R-27EM pictures

[Force_Feedback]

The hell with R-23/24 missiles! Anyway they are now pure history.

 

As for R-27T/TE: Do you suggest they share the same motor and amount of fuel with R-27R/RE versions and thus possess the same range?

If so, why Russians couldn't equip them with data-link and LOAL capability? In that situation R-27T/TE would be impressive fire and forget, passive weapon in some aspects better than ARH missiles. Maybe its 36T seeker isn't ideal but why not replace it? Thus MICA-IR isn't S-F weapon and Soviets had a long tradition of building medium range IR guided missiles as R-98TM, R-40TD.

 

Yes, the R-27 missile has a modular design, so it is possible to swap the guidance and seeker sections. But the ET is limited by the IR seeker range, and that is no more than 45km in the rear hemisphere, front may be as low as 15. But the T version has a more flat frontal area, that may decrease the range by a percentage.

[tflash]

Fact is we have little or no information about RuAF A2A missile plans, whereas we have had a lot of info lately on their efforts in Fulcrum and Flanker evolutions. I guess they do not feel any urgency. Apart from the R-77 and R-73, which are certalinly good enough, I guess enhanced and very powerful radars like the Bars and Irbis also are capable of getting more out of an R-27R/R-27ER. A reliable and strong beam, for one thing, good ECCM, a datalink with updates, and the fact that the radar has a large FOV and can be steered very far to the side, so that the Flanker can already be in an evasive manoevre while still guiding the missile.

 

In fact, having a datalinked SAHR missile also has some advantages, I would say, in the ECCM field. Maybe in some circumstances it is easier to fool the small radar in an active missile than the wildlife-frying beam of the Flanker's 0,9 meter radar dish?

 

So my point would be: for a SAHR missile better radar means better, more robust guidance and so better PK? Could this be right?

[GGTharos]

The hell with R-23/24 missiles! Anyway they are now pure history.

 

As for R-27T/TE: Do you suggest they share the same motor and amount of fuel with R-27R/RE versions and thus possess the same range?

 

Yep - just like FF said.

 

If so, why Russians couldn't equip them with data-link and LOAL capability?

 

Ask the Russians ;) Radar guided missiles are typically best when employed in a forward-aspect situation. IR missiles are best when employed in the rear aspect. The R-27T/TE was built to run down escaping aircraft (bombers in particular, since the Russian planes are built with a home-land defense philosophy) where the R-73 lacked reach.

 

In that situation R-27T/TE would be impressive fire and forget, passive weapon in some aspects better than ARH missiles.

 

No, it wouldn't be. IR seekers have issues with LOAL - the newer the seeker is, the better it can cope, but both 36T and M80 are of the generation that might easily have issues with any sort of background clutter (locking onto clouds, reflections from lakes, etc)

 

Maybe its 36T seeker isn't ideal but why not replace it? Thus MICA-IR isn't S-F weapon and Soviets had a long tradition of building medium range IR guided missiles as R-98TM, R-40TD.

 

 

The R-40 was meant to be used against very bright, high-altitude targets ... specifically, the B-70 Valkyrie. Up there, there's little cluter to worry about, so LOAL made sense, not to mention you might not have to use LOAL to begin with against such targets.

 

The R-98 is a /very/ old missile and I kinda doubt its LOAL capabilities.

[EvilBivol-1]

It was old Cold War trend caused by Soviet military-complex structure and Air Force demands to build all brand-new weapon systems for each new plane type.

Old habits die hard...

As for now it seems Russian needs in this area have been lagging far behind export production.

So far, Russia hasn't had much need for the RVV-AE, because it only has a few fighters capable of using it. A handful of MiG-29S and two squadrons of Su-27SM. More are supposed to be coming (more Su-27SM, MiG-31 upgares, Su-34, MiG-29SMT...) but how many and at what rate?

Fact is we have little or no information about RuAF A2A missile plans, whereas we have had a lot of info lately on their efforts in Fulcrum and Flanker evolutions. I guess they do not feel any urgency. Apart from the R-77 and R-73, which are certalinly good enough, I guess enhanced and very powerful radars like the Bars and Irbis also are capable of getting more out of an R-27R/R-27ER. A reliable and strong beam, for one thing, good ECCM, a datalink with updates, and the fact that the radar has a large FOV and can be steered very far to the side, so that the Flanker can already be in an evasive manoevre while still guiding the missile.

 

In fact, having a datalinked SAHR missile also has some advantages, I would say, in the ECCM field. Maybe in some circumstances it is easier to fool the small radar in an active missile than the wildlife-frying beam of the Flanker's 0,9 meter radar dish?

