R-27EM pictures

[rogue_blade]

1. R-27AE isn't real.

2. USSR is no longer active.

3. Russia doesn't have any "numerical superiority" over US in military crafts.

4. There is no R-27RE and especially R-27TE "first shot" advantage over recent AMRAAMs.

 

 

 

 

Do you suggest R-77 is worse than R-27RE only because of its "lesser range"??? Besides RE/TE versions were officially put into service in 1990. That is why I don't think there is now many of them in RuAF inventory. Therefore it is more probable that Russian fighters still use much widely "short range" R-27R/T versions, even now!

 

lol i know absolutely nothing about Russian missiles but your post sounds like pure ownage

[tflash]

It is not wise to underestimate the Flanker/R-27ER combo. Both in Lockon and IRL.

[192nd_Erdem]

Why don't we just put "ze sucky Russki gliders" out of this game and have fun with pure Russian ownage with F-15's equipped with railgun AMRAAMs??

 

I mean, we don't have to discuss these if everyone hates how current Russian aircraft modelled in LO. Just put them out and rename LO RO, Russian Ownage. The game where you jump on your F-15 and shoot MIG's duckhunt style!

 

It's a game after all, and it's not an UBER simulation as you many of you think. It has to be balanced somehow. LO wouldn't be the same as today if Russian aircraft weren't modelled as competitive as the American counterparts. I'm just getting sick of these "Undermodelled, Overmodelled" discussions going on for months. Put up with it till ED arrives with their new "true" Russian-American simulation project and enjoy the damn game and take your e-penors elsewhere to whine.

 

Rant out.

[Kula66]

1. R-27AE isn't real.

2. USSR is no longer active.

3. Russia doesn't have any "numerical superiority" over US in military crafts.

4. There is no R-27RE and especially R-27TE "first shot" advantage over recent AMRAAMs.

 

Do you suggest R-77 is worse than R-27RE only because of its "lesser range"??? Besides RE/TE versions were officially put into service in 1990. That is why I don't think there is now many of them in RuAF inventory. Therefore it is more probable that Russian fighters still use much widely "short range" R-27R/T versions, even now! So practically they can engage enemy aerial targets at 45 km maximum range approximately.

 

I think you missed the whole point of what I was saying ... its hyperthetical based on the time frame of LO. What time period are you trying to describe? LO time frame is somewhere between mid-80s and mid-90s, so there would have been plenty of REs and If the USSR hadn't gone pop, there would have been plenty of AEs too!

 

1. Like almost everyone else, I believe the evidence suggests the AE was never in production.

2. I do watch the news ...

3. This was the whole Soviet doctrine ... numbers v quality.

4. So range is no advantage ... interesting idea. Try reading some history - it is littered with examples of range being a great advantage, especially when combined with greater speed (read fuel load).

 

You suggest that the older R/Ts have lasted longer than the newer RE/TEs - what evidence do you have for this?

[Kula66]

So how can you set in Lock-On Options such Russian/Soviet numerical superiority in planes???

 

That would be the mission editor.

 

Of course that longer range gives advantage but you didn't notice that recent AMRAAM versions have similar range to R-27RE.

 

Well the range of AMRAAM (and probably the R-27s) is classified - so unless you are divulging classified infor you are guessing. Given that the R-27Es have significantly larger rocket motors it is very unlikely AMRAAM has a similar range. AMRAAM is less draggy due to size and small fins so it will bleed speed at a lower rate (if only WAFM had made it into LO :( ) ... So we can only draw deductions based on physicals and some guess work ... and AMRAAM and R-27ER having a similar range don't really add-up.

 

The later AMRAAMs have a longer range than the earlier AMRAAMs ... thats all we KNOW.

[GGTharos]

The R-27R has a max range of about 35km at 10000m, launched with a closure of about 2000kph, IIRC. Let's assume the R-27ER doubled this.

THe AMRAAM-A has a 19nm max range at 4000m, launched with a closure of 1000kts. We could assume that going up to 10000m, for simplicity's reason, nearly doubles this. The R-27ER barely has any range advantage here if those assumptions are correct.

