R-27P

[S77th-GOYA]

I've been looking into this missle a bit and from what I gather, it came into service in 1991 (according to Jane's). If this is true, why isn't it in LOMAC? I've read it was pretty secret, so isn't there enough info to model it?

 

For those that haven't heard of it, it is a passive seeker version of the R-27. It homes on airborne radar emissions in the centimetric range, which should cover fighters and E-3s. E-2s should be immune because of their longer radar freq.

[britgliderpilot]

I've never heard of it, will resort to Google.

 

 

Bear in mind that the Russian R is a P - so 27P and 27EP are just 27R and 27ER, the same as the SARH missiles we've been using in sims for years.

[504 Wolverine]

The R-27P & R-27EP is the passive radar version. It would be nice to see these in lock on.

 

The R-27P and -EP missile - P for passivnaya (passive) - are equipped with a PRGS-27 (or 9B-1032) seeker developed by CKBA. This operates at centimetric wavelengths, and guides the round to the radar of enemy fighter aircraft. The missile is intended for use against enemy fighters at long range, when the launch aircraft may still be beyond the maximum range of the target's radar. Since the weapon uses passive homing, it will give the target no warning that a launch has been made.

 

Vympel offers two versions of the missile: the standard R-27P with a maximum range of 72km and the 'energetic' version R-27EP with a bigger rocket motor which gives a maximum range of 110km. This maintains the dual-standard policy set by the original active-radar and infrared-guided versions, which were fielded in medium (R-27R and -27T) and long-range (R-27ER and -27ET) variants respectively. The R-27P and -27EP retain the basic configuration of the earlier members of the AA-10 'Alamo' series, including the novel trapezoidal 'butterfly' control surfaces.

 

The homing head is capable of detecting a target from a range of more than 200km, but the R-27EP cannot carry out an interception at such distances. The flight time would exceed the operating duration of the missile's onboard power supply. Vympel is working on ways of increasing the operating time of the power supply in order to allow R-27EP engagements at up to 200km.

[SwingKid]

It homes on airborne radar emissions in the centimetric range, which should cover fighters and E-3s. E-2s should be immune because of their longer radar freq.

 

E-3s also have longer wavelength. Pilot testimony says it's for use against jamming aircraft like EA-6B and EF-111, none of which exist in Lock On, or against fighters launching SARH missiles, which are now obsolete.

 

-SK

[S77th-GOYA]

OK, so it's basically an ECCM missle? Are fighter X-band emissions not strong enough to get a lock at range? I'm assuming the X-band would fall under the hazy term "centimetric" and also assumed the E-3 would also fall there. I understand it's at 10cm.

[GGTharos]

The problem I think is range ... also the fact that the antenna scanning probably causes issues as the sidelobes pan about.

[Trident]

Still, it would be a nice thing to try once in a while. Nice, but not essential.

[Weta43]

Remember that discussion in a thread about getting range to radar emitters (F-22s) through two plane datalinked & using computerised triangulation for approximate range?

Then head the offspring of one of these things over that way.

I wasn't convinced it wasn't do-able then & I'm less convinced now.

[Woodstock]

What do those missiles do if the tracked radar beam swings away from their launch direction/aircraft?

[Force_Feedback]

Why is everyone starting on an assumption that some drunkard moron designed a missile, that was fielded and, probably tested beforehand?

[GGTharos]

They attempt to track the sidelobe, which make yield a target in a different position, causing guidance correction and drag ... just a guess.

[Weta43]

Woodstock - I guess use some logic to decide where it's likely to re-appear, head for there & correct course when the next sweep goes past if needed. Or what GG said ...

[GGTharos]

Yep ... the problem is that the sweep give you a very low Pk - in essence you could do the same thing with a SARH missile, by not locking your radar on target. The problem is that this isn't good enough to get the missile within fuze distance against a maneuvering target, and likely pretty hard even for a non-maneuvering one.

 

Something homing in on the target's radar may have somewhat easier time of it, but I think if anything, the lack of use of such weapons would indicate that they are not particulrely successful.

[Weta43]

GG, Probably not, but then again neither were early heaters. Thermal & radar seekers have had huge amounts of energy invested in their development & over the years & vastly improved their effectiveness. As a result they've been good enough at doing what was needed of them that they will inevitably have stifled development of other avenues (why spend 10's or 100's of millions to get a new type of seeker to a PK that is easily achievable with traditional technology, when you could spend it increasing the PK of existing technologies even further? ). Now there's a need for a new generation of BVR seekers that can deal with "stealthy" targets, maybe someone will spend some money persuing those other avenues.

[GGTharos]

GG, Probably not, but then again neither were early heaters. Thermal & radar seekers have had huge amounts of energy invested in their development & over the years & vastly improved their effectiveness. As a result they've been good enough at doing what was needed of them that they will inevitably have stifled development of other avenues (why spend 10's or 100's of millions to get a new type of seeker to a PK that is easily achievable with traditional technology, when you could spend it increasing the PK of existing technologies even further? ). Now there's a need for a new generation of BVR seekers that can deal with "stealthy" targets, maybe someone will spend some money persuing those other avenues.

 

But the anti-radiation seeker technology is quite well developped ... the only thing that changes between guiding to a SAM and an aircraft is the guidance method (And by that I mean, for example, pure vs. proportional) ... it's more of a matter of physics.

 

ARM's won't help with stealthy targets, or at the best they'll be a trick that works once and then tactics will be imidiately adapted to deal with those quite easily.

 

Those new stealthy targets for one utilize antennas which emit highly supressed sidelobes, making the ARM's job even HARDER than against a conventional fighter radar.

 

The ARM is simply not a useful option at all, IMHO.

[SwingKid]

It seems that the version with passive seeker 9B-1032E was shown for the first time at MAKS 2005:

 

http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/MAKS-2005_weapons/R-27P_CRW_0157.jpg

http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/MAKS-2005_weapons/9B-1032E_L-113E_CRW_9542.jpg

 

I read somewhere that in addition to anti-ECCM role, it IS also supposed to be targetted against enemy fighter radars (to force them to shut down), just like an ARM against a SAM site.

 

-SK

[Prophet_169th]

Its seems to be more of a weapon to create a tactical advantage, than actually get a kill.

 

Would be a very good asset against the prowler for sure.

[Pilotasso]

..its going to be replaced by the Superbug. I can hear the shouts: KILL KILL KILL KILL LKILL