R-27ER update?

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/news/defense-aviation-news/2019-news/may/5086-russian-aerospace-forces-to-receive-upgraded-r-27-missiles.html

 

According to press release, there are R-27 upgrades, obviously if the missile is so aerodynamically inferior - those would not make sense. Probably an overhaul with replacing expired rocket engines with new better ones and probably new seekers. They probably have a large stockpile of R-27s nearing expiration date.

 

The only thing that is possibly mistranslated is:

R-27P1 homing warhead combines an active radar and inertial correction. They switch on in turn depending on the flight stage. The missile receives guidance from radars of the carrier aircraft or ground radars. It operates by the launch-and-forget principle and ensures information stealth of the attack.

 

I thought P was sort of a anti-radiation ("passive radar homing") missile not ARH ("active radar"). Maybe it is ment to be something like homing on active radar emission?

Back in the day IIRC there was a project or prototype R-27AE but never got into service.

 

There are in fact several mistakes on that page.

 

Anyway, the R-27P1 is the short-burn version of the missile with a passive radar homing head(9B-1032). In official information, there is no mention of inertial navigation/radio correction for this variant, but rather that it employs the "fire & forget" principle - i.e. passive radar homing from launch to impact.

With a lofted profile it would reach crazy ranges, because it gets much faster than the Aim-120. The added weight would help it to maintain its speed against the higher drag.

Weight doesn't help. It lowers missile max speed and increases induced drag. Even when you're costing in a straight line, it's the ballistic coefficient (drag vs mass) that matters.

While the acceleration suffers from the mass, the top speed is more affected by drag (R-27E with long burntime has enough time to accelerate). Then it will fight the drag using its kinetic energy, and for that it needs some mass.

 

A missile with the same shape that weighs 1 gramm would not go very far, even from mach 5.

Weight should obviously not get too high either.

Edited June 8, 2020 by BlackPixxel

While the acceleration suffers from the mass, the top speed is more affected by drag (R-27E with long burntime has enough time to accelerate). Then it will fight the drag using its kinetic energy, and for that it needs some mass.

Even then, the lighter missile would be better at climbing, allowing it to get to lower drag altitudes.

 

 

More mass for all else equal means that if you do get the heavier missile to the same speed, and it doesn't have to manuever (which in this case would include 1 g level flight), it will slow down less and go further, but that's a really niche situation.

 

 

As far as R-27 vs AIM-120 goes, you can't really tell which one is going to hold speed better without knowing the CD's of each.

 

 

A missile with the same shape that weighs 1 gramm would not go very far, even from mach 5.

Weight should obviously not get too high either.

If you could get a missile that light it would probably have a tiny boost motor and a massive sustain and just fly powered all the way to target without losing speed in turns.

While the acceleration suffers from the mass, the top speed is more affected by drag (R-27E with long burntime has enough time to accelerate). Then it will fight the drag using its kinetic energy, and for that it needs some mass.

 

A missile with the same shape that weighs 1 gramm would not go very far, even from mach 5.

Weight should obviously not get too high either.

 

You are correct, but your analysis is superficial.

 

The mass counts, and is reduced as we burn the rocket motor away.

The heavier missile has a larger area, which increases the drag force.

The drag force itself squared, so, parabolic, while the mass is a constant.

 

So yes, the heavier mass will help but probably not enough to make a truly significant difference - just IMHO.

Have you even tried checking their references?

 

Have you even read the articles and counted how many times paper-only weapons are mentioned, or how many times he writes 'may' this or 'may that', or his sources do the same?

 

By the way, what's this about 'non-export versions'? You're just trying to make yourself look smart with that one, right? Because you couldn't possibly believe that actual operator's manuals, even for so called export versions, would somehow be inferior information to the references that you failed to check, right?

 

The AIM-7 reaches some 25nm where the R-27ER reaches 35nm (with lofting, the AIM-7 should come up to 30nm). Under those same circumstances (30000', 0.9M head-on) the AIM-120A (and B) falls almost squarely in the middle there at about 30nm. AIM-120C with its bigger rocket motor should easily match the R-27ER. That's all without lofting, and R-27's don't loft.

 

Of course, that's just armchair analysis so take it with a grain of salt.

 

As far as ED is concerned, they have the missiles where they believe they should be.

 

Again, where are your facts for those 35nm on r27er (alamo C)?

 

http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/aviation-means-of-attack-and-defense/air-to-air-missiles-r-27er1

I have always heard and saw that 27ER has greater range than AMRAAMs. Even lofting amraams can hardly match ER in range. Let Pk go out of window(we are not talking about it). That's my armchair comment

If you were doing an honest search you might have found the R-27ER graphs on this very forum - if they've been cleaned up, which is possible, you can easily find the flanker manual that contains them out there.