 

That is known information. The AMRAAM has had its Rtr extended through clever programming ...

The AMRAAM-D is supposed to get a bigger rocket which extends its range 50% over what it is supposed to be now, which is ... we don't really know, but we know it's longer than the A's.

 

For all intents and purposes, the R-27ER is not a very reasonable competitor for the AMRAAM - it's not that the ER isn't dangerous, it's just not up to par.

[Pilotasso]

That would be the mission editor.

 

 

 

Well the range of AMRAAM (and probably the R-27s) is classified - so unless you are divulging classified infor you are guessing. Given that the R-27Es have significantly larger rocket motors it is very unlikely AMRAAM has a similar range. AMRAAM is less draggy due to size and small fins so it will bleed speed at a lower rate (if only WAFM had made it into LO :( ) ... So we can only draw deductions based on physicals and some guess work ... and AMRAAM and R-27ER having a similar range don't really add-up.

 

The later AMRAAMs have a longer range than the earlier AMRAAMs ... thats all we KNOW.

 

 

Again, range is not everything. Specialy when you consider missiles that alow you to manuever away while the oposition cant without loosing shots. Furthermore in inhibits multi engagement capability and warns the target of the lauch, the AMRAAM wont. this is an efective advantage that we had explored for years in LOMAC as well, even if they are not accurate by far, the principle still holds.

[Kula66]

For all intents and purposes, the R-27ER is not a very reasonable competitor for the AMRAAM - it's not that the ER isn't dangerous, it's just not up to par.

 

Indeed, but my original post was hypothetical AEs v early AMRAAMs. If you compare a 1990s weapon with a 2005s weapon sure ... but that wasn't the post ;)

 

EDIT: Infact GGT, mentioning the D model, this isn't just classified it isn't even in production!! So how you can quote ranges I can hardly guess!

[GGTharos]

Er, I compared the AMRAAM-A ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

How about if we would all talk about R-27EM missiles. Thanks.

 

Well, every Soviet Unio/Russian AA missile in Flaming Clifs has a photograph somwhere on the net (or in Yefim Gordon's books). However, R-27EM is nowhere to be seen.

[Kula66]

Well, every Soviet Unio/Russian AA missile in Flaming Clifs has a photograph somwhere on the net (or in Yefim Gordon's books). However, R-27EM is nowhere to be seen.

 

How can you distinguish it visually from the ER?

 

Also, do you have any pictures of 33 carrying 27s while operating on the Kuz? Nothing I've found show any missiles apart from 73s.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

How can you distinguish it visually from the ER?

Proximity fuses are behind the winglets. That’s according to the drawing in Yefim Gordon’s book. However, other then drawing in that book, I have never seen any pictures of the missile.

 

Also, do you have any pictures of 33 carrying 27s while operating on the Kuz? Nothing I've found show any missiles apart from 73s.

You mean R-27EM’s? If so, I do not. There’s those mysterious missiles as on the picture in the post #30 on this thread. Although mockups, I wonder what kind of missiles do they represent?

[Force_Feedback]

Are there any external differences between the ER and EM? I thought the latter just had a better seeker.

[Kula66]

Ok ... here is some info from a reasonably trusted source:

 

"six versions vary from the smallest (R-27T), which is 3.80 m long, has a body diameter of 230 mm and a launch weight of 245 kg, to the largest (the R-27AE and R-27EM), which are both 4.78 m long, have a body diameter of 260 mm and launch weights of 350 kg."

 

So, the AE and EM are longer than the rest!

[Kula66]

The R-27R has a max range of about 35km at 10000m, launched with a closure of about 2000kph, IIRC. Let's assume the R-27ER doubled this.

 

Well, from a trusted source I get: "110 km for R- 27EM"

 

So you're looking more like trebble the range - I know single range figures mean squat, but we are guessing big time here. So, assuming a head-on shot from 110km at high alt, the F-15 can't ignore the threat ... can it get within range for a 40km (assuming 25mile range for AMRAAM-B/C) return shot?

