R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

[Force_Feedback]

Thanks for providing info on color scheme for Russian AA missiles.

 

I would question your assessment about the type of the missile underneath those Su-33 engines. They can not be R-73’s. Here’s the link again:

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/gallery/su-33_2.htm

 

That is a R-27R model with black stripes to further clarify its inertness and lack of hazardous components, the Russians aren't very strict with the source of the dummy, they even use real airframes with ballast instead of rockets and warheads. The red missiles are a good example, those were test missile bodies that were not fired, had their explosive contents removed, and voila, you have your dummy missile.

 

there is your missile again, but on a su-30mk...

http://www.europeum-group.ru/foxbat/maks/2003/su/index.php?picid=su033

http://www.europeum-group.ru/foxbat/maks/2003/su/index.php?picid=su078

 

This image clearly shows the strict criterea for a missile dummy :P As you can see it's a stripped down R-73, which had a few coats of paint, and all the twiggly jiggly parts removed, that could break loose and damage the wing....

http://maks.sukhoi.ru/media/photo/maks2003/maks2003d1148.jpg

 

Now compare that last photo with this one, of a real, but inert R-73, and tell me that the first picture is some new advanced R-73 variety without any moving parts :/

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/force_Feedback/DSC02130.jpg

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

All right. I give up (for now). :pilotfly:

[Frostie]

:D No, by all means carry on it was just getting interesting.:wallbash:

[Alfa]

In 1986 is begun the work on creation of inertial- semi-active RGS-31 seeker for the advanced missile K-27EM (OKR “Malakhit”). During July 1991 of work on the theme “Malakhit” were stopped.

 

In 1989 of the Ministry of Defence because of reduction in the size of financing, connected with the reconstruction (Perestroika), forewent the continuation of works on rocket K -27A with ARGS of 9B-1103 and decided to concentrate efforts on the rocket R -77 with ARGS of 9B-1348 (NIR " Soyuz"). This GSN was created from 1982 together with GNPP “Istok”.

 

No K-27EA or EM ever, sorry.

 

Good info Pit :)

 

Thats what I heard too, but it is the first time I have seen it mentioned as concrete as that - can I ask where you found those quotes? :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Force_Feedback]

Oh, I was under the impression the R-77 had the 9b-1103 seeker, but I guess that is the reason for all this rvv-ae/r-77 confusion, and the seeker was put in an upgraded rvv-ae by the name of r-77.

 

I also found an article from an excyclodedia on Soviet/Russian rocket weapons (from 2002), it stated that the R-27(E)T had provisions for an uncooled seeker launch. So that R-27T on the front fuselage may have had some combat usefulness after all, although without cooling the IR head will have much trouble tracking the target. So aku and R-27(E)T can be done, but with a seeker performance penalty. The thing is that the missile will function with an AKU launcher.

[HRZ]

Oh, I was under the impression the R-77 had the 9b-1103 seeker, but I guess that is the reason for all this rvv-ae/r-77 confusion, and the seeker was put in an upgraded rvv-ae by the name of r-77.

 

I also found an article from an excyclodedia on Soviet/Russian rocket weapons (from 2002), it stated that the R-27(E)T had provisions for an uncooled seeker launch. So that R-27T on the front fuselage may have had some combat usefulness after all, although without cooling the IR head will have much trouble tracking the target. So aku and R-27(E)T can be done, but with a seeker performance penalty. The thing is that the missile will function with an AKU launcher.

 

Can you post a scan of that text or something? Just put it in the quotes and name the source, and FBI won't knock at your door for breaching copyrights.

[Pilotasso]

LOL here it comes again. Been debated to death and this is not going to change anything.

[HRZ]

LOL here it comes again. Been debated to death and this is not going to change anything.

 

Was I asking for your oppinion? No? So, why are you LOL-ing your way into my post? LOL-Off will ya?

[tflash]

Mmmmm, I feel this thread is being hadjuked somehow? :D

[Pilotasso]

Mmmmm, I feel this thread is being hadjuked somehow? :D

 

no. It was ked'nated. :lookaround: :D

[Alfa]

Oh, I was under the impression the R-77 had the 9b-1103 seeker, but I guess that is the reason for all this rvv-ae/r-77 confusion, and the seeker was put in an upgraded rvv-ae by the name of r-77.

 

No as I mentioned on an earlier occassion, there is no mention of the 9B-1103 in connection with the R-77 - as the above quote says the original seeker for the R-77 is(was) called 9B-1348, while documentation for the "RVV-AE" states a 9B-1348E.....with the added "E" for export. There is some indication that the 9B-1348E uses "Western" components(such as processors), while the initial 9B-1348 didn't.

 

I also found an article from an excyclodedia on Soviet/Russian rocket weapons (from 2002), it stated that the R-27(E)T had provisions for an uncooled seeker launch. So that R-27T on the front fuselage may have had some combat usefulness after all, although without cooling the IR head will have much trouble tracking the target. So aku and R-27(E)T can be done, but with a seeker performance penalty. The thing is that the missile will function with an AKU launcher.

