R-27P/R-27EP/R-27EA/R-27EM

[macmacmacmoc]

Heres some more images of the R-27EP, from what ive found its mostly carried by the Su-34 as a defensive armament. And from asking some Russian pilots, they seem to see R-27EPs about as common as R-77-1s on Su-34s.

And R-27EA looks like this btw, it has a longer nose cone than the R-27ER
 

[Hobel]

Am 30.8.2024 um 08:58 schrieb macmacmacmoc:

Heres some more images of the R-27EP, from what ive found its mostly carried by the Su-34 as a defensive armament. And from asking some Russian pilots, they seem to see R-27EPs about as common as R-77-1s on Su-34s.

And R-27EA looks like this btw, it has a longer nose cone than the R-27ER
 

All Pics broke

[Ronin_Gaijin]

R-27P info

[pjbunnyru]

1 час назад, Ronin_Gaijin сказал:

R-27P info

into the forward hemisphere.

If  plane turns away a little, the missile, judging by the description, will no longer see  target.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, pjbunnyru said:

into the forward hemisphere.

If  plane turns away a little, the missile, judging by the description, will no longer see  target.

That is logical, since most airplanes have radars pointing into direction of flying. Although I assume it would also be able to pick up sidelobes as well as rear lobes if the aspect change occurs when missile is already very near. 

Anyone who can help with accurate translation?

Edited September 22, 2024 by okopanja

[draconus]

[Google translator]

[Pavlin_33]

2 hours ago, pjbunnyru said:

into the forward hemisphere.

If  plane turns away a little, the missile, judging by the description, will no longer see  target.

Or flies below 20m

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

[Google translator]

I meant intelligent human translator, not the machine that gets confused on contrast change.

[pjbunnyru]

9 часов назад, okopanja сказал:

I meant intelligent human translator, not the machine that gets confused on contrast change.

i can't do this, it's beyond my knowledge of english

10 часов назад, Pavlin_33 сказал:

Or flies below 20m

and this too

Edited September 23, 2024 by pjbunnyru

[Ronin_Gaijin]

10 hours ago, okopanja said:

I meant intelligent human translator, not the machine that gets confused on contrast change.

Purpose:
A unified medium-range homing missile with a passive radar homing head (PRGS). It is designed to destroy radio-emitting air targets during the day and at night in simple and difficult weather conditions in the forward hemisphere, including against the background of various underlying surfaces, ensuring the destruction of aircraft that are actively jamming radars for cover. The missile implements the "fire-and-forget" principle with the provision of stealth attack.

[Dr_Pavelheer]

So it's against standoff jammers like Prowlers or Sparkvarks, not fighters. Makes sense considering it doesn't have IR for terminal guidance

[pjbunnyru]

7 минут назад, Dr_Pavelheer сказал:

So it's against standoff jammers like Prowlers or Sparkvarks, not fighters. Makes sense considering it doesn't have IR for terminal guidance

why are you so sure about this? 

[Dr_Pavelheer]

There is no IR window that I can see, there is no mention of IR seeker in the brochure either which leads me to believe that this missile might not feature IR seeker

[pjbunnyru]

14 минут назад, Dr_Pavelheer сказал:

There is no IR window that I can see, there is no mention of IR seeker in the brochure either which leads me to believe that this missile might not feature IR seeker

so this missile is for destroying planes with radars on/ ECM. why an IR sensor?

Edited September 23, 2024 by pjbunnyru

[Dr_Pavelheer]

To target fighters that aren't heavily jamming?

[okopanja]

42 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

So it's against standoff jammers like Prowlers or Sparkvarks, not fighters. Makes sense considering it doesn't have IR for terminal guidance

Please do not jump to conclusions: the side effect of jammer functionality is that it emits in the same frequency as the radar. Therefore they work in same frequencies, and the missile could be employed against radar emitter, not just jammers. Also note that

I had my suspicion how this could work, intended targets could be:

- any radar, most likely operating in STT (if scan/tws the update frequency is probably too low for guidance against maneuvering targets).

- AWACS aircraft

- Jammers

 

15 hours ago, pjbunnyru said:

into the forward hemisphere.

If  plane turns away a little, the missile, judging by the description, will no longer see  target.

Where did this come from?

[Ronin_Gaijin]

45 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

So it's against standoff jammers like Prowlers or Sparkvarks, not fighters. Makes sense considering it doesn't have IR for terminal guidance

Let me help you understand the way it was to be used.
For a bandit (radar equipped fighters) coming at you head on with their radar on (radar cone is pointed at you), you can fire and forget passively. (Same for a bandit that is coming towards you at an angle, but the radar cone is pointed at you)
For bandits that have a 360 degree radar (AWACS) you can shoot the missile passively from all aspects.
For bandits that are jamming (jets with an internal or external jammer, or dedicated jamming aircraft), since their jamming signal has 360 degree coverage, you can shoot the missile passively from all aspects.

[pjbunnyru]

7 минут назад, okopanja сказал:

 

 

Where did this come from?

 brochure says - in  front hemisphere.
further, my guess.

6 минут назад, Ronin_Gaijin сказал:

Let me help you understand the way it was to be used.
For a bandit (radar equipped fighters) coming at you head on with their radar on (radar cone is pointed at you), you can fire and forget passively. (Same for a bandit that is coming towards you at an angle, but the radar cone is pointed at you)
For bandits that have a 360 degree radar (AWACS) you can shoot the missile passively from all aspects.
For bandits that are jamming (jets with an internal or external jammer, or dedicated jamming aircraft), since their jamming signal has 360 degree coverage, you can shoot the missile passively from all aspects.

It seems like  jamming works forward and backward, but not 360 degrees.

8 минут назад, Dr_Pavelheer сказал:

To target fighters that aren't heavily jamming?

