True effectiveness of the R-27ER/ET

[SgtPappy]

I can't for the life of me find any real information proving/disproving that the R-27 was a bad missile.

 

According to anything I've read, the R-27 (don't know if it's ER/ET or just R/T) was fired up to 24 times in the Ethiopia-Eritrea War with only one confirmed "hit". Does this mean the missile is actually bad?

 

Or perhaps the fact that both countries had mercenary pilots, not trained anything like the Russian VVS or USAF pilots.

 

Either way... does anyone have ANY sourced information proving/disproving the effectiveness of the R-27R/T/ER/ET missiles?

[GGTharos]

No, there's no such information.

 

What happened in Ethiopia-Eritrea doesn't mean too much. The R-27R is still the primary air intercept missile for the Russian air forces ... the extended (E) versions are apparently not quite as good against fighters, but that has also been difficult to verify.

 

I can't for the life of me find any real information proving/disproving that the R-27 was a bad missile.

 

According to anything I've read, the R-27 (don't know if it's ER/ET or just R/T) was fired up to 24 times in the Ethiopia-Eritrea War with only one confirmed "hit". Does this mean the missile is actually bad?

 

Or perhaps the fact that both countries had mercenary pilots, not trained anything like the Russian VVS or USAF pilots.

 

Either way... does anyone have ANY sourced information proving/disproving the effectiveness of the R-27R/T/ER/ET missiles?

[SgtPappy]

Well that puts the AIM-120A even more of an advantage when it comes to Cold War weapons then!

 

I've never heard of the E versions of the R-27 being worse against fighters (though I know you said that was unconfirmed)... I assumed more range and speed would've been better. :huh: Where'd you read that?

[GGTharos]

I heard from a MiG-29 flight/combat instructor.

[Alfa]

I can't for the life of me find any real information proving/disproving that the R-27 was a bad missile.

 

Hehe....opening up that old can of worms :D

 

According to anything I've read, the R-27 (don't know if it's ER/ET or just R/T) was fired up to 24 times in the Ethiopia-Eritrea War with only one confirmed "hit". Does this mean the missile is actually bad?

 

Or perhaps the fact that both countries had mercenary pilots, not trained anything like the Russian VVS or USAF pilots.

 

I agree with GG that the Ethiopia-Eritrean conflict isn't useful for evaluating this missile design - not least because, as I remember it, the information on the incidents involving these missiles seemed very sketchy and dubious.

 

Another matter is that missile performance itself is just one factor out of many affecting the outcome of an engagement - there are other technical aspects such as radar/WCS(attacker), radar warning system(defender) as well as the basic nature of the missile(SARH) - e.g. that in order to hit anything it is necessary to maintain lock on target throughout the engagement......an ability which again is affected by the nature of the launching radar as well as pilot skill/determination on both sides.

 

So we really have to stick to technical specifications in order to get an idea of what a missile is capable of - which in turn comes with its own set of limitations(the amount of data available).

 

Either way... does anyone have ANY sourced information proving/disproving the effectiveness of the R-27R/T/ER/ET missiles?

 

I doubt it - the only semi-useful information I remember having seen was from a Luftwaffe pilot(flying the MiG-29) describing the effective launch range of the R-27R as being "disappointingly short", which in turn would be a "detractor" for a missile that is supposed to be a BVR weapon and doesn't have the agility of a dedicated short range weapon(such as R-73).

 

The R-27 "family" is a modular design where different missile sections(seeker-, autopilot,- and motor sections) can be swapped around to form a particular version.

 

In regards to the base R-27R vs. R-27RE-version - these share both seeker and autopilot sections, so the motor characteristics/weight difference is the only difference between them.

 

The R-27R has a single stage "boost-only" motor, while the R-27ER has a larger two-stage "boost-sustain" motor - with more thrust in boost stage to compensate for higher launch weight and a longer burning sustain stage in order to compensate for drag in level flight when coasting over longer distances.