 

Yes I once posted an article from Milparade by Vympel's chief designer, which mentioned this as well:

 

http://www.forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=222352&postcount=72

 

The R-27T (ET) missile, equipped with the IR homing head, is a version of R-27R (ER). Continuous operation time with the photodetector cooling system switched on is three hours. Provision is made in the IR homing head for a system designed to ensure its operation (with some decrease in the target acquisition range) if the aircraft is not filled with cooling agent before takeoff.

 

But apart from seeker cooling, there is again the matter of seeker's FOV.....if the missile is mounted either on forward pylon between engines or on underside of intake ducts, its upwards field of view will be obstructed by the aircraft fuselage.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Force_Feedback]

Okay, but you better know how to read Russian.

 

It's from the encyclodepy of patriotic rocket weapons 1817-2002, the book has been published in 2003 ISBN: 5-17-011177-0 (ACT), 985-13-0949-4 (Harvest) and is written by A.B. Shirokorad (А.Б. Широкорад).

 

It's a nice book with lots of details on every kind of weapon that has some kind of rocket motor, has very thorough articles about manpads and all their limitations and operational capabilities, especially on the strela-2 and 3, also it has quite in0depth info on the various S-300 systems, CIWS, and even nuclear capable missiles.

 

On page 326, in the upper right corner it states (translated): "In the infrared seeker head there is a provision for operation of the system (with lowered parameters on lock distance) with lack of on-board coolant on the carrier aircraft before take-off."

 

It then continues describing the 'datalink', or better called, 'INS with radio correction' of the R-27ET. It also states that the missile has a mode in the event of a lack of outside target designation (by radar or eos), which can be set by the pilot.

 

And finally here is proof that I actually have the book, and to convince all the 'NATO fanbois' that I'm not talking shit or smoked too much weed.

 

The image quility is crap, but that's cause I just made photos. 1st one shows the book's cover, the second the full page, and the 3rd the section that states it.

 

[HRZ]

...

 

Thanks for the info! So basically, we could have additional ETs on the Flanker as those can be used without coolant. The only problem would be, Lomac doesn't model "degraded" missile performance without the coolant, but that shouldn't be much of a deal as the missiles itself CAN be deployed from other pylons, and we also seen recent photos of those mounted under the fuselage.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Here's a page I found yesterday, it has photos of the seekers in question.

 

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/a2a.htm

[Pilotasso]

 

I Apreciate this material you provide. Its petty there isnt translation version avaiable over here. Does the book mention its sources?

 

On page 326, in the upper right corner it states (translated): "In the infrared seeker head there is a provision for operation of the system (with lowered parameters on lock distance) with lack of on-board coolant on the carrier aircraft before take-off."

This wouldnt be of much use, why would anyone shoot a missile without cooling. Perhaps it takes a few seconds to start it but then you wont have much need to rush a short range shot when you have R-73's for this.

It also could be that the missile could still fire the missile with some sort of malfuntion on the coolant equiped pylon or, lets assume this, that it could fire from other pylons as well due to compatibility issues or absense of such coolant systems on the pylons.

 

Even if this is the case wich Im willing to accept if true, wont be much good ingame because narrowed field of vision by the airframe and degraded uncoolled seeker perfomance is not modeled. Untill then makes no sense at all mount 8 or so R-27ET's because it would certainly result in a fully functional overmodeled missile capability. Not even think about it, when the AMRAAM is porked.

 

It then continues describing the 'datalink', or better called, 'INS with radio correction' of the R-27ET.

 

I think someone realy has to check this thouroghly. This statement comes into contradiction of what ED has stated and they have the manual. Also the missile apears not to have the datalink antennas at all. Even if the r-27ET has datalink, it wouldnt mean much for for LOMAC. because the most deadly ET tactic is to maddog it from 30Km away where the launcher has no lock at all nor is it mainatained throught the flight path, because the launcher frequently turns tail and waits for the missile to hit the target in the face.

 

It also states that the missile has a mode in the event of a lack of outside target designation (by radar or eos), which can be set by the pilot.

 

As a su pilot neither you or me would have any advantage of this since the game allows to bypass it entirely for maddog shots. You dont need manual corrections, the missile will do it all by itself once is aimed and madogged.

But if any of you guys would have the final saying about this then by all means impelment it. Youll only become more exposed and it would be the end of those unrealistic maddog shots.

 

And finally here is proof that I actually have the book, and to convince all the 'NATO fanbois' that I'm not talking shit or smoked too much weed.

 

I dont like much incisive remarks like that because youll be hitting alot of peaople who dont deserve this nice tag on them.

 

BTW, Id like to break the myth Im one because even yeterday I took on 13 F-15's alone in a Su-33 and after being jumped by 5 of them in one time I didnt help but to think to myself how much more convinced I still was about everyhting I said here.