[Pilotasso]

Are there any external differences between the ER and EM? I thought the latter just had a better seeker.

 

As far as I could understand it only had a seeker with different tuning to work better over watter againts low RCS targets. It probably wouldnt work the best way against fighters flying over land.

[GGTharos]

Uhm....try 35nm for A ... B/C reach farther.

[Kula66]

But you said 19nm in post #51 ... I was using your figure as a basis ;)

[EvilBivol-1]

Actually, it's more like scrap Adders and build the next generation missiles for the PAK-FA, which is supposed to be happening, if you believe official reports.

 

R-27s aren't even produced or purchased anymore at all, AFAIK.

[EvilBivol-1]

Why? Yet PAK-FA can be armed with R-77's ramjet powered derivative! In fact F-22 and F-35 will carry AIM-120D for decades to come.

Historical trend - the U.S. continually upgrades missiles while the Russians develop new ones as part of a system for every new fighter. Same thing now happening with PAK-FA.

 

The other point is that RVV-AE is still necessary for export and for the planes in the Russian AF capable of using them, which may increase in number if the aircraft upgrades keep up. So these will probably continue to be produced at some rate.

And that is good! What a pity they still consist bulk of Russian BVR missiles arsenal.

Yup, so the Russian AF is nearly completely dependant on BVR missiles which are not only out of date, but available in a very finite and dwindling supply.

[GGTharos]

But you said 19nm in post #51 ... I was using your figure as a basis ;)

 

19nm at about 4000m ;) That's the datapoint I have.

 

At 10000m it will be a bit less than double that.

[GGTharos]

I am not so pessimistic as for R-27R/RE real range you quoted as 35km

 

There is an official R-27R1 WEZ diagram kicking around these forums.

As I said ... with a closure of about 2000kph at 1000m it's max range is about 35km ;)

R-23/24's were typically used at 9-12km range to target, from reports I've read so far.

 

The problem is that no one ever explains what 'max range' really is (though there is the suggestion that it means the missile has slowed down to the launcher's original velocity, ie. the launching aircraft would now be overtaking the missile)

[nscode]

Yeah... only place I've seen it defined is with R-60 :)

[GGTharos]

But R1 probably means downgraded export version.

 

Which basically means little to no ECCM, and means little insofar as the rocket is concerned.

 

No, man! Are you kidding? :megalol:

 

 

No, I'm absolutely not kidding. MiG-23's using R23/24's used them ehad-on at 9-12km. Not farther.

[GGTharos]

Do you know anything about R-27R1 test firings in Germany and Poland after Warsaw Pact downfall?

 

I make no claims to such knowledge ;)

 

But your data refer to combat use or military exercises?

 

Actual (and successful in fact) combat use.

 

 

My compiled data about mentioned Soviet missiles' range at high altitude are as follows:

 

- R-23R - 25-35 km

- R-23T - 20 km (ballistic range but limited by missile IR seeker, lack LOAL mode)

- R-24R - up to 50 km

- R-24T - 25 km (ballistic range but limited by missile IR seeker, lack LOAL mode)

 

And I disagree with this. Your basic R-27 was made with more modern rocket grain and understanding than the R-24. Note also that the launch weights for both missiles are quite similar (and this part is important due to indirect inference of the amount of propellant), and the R-27 is likely much less draggy.

 

- R-27T - 20-25 km (ballistic range but limited by missile IR seeker, lack LOAL mode)

- R-27TE - 35 km (ballistic range but limited by missile IR seeker, lack LOAL mode)

 

PS. What are your estimations of R-27T/TE range? Is it identical as R/RE versions?

 

The R-27T/TE is not easily comparable in practice to the R/RE versions since first and foremost the R/RE is a medium range missile with datalink guidance-to-terminal, capable of utilizing an optimized, lofted trajectory to extend its reach while the R-27T/TE is terminal homing from launch, using proportional navigation. The limitation of the seeker for head-on engagements is one issue, the other is tail-on engagements where both missiles would likely run straight - there the T/TE will have -slightly- less range due to the rounded nose, but not by a whole lot.