 

So my point would be: for a SAHR missile better radar means better, more robust guidance and so better PK? Could this be right?

In fact, the entire arena of air-launched munitions, both A-A and A-G, is a huge problem for the Russian AF. There is now an offically sanctioned (government) effort to design and create an entirely new generation of weapons, mostly in conjuction with the PAK-FA. The first of these to be seen was the Kh-38ME mock-up, displayed at MAKS-2007. How well this effort will turn out is anyone's guess at this point, much like the success of the PAK-FA itself.

As for R-27T/TE: Do you suggest they share the same motor and amount of fuel with R-27R/RE versions and thus possess the same range?

If so, why Russians couldn't equip them with data-link and LOAL capability?

One logical guess was that the seeker's cooling bottle is installed in the pylon and utilized during targeting. Once fired and no longer cooled, the seeker's life-time is very short.

[GGTharos]

And that is why I suggested new Russian IR seeker development for R-27T/TE and hypothetical R-77T. Of course present 36T/M80 seekers are two decades old and they are no match for AIM-9X, Iris-T or MiCA-IR ones. But I am sure that Russian IR missiles equipped with current Western all-aspect seekers equivalent and data-link would be a potent BVR and F&F weapon systems!

 

Not quite but yes, close enough. But I'm not sure why you'd want to shove a new seeker into an old airframe - those missiles were built against aircraft with certain manuever parameters which have likely been exceeded now. Plus, new airframes are always good.

 

Such missiles would stealthy attack enemy planes from long range without any kind of suspicious radar emissions. Moreover enemy pilot could be taken by complete surprise because he wouldn't expect IR missile attack without its launching plane visibility!

 

I'm not sure why you think radar wouldn't be used; it is the number one BVR sensor, period. You don't see aircraft being built without radar, do you? You would simply assume the missile's been launched at you and do your standard evasive tactics. Now, if you didn't know the guy was there to begin with, for whatever reason (vectored in silently by AWACS, or via DLINK from other fighters, etc) then yeah, it's quite a surprise - but let's not make it end-all-be-all, because it isn't.

 

Note that, as neat as those IR missiles are ... the ARH bandwagon is being ridden hard.

[rogue_blade]

why are the russians so complicated like holy crap. there seems to be like 1000x of this R27 and then about 10000 other R7 series missiles. America has two mainstream missiles which get the job done.

[GGTharos]

why are the russians so complicated like holy crap. there seems to be like 1000x of this R27 and then about 10000 other R7 series missiles. America has two mainstream missiles which get the job done.

 

 

Not complicated at all - in fact, after the capture of the sidewinder, they went with the US method of building missiles to come degree - ie. very modular.

[Groove]

In communism everybody has work.

 

Somehow the soviets had to live this dream :D

[GGTharos]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said ... Russia learned a lot from the captured sidewinder about ways of manufacturing missiles in a modular manner.

 

That Russia decided to build a new airframe for each successive missile associated with a fighter isn't particularely relevant in this context.

 

Not really!

Since early 1960s Americans had two types of A-A missiles designed for all almost "Century Series" and later fighter planes: AIM-7 "Sparrow" for BVR engagements and dogfight AIM-9 "Sidewinder", of course omitting unsuccessful AIM-4 "Falcon" and specialized AIM-54 "Phoenix". All Americans done for 30 years was to introduce successive versions of both. On the other hand Soviets were introducing new missile type for each specific new fighter designs, for example: R-40 for MiG-25, R-4 for Tu-28/128, R-8/98 for Su-11/15, R-23 for MiG-23, R-33 for MiG-31 and R-27 for Su-27. Almost every of these missiles was produced with SAHR and IR versions. Additionally Soviets developed three types of universal light dogfight missiles: R-3, R-60 and R-73 compatible with almost all of their military planes. The huge R-3 missile family was also fitted with SAHR and IR seekers.

 

In sum Soviets created strange ideology of multiple and often simultaneous paths of missile development! :doh:

[GGTharos]

Again, not particularly relevant :)

[rogue_blade]

Not really!

Since early 1960s Americans had two types of A-A missiles designed for all almost "Century Series" and later fighter planes: AIM-7 "Sparrow" for BVR engagements and dogfight AIM-9 "Sidewinder", of course omitting unsuccessful AIM-4 "Falcon" and specialized AIM-54 "Phoenix". All what Americans done for 30 years was to introduce successive versions of both. On the other hand Soviets were introducing new missile type for each specific new fighter designs, for example: R-40 for MiG-25, R-4 for Tu-28/128, R-8/98 for Su-11/15, R-23 for MiG-23, R-33 for MiG-31 and R-27 for Su-27. Almost every missile type was produced with SAHR and IR versions. Additionally Soviets developed three types of universal light dogfight missiles: R-3, R-60 and R-73 compatible with almost all of their military planes. The huge R-3 missile family was also fitted with SAHR and IR seekers.

