Announcing Flaming Cliffs 2.0

[GGTharos]

E-versions of base missile was designed to give attack fighter ability "first hit" enemy fighter in duel due to higher speed and energy (hit target before enemy missle). This was a temporary solution expecting ARH missile.

 

That's a good assumption, but it's still just an assumption - just like the one where the T/ET has datalink ... but actually didn't. :)

 

Which E missiles on Polish MiGs?

We were talking about R-27RE.

 

As a further item of interest, I would also suggest to look at the lipetsk 4v4 battle - the Su-27's are clearly carrying R-27R, not E version.

Edited February 8, 2010 by GGTharos

[volk]

That's a good assumption, but it's still just an assumption - just like the one where the T/ET has datalink ... but actually didn't. :)

It's about SARH.

ET is good for firing at six (may be 3-9 too) to high-speed low-attitude target (like fighter or B-1/F-111).

We were talking about R-27RE.

RE (РЭ - Экспортная (Export version in Russian), or R-27ER (ЭР, Энергетическая (Energy version in Rus)?

See this:

Change in airframe and weight may rob it of available max airframe g - so yes, it can be against fighters

Polish MiGs can't use ER (energy) versions. It's for Su-27 and latest MiGs only.

As a further item of interest, I would also suggest to look at the lipetsk 4v4 battle - the Su-27's are clearly carrying R-27R, not E version.

First, it's training, not a war.

Second maybe num 2 or 3 carry it? Who knows...

Edited February 8, 2010 by volk

[CyBerkut]

Then you must check other your sources, because the same missile with more powerful engine can't be "poorer".

 

Why couldn't it? It's not hard to imagine that a more powerful engine might need an improved control system to get more useful results. If the steering surfaces and/or control system are now inadequate to make the needed turns with the more powerful engine, it's not an improved performance.

 

NOTE: I'm not saying that is the case in this specific missile system, as I have no idea. I'm just saying that 'missing the target faster' is not really a useful improvement, and that there are more factors to consider in missile performance.

[GGTharos]

It's about SARH.

ET is good for firing at six (may be 3-9 too) to high-speed low-attitude target (like fighter or B-1/F-111).

 

Yes, I agree.

 

RE (РЭ - Экспортная (Export version in Russian), or R-27ER (ЭР, Энергетическая (Energy version in Rus)?

See this:

To be perfectly clear, we were specifically speaking about the Energy version.

 

Polish MiGs can't use ER (energy) versions. It's for Su-27 and latest MiGs only.

Malaysian MiG-29A's are re-wired to carry R-77. Polish migs could also be rewired, but I will not claim that they are. Nevertheless, I would expect that a MiG combat instructor would know what he's talking about.

 

First, it's training, not a war.

Second maybe num 2 or 3 carry it? Who knows...

I disagree with this volk :)

The whole point of training is to practice the fight that you WILL do ... it isn't there to burn fuel because you have too much of it.

The saying is: 'You fight like you train'. And thus you probably train with the weapons you would use in war if it were to happen right now.

 

I would like to add at the end that, no matter how much I trust a pilot's word, we have no actual data (that I know of) about the differences between plain and E versions, and for this reason no one is asking for the missile in LOFC2 to be made less maneuverable. I am hoping for someone to find data to support or disprove this statement.

Edited February 8, 2010 by GGTharos

[ФрогФут]

I would suppose that R-27R could be a better choice over R-27ER, cos its lighter and it would accelerate faster.

Lighter. But the engine is weaker.

Now, if you have to get as close as 10-15 km to get high PK, I would suppose that R-27R could be a better choice over R-27ER, cos its lighter and it would accelerate faster. And at that ranges it will not loose much of its energy by the time it hits/misses a target.

And, if you take above into account, why bother carrying a heavier missile (that will lower you maneuverability) when you can do the same job with a smaller one? Especially if you cannot put extended range to a good use cos your radar may loose its lock at higher ranges

Because approach time of the heavier missile is smaller, than the lighter one, i wrote that before. That is the point of E missile, not the expanded range.

As a further item of interest, I would also suggest to look at the lipetsk 4v4 battle - the Su-27's are clearly carrying R-27R, not E version.

And? Have you seen many photos of russian AF aircrafts with E missiles?

RE (РЭ - Экспортная (Export version in Russian), or R-27ER (ЭР, Энергетическая (Energy version in Rus)?

Export R-27 is 1. R-27R1, R-27T1, R-27ER1, R-27ET1. E is always enegry regarding R-27.

[GGTharos]

Because approach time of the heavier missile is smaller, than the lighter one, i wrote that before. That is the point of E missile, not the expanded range.

