Jump to content

R-27ER update?


Schmidtfire
 Share

Recommended Posts

Welcome to the real world! ;) The very first assumption many people suffer from is that when you introduce a new weapon of any kind, the adversary always comes up with the exact match. You can't be more wrong than that. It's about similar results, but different approach, doctrine, and tactics.

 

Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the Soviets never felt it was needed, if they assumed the R-27 series were to be used as bomber killers only and that large BVR missiles had no place in fighter vs fighter combat. Or they were just going for simplicity. I'm just speculating here.

 

Still, even if it's realistic (Actually, especially if it's realistic) the fact were stuck with the poor performance of these missiles is disheartening.

 

Keep in mind that the R-27 was designed as a primary weapon for MiG-29, a high maneuverability light fighter, and a Su-27 air superiority fighter, Soviets had other aircraft as bomber killers... so something is odd that it would be that bad... and much under the envelope but I don't have any documentation to say otherwise.

 

Only thing I can quote is that Yugoslav-a MiG-29 manual that instructs the pilot to do a dual launch of R-27r on the Rmax1 (first mark) and other on the Rmax2 (second mark on the HUD)... so for sure the Rmax1 isn't the absolute range but a max range for non-maneuvering target like stated before. But no range information is given.

 

The only difference between the DCS and the manual I can find is that the missile flights 70% of the flight path accelerating guided by the aircraft datalink commands (so it does have some type of autopilot) and only semiactive self-guides the last 30% in the real life, in DCS it does maneuver from the start, but this has probably been covered before


Edited by FoxAlfa

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E and F have this feature.

 

Seems like a lot is being lost in translation. But say if it is true...

 

How about older Aim-7 variants like E and F versions, do they have these features IRL? If so, R-27 seems like a very flawed missile in comparison...

 

Maybe the Soviets invented the 27ER to try ”counter” this no variable pn flaw? From what I have read the R-27R suffered from short legs maybe it was partially due to missile navigation flaws?

[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

I am speculating here out of top my head based on what I read about the aircraft datalink commands for the 70% of the flight, maybe the answer is obvious.

 

the missile has no better logic since the complex logic is in the plane. It would make engineering sense since you can reuse it for more missiles, it makes the missile more simple and cheaper and also it frees room in the missile were space is a premium. like we said a different approach. Soviets did design their planes and missiles as integrated weapon complexes. It also explains why adding the missiles to other aircraft would be costly and it wasn't done.

 

the last 30% you can have the pure pursuit or anything else since the missile is close enough.


Edited by FoxAlfa

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The missile flies PN off the datalinked target data.

 

Unfortunately, it is hard to tell, only a single part and it that goes like this:

 

"Missile R-27 has a semi-active radar head for self-guidance (RGS) which uses quazinterupdet method of target marking with the help of RLPK. In RGS the guidance of the missile is by an inertial method with radio-correction without radar head tracking the target up to 70% of the distance. Signals for corrections are sent by side arrays of the radar. On the end flight path of the missile, the target is illuminated by the radar head for self-tracking and semi-active self-guidance".

 

What is the inertial method and how the radio-correction is calculated it is not clear, I need to dig deeper. But it is clear that the plane is doing the corrections and not just relaying the data.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=202124&stc=1&d=1547491344

SS5.PNG.9ef947ac0a80e29b9e48fc9f07aa6206.PNG

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aircraft is not doing any corrections, as in it sends no guidance commands to the missile, only target data. This is just being lost in translation.

ED has far better information on this stuff than we can typically get ours hands on, with respect to these particular missiles.

[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

The aircraft is not doing any corrections, as in it sends no guidance commands to the missile, only target data. This is just being lost in translation.

 

That is where you are wrong, nothing is lost in translation, it is my mother tough.

 

The aircraft is doing the corrections if it was just sending the data the wording would be completely different. In a way, it echoes the Soviet philosophy of GCI leading the plane to the target, instead of a self-sufficient plane and missile philosophy in the west.

 

Also part of the manual about the digital computer, clearly states it is handling the tasks secondary calculation of radar signals, radar control, the connection of aiming devices(HUD) and the radar and handles the tasks of weapon control and usage.