27П isnt multi missle.

Edited September 23, 2024 by pjbunnyru

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, pjbunnyru said:

It seems like  jamming works forward and backward, but not 360 degrees.

no, it depends on jammer. However, in many cases you wish to direct the energy into specific sector or even single azimuth, but that is not the topic atm.

2 minutes ago, okopanja said:

no, it depends on jammer. However, in many cases you wish to direct the energy into specific sector or even single azimuth, but that is not the topic atm.

 

found it in original. thanks

Edited September 23, 2024 by okopanja

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@Ronin_Gaijin I guess if target tracks you in STT (or maybe just when it's illuminating you for SARH missile?) it can work, but how far off beam axis can it still see the emissions? Good radar with low sidelobes combined with lower power of airborne radars vs SAM radars and much smaller antenna than in HARM might mean you have to be quite close for sufficient signal strength.

AWACS? It takes multiple seconds to make a full sweep, so refresh rate might be low and missile would have to rely heavily on interpolation and coasting between sweeps, also good luck getting that close.

As far as standoff jammers go again the question is how far off beam axis are you.

 

It just seems to me like an awful lot of effort and a lot of maybes when you can just make ARH seeker and have a missile that works and doesn't rely on target not being capable of TWS.

Even RIM-116 has dual guidance even though it's theoretically best case scenario for passive radar seeker because anti-ship cruise missiles tend to fly more or less straight at their targets

[Ronin_Gaijin]

14 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@Ronin_Gaijin I guess if target tracks you in STT (or maybe just when it's illuminating you for SARH missile?) it can work, but how far off beam axis can it still see the emissions? Good radar with low sidelobes combined with lower power of airborne radars vs SAM radars and much smaller antenna than in HARM might mean you have to be quite close for sufficient signal strength.

AWACS? It takes multiple seconds to make a full sweep, so refresh rate might be low and missile would have to rely heavily on interpolation and coasting between sweeps, also good luck getting that close.

As far as standoff jammers go again the question is how far off beam axis are you.

 

It just seems to me like an awful lot of effort and a lot of maybes when you can just make ARH seeker and have a missile that works and doesn't rely on target not being capable of TWS.

Even RIM-116 has dual guidance even though it's theoretically best case scenario for passive radar seeker because anti-ship cruise missiles tend to fly more or less straight at their targets

I just gave you the best case scenarios that would be easier for you to understand.
I did not mean to have a detailed discussion on all the nuances in which the missile might not work.
Regarding your TWS comment, please remember that we are talking 1983 Fox1 era.

[pjbunnyru]

22 минуты назад, Dr_Pavelheer сказал:

@Ronin_Gaijin I guess if target tracks you in STT (or maybe just when it's illuminating you for SARH missile?) it can work, but how far off beam axis can it still see the emissions? Good radar with low sidelobes combined with lower power of airborne radars vs SAM radars and much smaller antenna than in HARM might mean you have to be quite close for sufficient signal strength.

AWACS? It takes multiple seconds to make a full sweep, so refresh rate might be low and missile would have to rely heavily on interpolation and coasting between sweeps, also good luck getting that close.

As far as standoff jammers go again the question is how far off beam axis are you.

 

It just seems to me like an awful lot of effort and a lot of maybes when you can just make ARH seeker and have a missile that works and doesn't rely on target not being capable of TWS.

Even RIM-116 has dual guidance even though it's theoretically best case scenario for passive radar seeker because anti-ship cruise missiles tend to fly more or less straight at their targets

I think you are greetly exagerating the capabilitis of NATO aircraft in 80s

[okopanja]

34 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

AWACS? It takes multiple seconds to make a full sweep, so refresh rate might be low and missile would have to rely heavily on interpolation and coasting between sweeps, also good luck getting that close.

Typical AWACS flies in the horseback pattern, this is not coincidence, in such pattern, 10 seconds update time is acceptable. As the missile gets closer the sidelobes will get stronger, so at that point you can expect even better updates. BTW: not interpolation, extrapolation.

In theory you could guide even on SCAN/TWS from fighters but you face 2 problems:

1. you would need to be able to correlate lots of signal in order to keep missile tracking the one you wish to track

2. will sidelobes be strong enough for more precise tracking?

Edited September 23, 2024 by okopanja

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@Ronin_Gaijin In the 80s some Western fighters already had TWS, which means by the time radar switches to STT you're already evading, not shooting back.

And in early 80s we're talking about base R27R and R27T, not some unicorn (at best) EP and EA models.

By the way, Phoenix was a thing at the time and AMRAAM was only a couple years out so writing on the wall was already there. Everybody, even Russians, knew ARH is the future, the issue was making the seeker small enough to fit in a missile that weighs less than 500 kg, and against fighter using ARH missiles pure passive radar guidance would be useless

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@Ronin_Gaijin I guess if target tracks you in STT (or maybe just when it's illuminating you for SARH missile?) it can work, but how far off beam axis can it still see the emissions? Good radar with low sidelobes combined with lower power of airborne radars vs SAM radars and much smaller antenna than in HARM might mean you have to be quite close for sufficient signal strength.

AWACS? It takes multiple seconds to make a full sweep, so refresh rate might be low and missile would have to rely heavily on interpolation and coasting between sweeps, also good luck getting that close.

As far as standoff jammers go again the question is how far off beam axis are you.

 

It just seems to me like an awful lot of effort and a lot of maybes when you can just make ARH seeker and have a missile that works and doesn't rely on target not being capable of TWS.

Even RIM-116 has dual guidance even though it's theoretically best case scenario for passive radar seeker because anti-ship cruise missiles tend to fly more or less straight at their targets

These are all valid points and questions but they're also the reason why the weapon stay in theory and testing and no such weapon (passive A2A missile) was made in the west.