R-77 for Sukhoi's

AFAIK reading several articles, the R-77 have D-link to make the corrections during the INS flight

I am speaking for ignorance here, so feel free to correct me.

 

Most (Apart from very modern) SARH's don't have rear receivers, so they have no "M-link" "Missile Message" "Data-link" guidance. They fly purely on the returns on the (typically) HPRF track of the radar into their radar receiver. As far as I'm aware, the R-27 has no rear receiver, nor do any other weapons launched by the MiG-29/Su-27.

 

So the question comes, does the MiG-29/Su-27 radar possess the ability to transmit messages to missiles with a rear receiver? Even in the radar is able to TWS a target, it doesn't mean it is able to communicate that information to a launched weapon.

 

Looking at the AWG-9 in the F-14, it can TWS targets, however it cannot communicate to the AIM-7 via missile message. In fact it cannot communicate to the AIM-54 via missile message if its locking a target STT.

 

Presumably a radar upgrade would be needed?

...

 

So the question comes, does the MiG-29/Su-27 radar possess the ability to transmit messages to missiles with a rear receiver? Even in the radar is able to TWS a target, it doesn't mean it is able to communicate that information to a launched weapon...

Can't speak to the MiG-29 but the real-world Su-27 manual floating around the internet has this interesting passage in reference to one of its SUV-27E2 armament control system functions:

"The radar targeting complex (RLPK) is part of the SUV-27E (СУВ-27Э) weapon management system and provides for:

.....

- the computation of missile launch parameters and the generation and issuance of discrete commands in the SUO-27E2 (СУО-27Э2), as well as the illumination of the target under attack and the transmission of guidance commands to a launched, radar-guided missile (a missile with a radar seeker head (Радиолокационная Головка Самонаведения [РГС]) via the radio correction channel;"

Радиолокационный прицельный комплекс (РЛПК) является составной частью СУВ-27Э и обеспечивает:

 

...

 

− расчет условий пуска ракет, формирование и выдачу разовых команд в СУО-27Э2, а также подсвет атакуемой цели и передачу команд управления на пущенную ракету в РГС по линии радиокоррекции;

I can try to dig up that discussion again but not sure I want to spend the time - the question was about capability; maybe it's re programmable but doesn't have enough R&D put into it to really make it that superior to the 120A. I don't know, it's pure speculation from things I've heard.

No never mind the digging - just wondered if it was just a casual comment about it being equivalent to an early version of the AIM-120(which it obviously is) or whether he mentioned anything specific.

No, but it was the most significant difference IMHO - EEPROMs were used for almost every module - seeker, guidance, fuze, autopilot. :)

Ok I thought it was the only difference - partly because the -B came so soon(IIRC only a couple of years) after the induction of the -A.

Yep, it's not listed. OTOH the R-77 warhead is 22.5kg. Comparing to the 120, I suppose they have enough room for improvement in there to shave off some 5kg. In any case, that's 20kg of useable weight that could be approximately 14kg of extra fuel total (based on average weight ratio of rocket motor to rocket fuel contained within) ... which is a LOT of extra fuel.

Yes and I think you are right that the -SD may may only be similar to the -AE on the outside - I suspect there is a lot more "under the hood" and that it in reality constitutes a complete re-design. Again I don't know about the warhead, but in addition to the bit about the new seekerhead, I also heard something about new light-weight actuation motors for the aerodynamic control devices.

Of course, these could just be repeated rumors, but the story sounds convincing enough. 9.13S did enter production and it was planned to enter VVS service.

 

It sounds perfectly plausible that deliveries to operational and test units started, but were stopped when SU fell apart and VVS couldn't pay (or didn't need?) for the rest so the remaining produced units were reused for export (e.g. Malaysia) and perhaps some further test variants.

Possibly, but AFAIK the MiG-29S only came about after the break-up of the SU in 1992 - i.e. in the same year that the MiG-29M/K development was suspended and the US started to induct the AIM-120.

During the early days of the MiG-29M development, the intention was to run a parallel upgrade program for the "baseline" MiG-29 - bringing it as close as possible to the standard of the -M(i.e. really an early SMT). But this idea was abandoned in order to concentrate funds on the -M development and only upgrade the baseline MiG-29 design to fix the most pressing shortcomings(enter 9.13).

I don't if the MiG-29S was a planned continuation of that philosophy or whether it and subsequently the -SM and -SMT was a return to the initial idea for a cost effective alternative to the MiG-29M when this became a no-go.