 

Looking at the design differences between the two versions, it seems to me that the E-version was carefully designed in such a way that it would obtain longer range for typical intercept-type engagements(against "non-maneuverable" targets such as bombers and transports) without affecting its general characteristics as compared with the base version(R-27R). The technical data(as provided by the manufacturer) shows identical values for the two missiles except for range. For range two numbers are provided - one "mean range"(against non-maneuverable targets), where its considerably higher for the -ER and another for fighter type engagements(agile targets), where the difference is negligible.....some 5-8 km.

 

This leads me to believe that the -ER isn't actually a worse weapon against maneuverable targets, but just doesn't provide any real range benefit in such an engagement.

[SgtPappy]

That seems logical. I suppose the MiG-29 pilot that GG talked to could have also meant that at very long range, the -E versions would be "worse" because they're heavier and thus, have an even more limited maneuvering performance once they slow down to the subsonic regime compared to the lighter non-extended range versions.

 

I suppose the closest conclusion we can draw is that, like the AIM-7M, the best these SARH missiles can hope to do is a ~35% hit percentage against targets. I would thus assume the R-27ER to be similarly effective... with its longer range but heavier design.

[Alfa]

No you misunderstood what I meant - basically the second-stage sustainer part of the engine only provides enough thrust to compensate for drag when the missile is in level flight(cruise stage), but not for the more radical maneuvering(bleeding more energy) associated with chasing down an agile target, so the R-27ER only has a significant range advantage over the R-27R when used against non-maneuverable targets.

 

I think this is what GG's MiG-29 pilot meant.

 

And again - the only difference between the two versions is the engine section which is some 100kg heavier on the ER, but remember that most of the weight of an engine section is down to the propellant it holds, so at terminal stage of engagement most of that weight has been burned off.

 

Anyway, both the R-27R and R-27RE are stated to be able to intercept a target maneuvering at up to 8 g.

[GGTharos]

That's probably right. I would imagine the larger body also increases the drag when turning, but I don't know if this is significant.

 

More to the point, you're hauling 100 extra kilos per missile, which in a fight against fighters won't do more than the lighter missile, but will cost you fuel to get there, as well as maneuverability (at least until you fire it, but if you're in a flanker, that's still lots of tonnage :) )

[Alfa]

That's probably right. I would imagine the larger body also increases the drag when turning, but I don't know if this is significant.

 

Possibly yes.

 

More to the point, you're hauling 100 extra kilos per missile, which in a fight against fighters won't do more than the lighter missile, but will cost you fuel to get there, as well as maneuverability (at least until you fire it, but if you're in a flanker, that's still lots of tonnage :) )

 

Yeah - its perhaps also indicative that the E-versions were meant to equip Flankers, but not the regular MiG-29.....suggesting that the purpose of the E-missile was specifically to support interceptor tasks.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Alfa

[SgtPappy]

I feel the extra range (though not too marked against fighters) would give the Flanker a slight BVR advantage over the Eagle in a 1 vs 1 or even 4 vs 4 situation before September 1991 when the AIM-120A reached IOC with the F-15, discounting AWACS.

 

Personally, I have little knowledge on the difference between the AIM-120A vs the AIM-120B/C variants so I have no idea how badly an AIM-120A would effect the Su-27's capability.

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure it would have, given that those barely existed back then IIRC. AMRAAM could have been used a lot earlier, but it had problems (nonetheless, not as big a problem as one flying at you ... )

 

But generally speaking, all of this would have been 27R vs 7. The (e) wouldn't have given you anything.

 

I feel the extra range (though not too marked against fighters) would give the Flanker a slight BVR advantage over the Eagle in a 1 vs 1 or even 4 vs 4 situation before September 1991 when the AIM-120A reached IOC with the F-15, discounting AWACS.

 

The B was reprogrammable. There may have been other improvements, but it isn't always easy to find out (for example, processor speed, TDD, warhead ... all these things tend to undergo improvements).

 

As for affecting a SARH-carrying aircraft, it changes the game. The ARH carrier can play much safer, or be a lot more aggressive. The 120C is just scores nastier. Better radar, better electronics, better ECCM, better fuze, more/better rocket propellant (ie. more speed/range) ... you get the idea.

 

Personally, I have little knowledge on the difference between the AIM-120A vs the AIM-120B/C variants so I have no idea how badly an AIM-120A would effect the Su-27's capability.