 

One goes with the other, really, so I would say the point was both of those - but I don't think the reason was over-match of AMRAAM (because that was the missile that was starting to get fielded) but rather the ability to intercept bombers more successfuly. In my opinion RuAF aircraft were always designed and equipped for homeland defense as a primary purpose, and I think the weapons design reflects this.

 

And? Have you seen many photos of russian AF aircrafts with E missiles?

 

I've seen a few, but I think training footage, and testimony from a combat instructor carries more weight than just photos :)

[ФрогФут]

I've seen a few, but I think training footage, and testimony from a combat instructor carries more weight than just photos

The point was: In Soviet Russia... I think, R-27R is used because there are much more, than R-27ER.;)

One goes with the other, really, so I would say the point was both of those

Range is more like bonus, than purpose.

[Alfa]

Because it is a foreign product (made in Ukraine, not Russia) and because fitting the Su-27 with it was too expensive at the time. The Su-27 was not modernised to carry the R-77 until the mid-2000's, IIRC.

 

When the R-77 was designed it was all the Soviet Union. After the break-up Vympel became a Russian company, so their R-77/RVV-AE design is not "foreign".

 

The missile was made in Russia, only the seeker was made in Ukraine.

 

The seeker for the R-77 was called 9B1348, while the seeker for the RVV-AE is called 9B1348E(E=Export) - both versions of the seeker were designed by AGAT....which is a Russian company.

 

RVV-AE. There is no R-77 now.

 

Semantics - same design different names.

 

The reason is my speculation, the comment does indeed come from a Polish MiG-29 instructor pilot (he currently instructs pilots in BVR tactics, including tactics for dealing with AMRAAM-equipped aircraft, obviously).

 

In his opinion the plain Alamo (R-27R) is a much better missile against fighters. Again, I don't know the reason.

 

Why would a Polish MiG-29 instructor be a particulary good source for determining the usefulness of the long-burn versions of the R-27 - Poland has no aircraft capable of deploying these versions, so how could he be in a position to know?

 

According to Vympel both the short- and long-burn versions are rated to a max target g-load of 8.

 

Lighter. But the engine is weaker.

 

Because approach time of the heavier missile is smaller, than the lighter one, i wrote that before. That is the point of E missile, not the expanded range.

 

The point of the E-missile is both ФрогФут - the ER version was specifically designed to take advantage of the radar range of the Su-27(i.e. longer than that of the MiG-29).

 

If you look at the E-missile and compare it to the short-burn version, you can see that the propulsion section is bigger both in length as well as in diameter - increased length indicating more fuel -> longer burn = longer range, while the increased diameter means more thrust = better acceleration.

 

....and some of that increased thrust would go to compensate for the higher launch weight of the missile as such(IIRC around 100 kg extra).

Edited February 8, 2010 by Alfa

[Frostie]

Specifically the comment was 'good missile against B-52, not so good against fighter'.

This may mean many things.

It could well be the case that he was implying using the ER's range, using such a long legged missile against a B-52 contact I should imagine will be able to get the max benefit and range out of a poor MiG's radar where as against a fighter the range at which a stable lock is achieved might prove within parameters for a 27R shot and a waste to use and carry a much bigger missile where the MiG in question radar can't engage a smaller a/c like a fighter using the ER's longer range.

[ФрогФут]

The seeker for the R-77 was called 9B1348, while the seeker for the RVV-AE is called 9B1348E(E=Export) - both versions of the seeker were designed by AGAT....which is a Russian company.

And? The production of the R-77 seeker was established in Ukraine.

Semantics - same design different names.

Different "insides".

The point of the E-missile is both ФрогФут

Very interesting. Tell me more.

[GGTharos]

Why would a Polish MiG-29 instructor be a particulary good source for determining the usefulness of the long-burn versions of the R-27 - Poland has no aircraft capable of deploying these versions, so how could he be in a position to know?

 

Why would you be a better source than a Polish MiG-29 combat instructor?

[Alfa]

And? The production of the R-77 seeker was established in Ukraine.

 

The fact is that both Vympel(who designed the missile) and AGAT(who designed the seekerhead) are now Russian companies - who cares where their production facilities were located back in Soviet times?!.

 

Different "insides".

 

Hardly - as far as I can tell "RVV-AE" is simply using sub-components of foreign("Western") origin, which in turn would explain(at least in part) why it hasn't been adopted by the Russian airforce.

 

Very interesting. Tell me more.

 

What more is there to tell :) - apart from the propulsion section being longer, it is also burning in two stages(boost + sustain), which is a pretty clear indication that increased range was an obejctive.

