does however on the very last page say that "the missile may be launched with this envelope". Note it says "may be launched" with no indication of Pk. This implies that the envelope in the page above really does just show a launch envelope and not a "range" vs "missile travel distance". I'm fairly convinced it's got to just be a graph showing 2D space with the x and y axes.

 

Exactly, the problem here is that the graphic is out of the context and it is not explaining things. It only shows some nmi values and oddly drawn graphics about something. But your linked PDF actually says that aerodynamic range for AIM-7D is 24 nmi (44 km) and for AIM-7F 53 nmi (98 km) at 40kft. So that tells well then that the graphic is not about its aerodynamic capabilities but exactly something else, like the seeker head performance (as otherwise you wouldn't put even the 2 square meter target as definition for it).

 

So shortly put, the two charts of R-27 and AIM-7 can't be compared, as the context is different.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not have an INS.

 

Can you perform a dive maneuver against R-27ET and get it fly straight on the ground?

 

 

 

IIRC the procedure in question has more the nature of a "last ditch" effort, in which you basically uncage the seeker and launch the missile without a target in the hope that something with sufficient thermal energy will pass through the narrow FOW of the IR seeker and cause it to lock on.

 

Similar as the VISUAL mode in AIM-120 etc. And that is the question that what logic is there.

 

As if we assume that when R-27T/ET is launched without a lock, that specific scenarios happens:

 

1) The seeker goes blind, it is not used at all because missile can't lock on anything after launch.

2) The seeker stares straight forward, with very narrow FOV and hopes to see something.

 

Then you wouldn't launch such without a lock ever, not in any other mode than emergency jettison.

 

But if R-27T/ET can be launched (by the book) without lock so it would find a target and lock to it, then few things MUST be there.

 

1) INS system to tell the missile how to maintain its flight vector.

2) INS system to tell the missile seeker WHERE to search targets relative to its vector.

3) Programmed logic for a search patterns based the vector and launch time, so that it is maximized probability to find a target in given area front of it. As that narrow FOV the IR seeker actually has, is fairly blind. And if radar homing seekers are programmed with a search patterns, why wouldn't IR seekers done same?

 

Do we have sources that specifically shows by the specs that T/ET variant is programmed stupid, so it has just the seeker looking forward with very narrow FOV or seeker is deactivated on the moment of launch if target was not locked?

And is there any sources explaining procedure to launch T/ET variant without lock to expected direction where it could find a target?

 

As now there is a conflicts:

 

1) T/ET can't anymore ever lock on any new target after launch.

2) T/ET can be launched without lock and seeker search a first target it finds.

 

And this has nothing to do with datalinks or INS even. It is only all about the logic programmed to the seeker, what to do after launch?

 

And this raises question, why would T/ET be allowed launched without lock unless it is done through jettison process? As that would literally be just throwing javelin at the target and hope its proximity fuze gets triggered and destroy the target!

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, and we do not have manual....

 

You can laugh yourself. What you put as evidence is "Launch at 20 nmi and all is fine" as there is no reason to tell anything else in the manual as one graphic explains it all so.

 

 

I would like to request you to read more carefully and please stop making assumptions from my words.

 

I am trying to have a proper conversation with you and everyone else here but for some reason you put words into my mouth and then continue to do so. Once again, all I said is that the range on the graph matches at 60 deg. aspect compared to the 0 deg aspect range that is also on that graph. That is literally it. In fact, I'll break it down further:

 

8^2 + 20^2 = 21.5 and 21.5 nm is close to 22 nm. Take just that sentence and tell me where in that equation it says "Launch at 20 nmi and all is fine".

 

Nothing about real life Pk, nothing about true range... I never once said anything at all about whether the missile would hit. It was a super simple comparison. Now you're berating me for whatever reason.

 

I do not appreciate it.

 

 

Exactly, the problem here is that the graphic is out of the context and it is not explaining things. It only shows some nmi values and oddly drawn graphics about something. But your linked PDF actually says that aerodynamic range for AIM-7D is 24 nmi (44 km) and for AIM-7F 53 nmi (98 km) at 40kft. So that tells well then that the graphic is not about its aerodynamic capabilities but exactly something else, like the seeker head performance (as otherwise you wouldn't put even the 2 square meter target as definition for it).

 

So shortly put, the two charts of R-27 and AIM-7 can't be compared, as the context is different.

 

I agree. The graphs show two different contexts so we can't compare the AIM-7 to the R-27 here.

 

The PDF I linked appears to take into account both RCS and aerodynamic range as stated before. If it was just RCS, the plot would be larger in range at the rear aspect because the RCS would increase. But that isn't the case so then aerodynamic range starts to become the limit. See my graphic below. The envelope is only where the solid lines are. The dashed lines are too far for either the seeker or the missile itself. This is what I believe the graph is telling us (and yes this is a best guess so please don't start concluding that I'm saying this is 100% correct or anything).

 

RZwphmP.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is difference between "Range" and "Distance"?

I scanned ahead and don’t think anyone has given you an explanation yet.