 

If it just relying the data captured by the radar, and since it is sent using side arrays of the radar, there wouldn't be any need to put it through the digital computer, and it wouldn't need to do any tasks of weapon control.

 

ED has far better information on this stuff than we can typically get ours hands on, with respect to these particular missiles.

 

On that, I do agree. My opinion and I could be wrong is that R-27 is far more complex than currently modeled and it didn't show till the Aim-7 and Aim-120 got updated.

And Aim-7 and Aim-120 update were warranted by the Hornet development which makes financial sense. The R-77 update is just a by-product of that update.

 

It will be much more clear how good or bad the R-27r when we get MiG-23ML and R-24s complex gets full modeled.

 

And we will have the full ED picture only when if we ever, get a full-fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=202133&stc=1&d=1547496517

SS7.PNG.b043c76e4a6dfa1ea69315936b4ed8eb.PNG


Edited by FoxAlfa

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we will have the full ED picture only when if we ever, get a full-fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27

 

 

So... never.

 

 

And if what you're saying is right, we might ironically have an older jet (MiG-23) with potentially more capable missile (R-24) if that is modelled to full fidelity according to your understanding of the systems.

 

 

Which I do not doubt by the way, I'm sure there is something we are missing with the R-27. Even from basic reading it implies for example that the T and ET versions should have either data link or inertial guidance first, then IR seeker only for terminal phase. But in DCS these versions are completely handicapped because you need IR lock before launch like they were a Sidewinder or something, which is not the case.

 

 

I know talking about "balance" really triggers some people, and I'm not suggesting that these missiles should be given some unrealistic capability. But I really hope we get something to even the gap, somehow, some day.

VC

 

=X51= Squadron is recruiting!

X51 website: https://x51squadron.com/

Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/d9JtFY4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where you are wrong, nothing is lost in translation, it is my mother tough.

 

Ok, I'm wrong about that, fine.

 

The aircraft is doing the corrections if it was just sending the data the wording would be completely different. In a way, it echoes the Soviet philosophy of GCI leading the plane to the target, instead of a self-sufficient plane and missile philosophy in the west.

 

Sorry but not a chance. That would imply the missile itself signals the aircraft with its own position. That's just not what's going on. There is no missile guidance performed by the aircraft, it's all in the missile. The aircraft provides target data via data-link, the thing they call 'radio correction'... it's a correction to target position and vector, not a flight path correction. You're about half a century too early for such technology in AAMs. AIM-120D and possibly METEOR are the first missiles that talk back to the aircraft.

 

Also part of the manual about the digital computer, clearly states it is handling the tasks secondary calculation of radar signals, radar control, the connection of aiming devices(HUD) and the radar and handles the tasks of weapon control and usage.

 

That wording is in a lot of manuals. Yep, there's still control of weapons, just not the control that you're thinking probably.

 

If it just relying the data captured by the radar, and since it is sent using side arrays of the radar, there wouldn't be any need to put it through the digital computer, and it wouldn't need to do any tasks of weapon control.

 

Not side arrays (there aren't any), they mean the side-lobes. This is quite common for RF AAMs, pretty much all fighters do this for missiles who receive an M-Link.

 

It will be much more clear how good or bad the R-27r when we get MiG-23ML and R-24s complex gets full modeled.

 

I don't believe that DCS is currently all-capable in properly representing the difference. The older missiles typically use con-scan seekers and CW illumination. The only difference between AIM-7F and AIM-7M in-game is CM rejection ... there's probably a little more to it.

[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

Sorry but not a chance. That would imply the missile itself signals the aircraft with its own position. That's just not what's going on. There is no missile guidance performed by the aircraft, it's all in the missile. The aircraft provides target data via data-link, the thing they call 'radio correction'... it's a correction to target position and vector, not a flight path correction. You're about half a century too early for such technology in AAMs. AIM-120D and possibly METEOR are the first missiles that talk back to the aircraft.

 

You have a habit of over-engineering everything I can tell. Here you are comparing JHMCS to a ШЛЕМ in MiG-29.

 

it is not that sophisticated, probably more just 'ballpark' calculations, that is why it still needs a terminal phase and guidance on the missile. The point that they are done in the plane and not the missile.