 

Here's the graph from that manual:

 

https://i.imgur.com/CzEupQ6.png

If you were doing an honest search you might have found the R-27ER graphs on this very forum - if they've been cleaned up, which is possible, you can easily find the flanker manual that contains them out there.

 

Here's the graph from that manual:

 

https://i.imgur.com/CzEupQ6.png

No hard feelings though, I just read your first few comments in this thread and it looks like you are totally against ER update and you are pretty vocal about it.

So here is the problem the whole R-27 family has suffers from guidance, drag and CM resistance issue. It takes first Chaff it sees when you notch. Drag is like the missile is moving through sewage water (it's so bad). In normal condition 27r missile can't even hit targets which changes course by 5 degrees. No way a military contractor will pass this missiles and allow them to fitted with countries best Aircrafts. It totally makes no sense. It needs massive update in many department like it or not. Chizh already said the update is pending.

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

No hard feelings though, I just read your first few comments in this thread and it looks like you are totally against ER update and you are pretty vocal about it.

 

No, no hard feelings but it looks nothing like that. The update will happen, regardless of what you believe I'm for or against. I just don't believe it'll result in something very different than there is today, other than subsonic maneuver capability which should increase.

 

The rest is all about guidance which I don't know how well it will go - right now my sparrows aren't doing so hot if that's any indication and theoretically they have had some of this upgrade.

No, no hard feelings but it looks nothing like that. The update will happen, regardless of what you believe I'm for or against. I just don't believe it'll result in something very different than there is today, other than subsonic maneuver capability which should increase.

 

The rest is all about guidance which I don't know how well it will go - right now my sparrows aren't doing so hot if that's any indication and theoretically they have had some of this upgrade.

I know how it is but time will tell. Bashing each other will continue until ED implements it, even after that also. But yeah I would like to see some improvements from todays version. Even If i play Blufor, knowing Different physics rules applied in missiles makes my immersion go away. They should be in same standard (same physics), with their own merits and demerits as per IRL.

I would have liked ED to take much of their time and update all missiles at one update rather than releasing one by one. It'll irk people in both sides

 

Sent from my Redmi K20 Pro using Tapatalk

Sadly that's pretty much impossible. They don't have the manpower to work on all missiles at once and have them ready on a reasonable timeframe. Even worse if there are 3rd parties adding new weapons (HB, Deka) that require some work one way or the other. Beyond the SD-10 drama, people has been asking for an Spamraam update for years. If they even knew the silly R-27 was delaying the update of their precious missile...it wouldn't be pretty. It also wouldn't make much sense. I understand that from a player PoV, reworking all missiles at once is better. But from a development PoV isn't that great, as you'd have to be debugging a bunch of missiles with a bunch of new code on them at the same time, because they'd be broken or whatever. So it's better to just release them one by one, and that would also appease some people if their missile is released.

 

About the physics and effort put on the missile I absolutely agree. I fly both red and blue and I would love to see the R-27 perform how it should. I know it's not going to become an amazing weapon overnight because it's still SARH and relatively old, but I'd like to at least see that the devs have put time and effort making it as close to RL as possible. Sadly I don't see it happening, for several reasons. First of all the documentation may just not be there, meaning the R-27 update may be handicapped from the start. Secondly, ED has shown the level of effort they're willing to put on red modules, I'm looking at the new Kuznetsov's CIWS. Keep in mind you're paying 50 bucks for that, the R-27 update is (supposedly, but I wouldn't be surprised otherwise) free. Logically they're going to put the bare mininum effort on it. Thirdly, there's no plane using the R-27 coming, which believe it or not is a big reason to start updating things. If the Hornet or the WIPer weren't there, the Spamraam update wouldn't have happened so "soon", as there'd be little urgency to update the missile. FC3 planes are FC3 planes after all. Lastly there's always the relative performance thing. The R-27 is already faster than the Spamraam, which should be, while having a shorter range. So everything is good! R-27 guys aren't going to be outranging Spamraamers, not even with the new CFD or whatever they are going to do. So are they really going to notice the change? The average Blue pilot is just going to launch and skate from much farther than the R-27 can hope to reach, so why put some effort into an FM change that is going to be unnoticed? Let me rephrase, why put some effort into a CIWS that you're barely going to see and it's not the focus of the paid module anyway?

 

I hope by next decade we will see a proper R-27 simulation, but even then the extra range is probably not going to be very useful because we're going to detect the F-35s at point blank range, if we survive until then. I'm just not holding my breath, I know it will be disappointing

On 1/14/2019 at 10:12 PM, FoxAlfa said:

...

Ok, this is lost in my translation, Upravljanje is more of a command, it presumes the involvement of a side and not just overwatch or setup.

Other Serbo-Croatian speakers can back me up on this.

...

A bit late to the party, but I can confirm this.
The manual clearly states that the non-terminal phase is performed via inertial guidance with radio corrections. Correction signals are being sent by the aircraft.
Upravljanje - means to steer/control/manage