 

In the top two AIM-7 charts, range is distance between the two aircraft. Distance, on the other hand, is how far to the right or left of a nose-to-nose encounter you are. So in the top left chart, if you are 6 nm to the right or left of the target, you can launch when the range closes to 18 nm etc. That’s the only way the top 2 charts make any sense.

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg

 

_____

Win 10 Pro x64, ASUS Z97 Pro MoBo, Intel i7-4790K, EVGA GTX 970 4GB, HyperX Savage 32GB, Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD, 2x Seagate Hybrid Drive 2TB Raid 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I scanned ahead and don’t think anyone has given you an explanation yet.

 

In the top two AIM-7 charts, range is distance between the two aircraft. Distance, on the other hand, is how far to the right or left of a nose-to-nose encounter you are. So in the top left chart, if you are 6 nm to the right or left of the target, you can launch when the range closes to 18 nm etc. That’s the only way the top 2 charts make any sense.

 

Thank you!! This is one of the things I was trying to mention.

 

Now we just need something similar for the R-27's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I scanned ahead and don’t think anyone has given you an explanation yet.

 

In the top two AIM-7 charts, range is distance between the two aircraft. Distance, on the other hand, is how far to the right or left of a nose-to-nose encounter you are. So in the top left chart, if you are 6 nm to the right or left of the target, you can launch when the range closes to 18 nm etc. That’s the only way the top 2 charts make any sense.

 

This makes zero sense, because there are cases where the side to side distance is bigger than the range. But the range to the target will always be equal or larger than the side to side range.

 

To me this graph works exactly the same way as the R-27 chart. It just uses very confusing axis labels. Look how similar the overall shape of the top right chart is to the R-27 chart.

 

The top left chart obviously has an error, because the launch range for a head on engagement co altitude at 500ft is 16nm in the bottom left chart not 20nm as in the top left chart.

 

 

It does not have an INS.

 

When the R-27T/ET does not have INS, then the INS (gyroscope, accelerometer) must be in the seeker head of the R-27R/ER, as the middle section of the missile is more or less the same (except for datalink antennas, but their signal goes directly through the external wire housing at the bottom of the missile to the seeker section).

 

So where is the INS unit? It cannot be in the rear of the seeker section, because it is filled with circuit boards. And the front is filled with RF components.

 

R-27_missile_homing_head%2C_Kyiv_2018%2C_01.jpg

 

To me it makes much more sense that the sensors are in the part with the proximity fuze, which is the autopilot section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increase in side range could easily be due to RCS:

 

 

Note how at the ~50° degree's left and right from the nose the RCS is rather quite large. Now we don't know the exact aircraft and RCS used so we can't say for certain exactly how the RCS varied, but the difference in range in the sides is not a lot over the head on range.

 

new_bitmap_image.jpg

gh.png

 

-Note the exact apparent RCS IIRC is also dependent on the frequency of the radar hitting it as well.


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the BlackPixxel's photo, literally translating from Ukrainian(I'm a native speaker), left(missile front) to right(more to the center): "Inertially semiactive radio location head", "Block of aerodynamic control", "Semi-something(cut) head-something(cut)".

 

So this corresponds to INS being at the front and part of the radio location seeker.

ППС  АВТ 100 60 36  Ф <  |  >  !  ПД  К

i5-10600k/32GB 3600/SSD NVME/4070ti/2560x1440'32/VPC T-50 VPC T-50CM3 throttle Saitek combat rudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the BlackPixxel's photo, literally translating from Ukrainian(I'm a native speaker), left(missile front) to right(more to the center): "Inertially semiactive radio location head", "Block of aerodynamic control", "Semi-something(cut) head-something(cut)".

 

So this corresponds to INS being at the front and part of the radio location seeker.

 

No, the text in my photo is refering to the missile components that are standing behind the text, not for the open seeker in the front.

 

You can see on the left the bottom of the case for the complete seeker, in the middle you can see the bottom of the middle section. And on the most right there is a grey seeker RGS-04R for a different missile (5V27D).

 

Here is another angle that shows that the description is for the components that are standing behind the text, not for the seeker that is in front of the whole arrangement:

5Rpwxph.jpg


Edited by BlackPixxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 27T/ET:

a) does not have INS

b) does not have LOAL capability

c) does not have datalink

 

 

Why do they list head on ranges for T/ET far beyond what IR seeker could achieve at the moment of launch? It would be an obvious false statement, wouldn't it?

 

I mean, yes, under right atmospheric conditions you could track a jet in afterburner at 50 nm but head-on range would be much shorter. No way in hell could the 27T/ET seeker lock on a fighter from 40nm in frontal aspect. Or am I missing something?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

MATRIC developer

Check out MATRIC and forget about keyboard shortcuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seeker range varies alot depending on the target and other conditions.

 

Even the R-24T gives a head on lock range of 30km for a F-15 flying at high altitude and high speed without afterburner. With afterburner the range is twice about as much.

 

R-27T/ET very likely has a better seeker, with even higher ranges.

 

So in a head on BVR engagement a long range R-27ET shot is indeed possible.

 

 

To me it is very likely that the INS is in the autopilot part of the missile, which appears to be the same for all R-27 variants.


Edited by BlackPixxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...