[SgtPappy]

That's encouraging... back to the SARH battle of wits. I'd like to see more Cold War servers... there's just something that bothers me about post-Soviet Era combat where we know even less about the weapons and planes. Feels like EVERYTHING is classified.

[GGTharos]

There's a lot of classified stuff that perhaps can't be usefuly modeled anyway. For example, do you care exactly what a jammer does, or does a particular jamming technique (for display purposes) + probability of success vs. some radar give you sufficient simulation?

This stuff is as classified for the cold war era as it iis now. Personally I couldn't care less for cold war servers. Bring the AMRAAMs. In FC2, the F-15C doesn't really have the BVR advantages it should anyway, and the only thing that can make them look a bit better is the 120.

[SgtPappy]

What advantages do you find the F-15 doesn't have here that it does in real life?

[GGTharos]

Radar, ECM/ECCM among other things.

[Pilotasso]

NCTR, JTIDS, and automatic radar steering :)

[Pilotasso]

Just want to add, theres quite a few articles about captured R-27R being tested on the west during the cold war. The story goes, it was a very good missile with decent ECCM. At the time the Sparrow was comparable. Mig-29's were carrying while F-16's didnt. For a short while there was a slight advantage because the 15's could match it and exceed it but there were far less of them, and the 16 that was far more numerous without such weapon was outgunned. The Russians always believed then, that combat would usualy degenerate in a closer quarter fight due to difficulties and ROE making BVR engagements rather difficult. In this scenario, a long range weapon was not critical. Also, a passive warning reciever would always tell you anytime the enemies radar was using guidance frequencies, above 10 miles, all it took was turn to one side and the missile most likely would miss anyway, regardless being AIM-7 or R-27.

 

Russia is only catching up now on ARH due to budgetary restrictions following the fall of the USSR. This is because today, its possible to do IFF at longer ranges. The guy that gets caught with a SARH missile is at the disavantage.

 

As for R-27ET (there was also an IR AA-6 amos that filled this role before the ET), its primary mission was to allow an engagement above the range of short range heat seekers such as R-60's or R-73's and where radar wouldnt work due to massive ECM, in such case as engagements against enemy bombers. The USSR was heavily doctrinated against this kind of threat and lots of their fleets-and weapons- reflected that.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Pilotasso

[SgtPappy]

Well there were F-16ADF variants that could carry Sparrows in 1989, but because they were ANG you may not count them as front-line fighters.

[Dudikoff]

Well there were F-16ADF variants that could carry Sparrows in 1989, but because they were ANG you may not count them as front-line fighters.

 

And the 1989 is a bit late for the context as the AMRAAM was not far off..

[Pilotasso]

The F-16 was only matched with similar BVR capability as the mig with the ADF variant between 1989 and 1992. Only 3 years.

 

The ADF variant remained a viable option for custumers without access to ARH tecnhology. The only country that opted for this variant outside US was...Portugal :D

[SgtPappy]

Well the US focused much on BVR technology during the 80's as well, so I they must have found some worth in making the F-15 a super-BVR plane even pre-AMRAAM. I think they believed that WVR combat was very risky, seeing as how IR missiles were all-aspect by this time. If worst came to worse for F-15 pilots, they could always just run away.

 

Meanwhile, the USSR built the Flanker variants to carry 10+ missiles in order to fire multiple rounds at one enemy, so they too, must have found some worth in BVR technology. It just seems that the USSR used BVR technology as more of a defensive tactic while the US used it as a direct offensive tactic.

 

To be honest, I think that pilots at the time believed that if you could score one kill BVR after fire four missiles then it was a job well done.

[Frostie]

Surely with force of numbers the Russian tactic was very offensive, outnumbering any enemy and capable of getting more missiles in the air is offensive.

 

Real life pilots don't ignore being shot at and are certainly not as gung-ho as you see in FC, the outnumbered USAF would surely have been very defensive in a pre AMRAAM war.

[SgtPappy]

This is true, but I believe any of these air forces would be aggressive if they had the numerical advantage, and/or situational awareness advantage.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by 1989, did the US and USSR not have essentially equal numbers of F-15s/F-16s and Su-27s/MiG-29s?