[ФрогФут]

The fact is that both Vympel(who designed the missile) and AGAT(who designed the seekerhead) are now Russian companies - who cares where their production facilities were located back in Soviet times?!

If there is nowhere to produce the item, you can't produce it. I thought, it was obvious. Time is needed to restart the production.

Hardly - as far as I can tell "RVV-AE" is simply using sub-components of foreign("Western") origin, which in turn would explain(at least in part) why it hasn't been adopted by the Russian airforce.

Isn't that different insides?

[Alfa]

Why would you be a better source than a Polish MiG-29 combat instructor?

 

Thats not the question - the question is why a Polish MiG-29 instructor is a better source than Vympel....considering that he doesn't have the oppotunity to actually deploy the missile in question.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Alfa

[Alfa]

If there is nowhere to produce the item, you can't produce it. I thought, it was obvious. Time is needed to restart the production.

 

So what you are saying is that AGAT isn't producing anything these days?

 

Isn't that different insides?

 

It depends on what you mean by it. The design as such does not necessarily differ just because you buy your electronic sub-components from a foreign source.

[ФрогФут]

So what you are saying is that AGAT isn't producing anything these days?

I say, the R-77 seeker is not produced any more, because it's production factory left in the Ukraine. RVV-AE seeker replaced it.

[Alfa]

I say, the R-77 seeker is not produced any more, because it's production factory left in the Ukraine. RVV-AE seeker replaced it.

 

But its the same seeker design :)

[ФрогФут]

But its the same seeker design

And? It uses anoter parts and it was not established the time, R-77 seeker production became impossible.

[Pilotasso]

GG when did this polish pilot said the R27R was better than AMRAAM? Before or after they aquired the F-16's?.

 

Because my bro says the AMRAAM C version beats the livind daylights of the Alamo whatever version, to the point to even use it as a close range missile making the sidwinder almost redundant.

 

I guess even pilots might have their own bias, because they look at their gun the closest (hence the bigger it looks :D ).

 

There might be a degree of uncertainty before this bias, but Im inclined to say that both pilots may be just valuing different aspects of the missiles.

 

Alamos might have been regarded to have superior end game manuverability while AMRAAM has been praised fire and forget ability by its pilots. but neigther get to use both to compare so...

Edited February 8, 2010 by Pilotasso

[RvEYoda]

GG when did this polish pilot said the R27R was better than AMRAAM? Before or after they aquired the F-16's?.

 

Because my bro says the AMRAAM C version beats the livind daylights of the Alamo whatever version, to the point to even use it as a close range missile making the sidwinder almost redundant.

 

I guess even pilots might have their own bias, because they look at their gun the closest (hence the bigger it looks :D ).

 

I dont think GG ever said R27 would beat the amraam, hehe.

We both share your brother's opinion mostly ;)

 

What i heard the anti amraam tactics "dont get within 15 nm until they spent all amraams"

Edited February 8, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[Alfa]

And? It uses anoter parts and it was not established the time, R-77 seeker production became impossible.

 

And? ;) . If the design is the same and the capabilities are the same then what does it matter whether it uses a microprocessor made in one country or the other.

 

My point is that as far as I can tell there is very little, if any, actual difference between the initial R-77 and the post-Soviet RVV-AE except the name and that whatever use of foreign components has more to do with availability/cost of those rather than being an actual "upgrade" to the design.

 

I think its indicative that AGAT didn't change its designation other than adding an "E" to the end of it, while the newer ARH seeker design they made later is called something different(9B1103 and 9B1103M).

[GGTharos]

I'm sorry pilot, but ... try reading what I wrote again :D

 

GG when did this polish pilot said the R27R was better than AMRAAM? Before or after they aquired the F-16's?.

[tflash]

Oep, I missed a whole part of the discussion while away. To come back to why I think the bigger motor missile is less manoevrable during first fase of flight, I would say because you have a higher longitudinal force vector.

 

As long as your motor burns, turning requires higher actuator-generated energy to change the course (except when you would use trust-vectoring of course, not the case in R-27ER).

 

The missile would have higher inertia also, of course. So yes, I think if you think in sheer physics, a smaller missile can be at a certain distance from target more manoevrable than a larger one; and one whose motor has just stopped can also change course more easily than one which still has a forward thrust.

 

I guess most of you guys when taking a high-G turn with an F-15 would reduce throttle before the turn for the same reason.

[GGTharos]

Actually that's because the g limiter at 450kt + is too restricted. :)

 

I guess most of you guys when taking a high-G turn with an F-15 would reduce throttle before the turn for the same reason.

[IvanK]

What G limiter are you referring to GG ?