[Pilotasso]

Thanks for the info! So basically, we could have additional ETs on the Flanker as those can be used without coolant. The only problem would be, Lomac doesn't model "degraded" missile performance without the coolant, but that shouldn't be much of a deal as the missiles itself CAN be deployed from other pylons, and we also seen recent photos of those mounted under the fuselage.

 

 

Hate to make redundant posts regarding to my previous one, as you said but to a minimalist degree, theyll will have degraded perfomance and limitations of use. That is, you cant EOS it from centerline pylons, and they wont hit much of anything at all, except afterburning targets high. Moddoging them would be a waste of a missile. In my view if I was to fly the next sessions online with all this impemented I would rather to still stick to ER/EM's.

 

And we still have to correlate this with what ED knows and what comes in the manuals.

[Force_Feedback]

I never said anything about datalink antannae, a datalink is two way, the missile gives its own position (roughly), and the launcher, or some other aircraft in the group sends corrected data. What the ET has is a form of radio guidance that is used to correct the angular position, supplemented by the INS of the missile itself. So all the missile receives are angular target position updates, nothing more, nothing less.

It also can be that the author meant the R-27(E)R had such form of correction, in any case it makes sense as the seekers can't actually work at 70km or so when a R-27ET is employed, and would rely on target designation by the launcher's radar, same goes for the ER, but it also has some kind of lofting profile, extending its range (forgot which system commands such a profile, either the launcher platform WCS, or the missile itself). It states that the range of the ballistic capabilities of the missile (R-27R) exceed 2 to 2.5 times the range of the seeker head lock range.

 

 

And about 'nato fanbois', I just can't stand the arrogance and 'I knowe better cuz I have seen it on globaldesense.org.com, and I believe it. Yet I can't speak russian, don't care and don't want to cross reference with that side of the story' kind of thing. Grow up. And yes, the R-27 is crappy, with lots of reliability issues, that's why it got "replaced" by the R-77 (and that thing is being phased out in 5-10 years, according to the Russians, so actually in about 20-30).

 

Oh, the book's sources, it's a whole page with about 60 books, all written by Russian sounding authors, I can make a photo of it, but I won't be translating the whole thing. Page 535. The titles are all military related, an the number of pages per book varies between 72 to 726 pages :P

[Guest IguanaKing]

I never said anything about datalink antannae, a datalink is two way, the missile gives its own position (roughly), and the launcher, or some other aircraft in the group sends corrected data. What the ET has is a form of radio guidance that is used to correct the angular position, supplemented by the INS of the missile itself. So all the missile receives are angular target position updates, nothing more, nothing less.

 

...and you need what, exactly, to transmit and receive those signals? ;)

[Pilotasso]

I never said anything about datalink antannae, a datalink is two way, the missile gives its own position (roughly), and the launcher, or some other aircraft in the group sends corrected data.

 

Actualy 2 way datalink is only now present on the AIM-120D, all other datalinked systems only recieve data one way regarding current target position. The missiles knoelege of its own positions (and consequent head aiming) is a result of inertial guidance. What you say about the ET is remarkebly similar to what current versions of the AMRAAM do and that is datalink.

 

The R-27ER/EM's do this and they have visible antennas. The R-27ET does not, ED has stated this from the manual, and we don see it either phisicaly. DOnt know why would it have a different antnna set from the other variants if the design philosofy of that missile is precisely parts comonality.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Datalink is not always 2-way, BTW. ;)

 

Edit: Whoops, had it confused in my head...to correct myself, and agree with others ;) datalink IS 2-way. I was thinking about the modern datalinks I work with, and they seem one-sided, but they're not. Oops! But they still need antennae. :D

[S77th-konkussion]

hang on- did he say that the EM never actually came into existence? Or- that it never made it into service? I rarely even use it- as I always doubted that ED made any real effort to distinguish the ER/EM models as seen, but still. The phony KH 41 capability has ALWAYS been on there tongue-in-cheek. Everyone knows it never actually happened. What is being said about the EM?

[MiGMadness]

if it's the one where some small chinese conscript is hoisting up something big, and white, with 4 'real' guidance vanes, real proximity fuse covers, and real (not bolted on) tailfins, and an extra long nose section, and this all is lacking any big black stripes, then that is a picture of an R-27EA. Yes the Chinese have them, that is not the question, but the speculative 'timeframe' of lomac might be. I don't know though when that r-27E upgrade was released, so it may very well be that the seeker is not more than a couple of months/years old.

 

 

Is this the pic of which you speak?

 

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Here's a page I found yesterday, it has photos of the seekers in question.

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/a2a.htm

Good find indeed. On that page there is even a photograph of the active radar seeker of the R-27EA?

[GGTharos]

That is the seeker that they proposed for use on the EA, yes.

[Pilotasso]

Same chinese photo we've seen before, nothing new. Could be an ER and the chinese site sucking us in. Not even you know the external differences, if any.