Thanks Alfa, nice to see you around again.

Thanks mate :)

Is it operational?

No not yet as far as I know.

Which airframe is it designed for?

I could imagine upgraded MiG-31, Su-35 and PAK-FA - i.e. aircraft with radars powerful enough to take advantage.

I think its better we stop using 'R77' except in historical terms as only the RVV-AE and RVV-SD are operationally relevant.

Possibly, but then I have found that the R-77 and RVV-AE designations are used a little randomly - e.g. I have read accounts for the very early days of development(beginning of the 80'ies), where the missile is consistently referred to as the "RVV-AE", despite this designation supposedly being for a different mid-90'ies export variant. Likewise, as Dudikoff said, the RVV-SD is also known as the R-77-1 :hmm:.

That is not true, you dont need to STT any target to launch a missile that will be guided to an aproximate point using INS and his own radar in the final stage (pitbull), what is the point to STT one target if you will launch two missiles to differents aircraft? absurd, they did that in DCS because the logic used in all the FC3 russian aircraft use STT, thats all

So, the F-15C TWS mode also uses STT? SNP/SNP2 modes are kind of analogous to TWS, not STT.

If you have better sources than ED regarding how this mode should work, I'm sure they'll be very happy to learn more about them.

I wasnt aware that RVV-SD is available for export! What are chinese purchased Su35s equipped with?

Russian's only, no PL series.

So, the F-15C TWS mode also uses STT? SNP/SNP2 modes are kind of analogous to TWS, not STT.

 

If you have better sources than ED regarding how this mode should work, I'm sure they'll be very happy to learn more about them.

That's my point, in ED is wrong the way that they simulated the use of the R-77, that is mandatory to lock a target in SNP2 to launch the missile to two targets, the real R-77 launch mode should be like the F-15 TWS, not STT. But no one have information about, as GG told me a while ago, only a couple of seconds of one video.

Yep, but from that video we can at least deduce a 2TWS mode and that it would be rather unlikely that there's a lock-on on either fighter since no aircraft operating an MSA+SARH (or ARH) ever did such a thing as far as we know.

That sure is one sexy bird.

What missile is that under its fuselage ?

Sent from my A1601 using Tapatalk

What missile is that under its fuselage ?

you're asking about the ones under the nacelles?

those are the same kab-500kr tv guided bombs we can carry in the su-25t.

.

That is a very nice heatblur effect! :D

you're asking about the ones under the nacelles?

those are the same kab-500kr tv guided bombs we can carry in the su-25t.

Sent from my A1601 using Tapatalk

This is a Su-35. He does not have pitot tube on nose plane

wait, did anyone actually mistake this for a su-27?

Who said so?

Of course is a Su-35

Chinese J-11A also carry R-77. Would be pretty nice to have it in DCS as an AI or another flyable variant of FC3 Su-27 module.

That is not true, you dont need to STT any target to launch a missile that will be guided to an aproximate point using INS and his own radar in the final stage (pitbull), what is the point to STT one target if you will launch two missiles to differents aircraft? absurd, they did that in DCS because the logic used in all the FC3 russian aircraft use STT, thats all

As far I have read and heard from a pilots that you use STT to guide missile in regardless you have a ARH as your TWS lags so maneuvering target will escape the basket. For a unaware target or non-maneuverable you can get them in basket easily. Meaning once you spot target, keep radar off until you come to launch parameters, turn radar on to check target heading stays same, launch missile in TWS and turn off your radar immediately and stay blind until missile is estimated to be in own seeker range and turn radar on and get STT lock to help missile to get to end.

Idea is to have target totally unaware from you, but doesn't work if their radar see you.

The TWS ain't a magic bullet that get everyone in every situation in reality. And it ain't modeled in DCS.

As far I have read and heard from a pilots that you use STT to guide missile in regardless you have a ARH as your TWS lags so maneuvering target will escape the basket.

I won't.

TWS and turn off your radar immediately and stay blind until missile is estimated to be in own seeker range and turn radar on and get STT lock to help missile to get to end.

Maybe that works in-game ... not in RL.

I won't.

 

 

 

Maybe that works in-game ... not in RL.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

In reality they use whatever's appropriate ... the 'splash two' outcome was two aircraft shot down simultaneously with a TWS shot in RL.

In reality it is used in STT and guided to the end by keeping radar continually on.