 

In sum Soviets created strange ideology of multiple and often simultaneous paths of missile development! :doh:

 

lol thats exactly what im trying to get at

[D-Scythe]

Wow, never thought I'd see the day where a couple pages are dedicated on discussing how stupid it is of the Soviets for developing lots of missiles...on a thread that was SUPPOSED to be about the R-27EM no less...Honestly, who cares? Missile development is missile development...so what if they turn out more missiles just to confuse us simpletons?

 

Do people question Roger Federer's pre-game before Wimbledon? No. Should a F-16 pilot b!tch about why there are so many different Russian missiles when he's getting shot at? No. In the end, all missiles go "boom" - you think the the guy on the receiving end is gonna care? Really? Yeah, I can just picture it now, the final thoughts of a pilot trapped in his cockpit as his bird goes down in flames is "Thank god for the Americans and their uncomplicated missile programs, it was probably an AIM-9," or even better, "Noooo, now I can never rest in peace because that missile could've been an R-77, or a -27ER, or a plain -27, or a R-40, oh the horror of never finding out!"

 

Honestly, the next topic of discussion would probably be someone complaining about how pissed off he is cause he saw someone use too much toilet paper wiping his ass. Come on, these guys build missiles for a living - if they keep popping out new missile products, that are ALL being bought, who (as a civilian) even have a right to question the thinking behind their decisions?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I just hoped to see some R-27EM pictures here ... New threads could be opened to discuss other missiles.

[rogue_blade]

Wow, never thought I'd see the day where a couple pages are dedicated on discussing how stupid it is of the Soviets for developing lots of missiles...on a thread that was SUPPOSED to be about the R-27EM no less...Honestly, who cares? Missile development is missile development...so what if they turn out more missiles just to confuse us simpletons?

 

Do people question Roger Federer's pre-game before Wimbledon? No. Should a F-16 pilot b!tch about why there are so many different Russian missiles when he's getting shot at? No. In the end, all missiles go "boom" - you think the the guy on the receiving end is gonna care? Really? Yeah, I can just picture it now, the final thoughts of a pilot trapped in his cockpit as his bird goes down in flames is "Thank god for the Americans and their uncomplicated missile programs, it was probably an AIM-9," or even better, "Noooo, now I can never rest in peace because that missile could've been an R-77, or a -27ER, or a plain -27, or a R-40, oh the horror of never finding out!"

 

Honestly, the next topic of discussion would probably be someone complaining about how pissed off he is cause he saw someone use too much toilet paper wiping his ass. Come on, these guys build missiles for a living - if they keep popping out new missile products, that are ALL being bought, who (as a civilian) even have a right to question the thinking behind their decisions?

 

i really wish people would learn to use no more than three pieces to wipe their ass

[RvEPaploo]

check this 4c .°)

 

http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/r_27.htm

 

and this one too

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/r27/r27.htm

[Pilotasso]

Soviet Union/Russia was never in the war where it would need R-27EA or Kh-41. Nothing on the planet of earth dared to come close enough and in the range of these weapon systems.

Range isnt everything, as it was numerous times demonstrated in combat.

Furthermore R-27EA never entered service and it would most lilely pale compared to the AMRAAM when it comes to routines and seeker perfomance. Kh-41 could be intercepted even above mach 1 just like its naval cousin. There are defenses against it.

 

Just quit this political intimidation doom and gloom out of science fiction, Im getting bored and you never listen despite being the only one who can see ghosts.

 

Just a heads up here. There has been a few people sending me PM's and "hints" that responses like these are Nato fanboyism and not an opinion. You are entitled to say this and criticise in public so that it doesnt feel like the people in question are covertly sending little backstabs in the attempt to save themselves the sting they would get back in public from others who would see wich reply realy contains intimidatory political rants in the place of a real honest opinion.

 

I wished "they" would be a little more coherent too and not reverse the roles.

 

Take care.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

check this 4c .°)

 

http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/r_27.htm

 

and this one too

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/weapons/rockets/aam/r27/r27.htm

Thanks much.

 

Those are not EM missles. They appear to be R, ER and T's (or ET's). From what I know about EM missile, thier proximity sensors/fusesd should be behind the wings.

 

Thanks,

[tflash]

As long as those PM's do not contain images of the R-27EM, they are quite irrelevant to the topic I fear. ;)