Jump to content

R-27ER update?


Schmidtfire

Recommended Posts

No. I had initially thought something similar. But stop and think about how short and squat the missile would be if, that were the case. Here is a different image of the same homing head:

 

43867-ausa-1-3.jpg?w=663&h=442

 

Yes that is the homing head, nothing about the seeker itself there and its batteries. But that what was on the table (behind the seeker) and did that order there follow that modularity in the picture, is the question.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. During INS/RC phase homing head is a basis of spatial reference and is not used for SAHR..

 

I do not quite understand. If the homing head gimbal is used for INS, then there must be some kind of rotating mass attached to it to keep its orientation steady.

 

 

Yes that is the homing head, nothing about the seeker itself there and its batteries. But that what was on the table (behind the seeker) and did that order there follow that modularity in the picture, is the question.

 

What do you mean with nothing about the seeker here?

The seeker is the yellow part on the most right on the gimbal in Ironhands image, with its 4 antennas for monopulse direction finding. This is the part that is under the radome of the missile.

 

On the table behind the seeker was in the image I posted:

Left: the complete homing head, (with radome + the section with the destabilizers)

middle: the middle section, including the canards (this section can be identified by having more screw holes) and propably the autopilot section with the proximity fuzes

right: the seeker of a completely different missile.


Edited by BlackPixxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not quite understand. If the homing head gimbal is used for INS, then there must be some kind of rotating mass attached to it to keep its orientation steady.

 

Simple gyroscope is enough for flight stabilization, and then have a seeker head just give angular rate for proportional navigation.

 

But that is like tech from 40's. INS gives all at once in tighter package.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not quite understand. If the homing head gimbal is used for INS, then there must be some kind of rotating mass attached to it to keep its orientation steady.

 

Sure, on the sidewinder it was the rollerons. But again we're talking about stabilization, whereas today 'INS guidance' is intended to really mean 'navigate to point X', using whatever algorithms for loft or a straight fly-out etc. It's beyond 'just stabilization'.

 

And perhaps the simplicity of the system itself is why the R-27 flies PN even when on m-link.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean with nothing about the seeker here?

 

We are saying same thing:

 

Here is another angle that shows that the description is for the components that are standing behind the text, not for the seeker that is in front of the whole arrangement:

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, on the sidewinder it was the rollerons. But again we're talking about stabilization, whereas today 'INS guidance' is intended to really mean 'navigate to point X', using whatever algorithms for loft or a straight fly-out etc. It's beyond 'just stabilization'.

 

And perhaps the simplicity of the system itself is why the R-27 flies PN even when on m-link.

 

If I understood it correclty the R-27R/ER receives quantized datalink corrections with changes in 3D space (position offsets + speed vector offsets).

 

From its own position and this "virtual target" it can then of course calculate the angular offset/rate, which can be used for PN guidance.

 

zUyYEwk.jpg


Edited by BlackPixxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love there is less secrecy on russian weapons, i'm sure there are many "lots" (following american/european terminology) with lots of improvements in the r27er family that we are not even aware of. Even more being in active service as it is.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the thing I think about is... those weapons have a shelf life.. like they don't last forever, now you could say, when they "expire" they just build exact copies of them but.... I mean.... seems far fetched to me when your national security is at stake.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....they just build exact copies of them but.... I mean.... seems far fetched to me when your national security is at stake.

 

That is the common believe here, that Soviets and Russia has not improved anything in the R-27 missiles unless it receives a new designation, and yet all are like "same R-27R/T" etc.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the thing I think about is... those weapons have a shelf life.. like they don't last forever, now you could say, when they "expire" they just build exact copies of them but.... I mean.... seems far fetched to me when your national security is at stake.
That would make no sense, not just from a security or common sense standpoint but also from a logistic perspective, too many advances in microcircuits, digital signal procesors and other components in the last 40 years, such that using the old components could be pricier and harder than introducing new digital, programmable technology. So even if the missile is the very same regarding aerodynamics or engine, it will probably be much "smarter": loft profiles, better eccm techniques, better navigation logic....

 

All this is of course speculation on my side, but on the other hand we know all armies ard always improving their weapons, so thinking that the r27er is the same one it was built in the 80s/90s is just not an option in my mind.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this is of course speculation on my side, but on the other hand we know all armies ard always improving their weapons, so thinking that the r27er is the same one it was built in the 80s/90s is just not an option in my mind.

 

I got laughed by well known people here by stating that it is illogical to expect that Russia has been using a R-27 missiles in their main A-A missile to defend their country based the assumption that R-27ER is exactly in the same specification as it was over 35 years ago, only because they didn't have anymore money to produce R-77 etc, so assuming that R-27 family development ended straight at that time when it came out of the factory.

 

Speculation that Russia would since 1991 been in a state where its whole air force etc is completely incapable to have believable capability in the air combat, against enemy that is updating their missiles almost every few years, that is stupid.

 

Russia has continually updated their radars, fighters and everything else, but they would then leave their main weapon to shoot enemies down to such state that is terrible to begin with?

You would pause/slow development only if your weapon is already exceeding what the enemy can challenge you. But you wouldn't stop it, not when it is your fighters primary medium range missile and there is nothing else to perform its task.

 

If the enemy can engage you from 200 km range and you can only from 60 km range, then what you do? You just accept that in case of engagement you are just sending targets to be shot down with zero capability to even threaten the enemy!

It is far more logical to expect that then your weapon is already so good shape that you can ease in the development and just wait that enemy could catch on, and even then expect that you keep developing so you maintain that advantage, even on paper.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got laughed by well known people here by stating that it is illogical to expect that Russia has been using a R-27 missiles in their main A-A missile to defend their country based the assumption that R-27ER is exactly in the same specification as it was over 35 years ago, only because they didn't have anymore money to produce R-77 etc, so assuming that R-27 family development ended straight at that time when it came out of the factory.

 

Speculation that Russia would since 1991 been in a state where its whole air force etc is completely incapable to have believable capability in the air combat, against enemy that is updating their missiles almost every few years, that is stupid.

 

Russia has continually updated their radars, fighters and everything else, but they would then leave their main weapon to shoot enemies down to such state that is terrible to begin with?

You would pause/slow development only if your weapon is already exceeding what the enemy can challenge you. But you wouldn't stop it, not when it is your fighters primary medium range missile and there is nothing else to perform its task.

 

If the enemy can engage you from 200 km range and you can only from 60 km range, then what you do? You just accept that in case of engagement you are just sending targets to be shot down with zero capability to even threaten the enemy!

It is far more logical to expect that then your weapon is already so good shape that you can ease in the development and just wait that enemy could catch on, and even then expect that you keep developing so you maintain that advantage, even on paper.

 

 

 

 

I believe Russia has phased out (somewhere around 2015) the semi active radar R-27 before entering the Syria campaign and now started using the R-77-1 missile and most of their Sukhois down to the 27 has been upgraded to include R-77 missiles.

 

 

 

Russia was intentionally delaying coz they were not expecting to fight. But on Syria, they are taking it in, just in case. Even if there wont be any air to air fights, but just in case...

 

 

 

USA and its allies had NEVER fought countries that has air network like AWACS so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Russia has phased out (somewhere around 2015) the semi active radar R-27 before entering the Syria campaign and now started using the R-77-1 missile and most of their Sukhois down to the 27 has been upgraded to include R-77 missiles.

 

Yes that is for day. But not at 2010 etc that was way before the 2015.

 

Even if you know you are not on step of the war, you have your active patrols capable to carry your best weapons for in moment of quick conflict.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All fighter jets I've seen Russia operate in Syria are Su-30SM and Su-35S - and what do you know, they still use R-27T/ET
or R-27R/ER
or here:

 

Your first video link shows that they also carry the R-77-1. Look to the right of the R-27ET...:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The 27R/ER series hasn't received any significant upgrades since the early 90's. There are various new seeker prorotypes and proposals but those are far from being in serial production. Point being their economy is in a flat spin and they barely have the money to finance R&D for singinficant upgrades of that missile. Using a fox one in 2020 is also a bit "yikes". The R-77 series is the future, not the 27. The 27 is a pretty mediocre missiles IRL by all accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 27R/ER series hasn't received any significant upgrades since the early 90's. There are various new seeker prorotypes and proposals but those are far from being in serial production. Point being their economy is in a flat spin and they barely have the money to finance R&D for singinficant upgrades of that missile. Using a fox one in 2020 is also a bit "yikes". The R-77 series is the future, not the 27. The 27 is a pretty mediocre missiles IRL by all accounts.

 

Russian economy is one of the best states at the moment..... They have even modernized over 70% of their military, was it in 2018 so likely closer to 90% today.

 

So again comes the question.....

 

Why Russia has money to modernize their military, build new fighters, develop new weapons systems and even completely new missiles etc etc. But they have no money (or will) to modernize their main missile for their fighters, that so many is claiming to be completely "mediocre missile"?

 

Who would send to defend your country with a capable fighter and mediocre missiles, instead of doing so with mediocre fighter with capable missile?

 

After all the fighter task is to find the target and get the missile launched at a target, and missile task is to fly near the target and explode.

 

How you do that is own question, but if you can't find the target or you cant get missile launched at the target, then there is not much help either about good missiles. And if your missile can't fly near the target and explode, then there is no use of good fighter no matter how easily you find the target and launch missiles all day along at it....

 

So since 1991 Russia has no fighter defense whatsoever because it has just reliable cannons and R-73's... Right?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking that the R-27 was never updated while the potential adversary puts out one AIM-120 update after another...

 

Early manuals talk about a burntime of 8.6 to 11 s.

Then we have burntimes of 12 s for later variants (DCS also uses 12 s, but then takes early R-27 permitted launch ranges as aerodynamic ranges).

And later R-27 are said to have a burntime of 14 s and even more rocket motor fuel.

 

R-27ER completely destroys the Aim-120 in kinematics. And supported with a PESA radar it will have a very reliable guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point being their economy is in a flat spin and they barely have the money to finance R&D for singinficant upgrades of that missile.

 

Eh, yeah, enough money for R-37, R-77-1 and R-77M, but not enough for R-27... No flat spin as you might be told on ABC, it's just irrational to upgrade R-27s as it's old and newer missiles are in serial production

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Russia has money to modernize their military, build new fighters, develop new weapons systems and even completely new missiles etc etc. But they have no money (or will) to modernize their main missile for their fighters, that so many is claiming to be completely "mediocre missile"?

 

https://zakupki.kontur.ru/0173100004515001647

 

That's why. 170-1 is R-77-1, and 13175178880 roubles is about 200kk US dollars spent on those missiles in 2015 money. If 1 R-77 costs as 1 120C (should be cheaper as usually though) then there were about 1000-2000 missiles ordered in that contract.

 

Btw, I'd say that about 80-90% of russian fighters are capable of carrying it and the remaining 10-20% are about to be replaced by new planes


Edited by TotenDead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Did we ever get a confirmation that the R-27 will be updated? My 1980's scenarios need accurate Redfor missiles! :)

 

Someone also mentioned the flyout, non-maneuvering range and speed will probably not change but the range against maneuvering targets will be updated based on CFD. Is that true?

 

Hard to summarize this through all these pages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...