 

That wording is in a lot of manuals. Yep, there's still control of weapons, just not the control that you're thinking probably.

 

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.

 

Not side arrays (there aren't any), they mean the side-lobes. This is quite common for RF AAMs, pretty much all fighters do this for missiles who receive an M-Link.

 

You are correct, my fast translation mistake.

 

 

I don't believe that DCS is currently all-capable in properly representing the difference. The older missiles typically use con-scan seekers and CW illumination. The only difference between AIM-7F and AIM-7M in-game is CM rejection ... there's probably a little more to it.

 

I agree on this also, but currently, R-27r is underperforming in my humble opinion that could be very wrong. It has happened due to updates of other missiles, that is why it needs another look.

 

Again it is my opinion but my experience tells me if many people feel that something is wrong it usually is. Again don't presume that the Soviet tech is an 'ORK' tech,

it can be quite sophisticated even if simple, RD-180 and ШЛЕМ is a good example of that.

 

it not the same way of thinking and engineering as in the west.

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where you are wrong, nothing is lost in translation, it is my mother tough.

 

But, something could have been lost in the translation from the original Russian, though.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, something could have been lost in the translation from the original Russian, though.

Judging the on the performance of the Yugoslav military in the 90's it could be :D :D :D

 

But joking aside, I don't think they would run a military secret flight manual though Google Translate ;)

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest you check this topic out; there are some later posts discussing R-27R guidance in more detail.

 

https://www.mycity-military.com/Vazduhoplovno-naoruzanje-i-oprema/Rakete-V-V_181.html

 

There are some of the interesting tidbits here and there (taken from various Su-27 and MiG-29 manuals, I guess), like how the selection of the target size (small, medium, large) influences not only the range at which the missile will go autonomous, but also the proximity fuse sensitivity. Or that the radio-correction might send wrong data if the guiding airplane is maneuvering at more than 30/60 degrees per second (30 for missiles made before mid-1986). Probably, this was all discussed here already as it was quite some time since I went through those manuals.

 

But, back to the topic at hand, they do say that the corrections sent are in reference to the originally calculated target intercept trajectory (with target position and speed) that the missile was launched with.

 

There's even the original Russian sentence included:

 

"При наличии радиокоррекции на борту самолета в БЦВМ вычисляется положение цели по алгоритму бортового вычислителя ракеты. Вычисленные координаты цели сравниваются с измеренными РЛПК-29 координатами цели. Полученные по-правки по линии радиокоррекции передаются на ракету, по которым корректируется траектория ее полета. После захвата РГС цели осуществляется ее автоматическое сопровождение по углам и частоте и наведение ракеты по методу пропорционального сближения"


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a habit of over-engineering everything I can tell. Here you are comparing JHMCS to a ШЛЕМ in MiG-29.

 

it is not that sophisticated, probably more just 'ballpark' calculations, that is why it still needs a terminal phase and guidance on the missile. The point that they are done in the plane and not the missile.

 

It doesn't send anything other than a target position and vector.

 

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.

 

An 'update target data' command is still a command in software parlance :)

 

Again it is my opinion but my experience tells me if many people feel that something is wrong it usually is. Again don't presume that the Soviet tech is an 'ORK' tech,

it can be quite sophisticated even if simple, RD-180 and ШЛЕМ is a good example of that.

 

And if you back-up those feelings with actual data, ED will listen. They've read the data on these things backwards and forwards, and I'm quite certain they have access to information we don't (as in I have seen that they have it).

 

it not the same way of thinking and engineering as in the west.

 

Yes it is. They may come up with different solutions to the same problem for a number of reasons, but the thinking and engineering is essentially quite similar. R-27 is not some sort of TVM missile - it's a homing missile and it would be highly atypical (nor would it save cost given that the missile already carries all the hardware it needs) to add command guidance from the aircraft.

More to the point, the aircraft does not know where the missile is or what it is doing, so sending steering commands is probably not a great idea.

[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

Maybe the Soviets never felt it was needed, if they assumed the R-27 series were to be used as bomber killers only and that large BVR missiles had no place in fighter vs fighter combat. Or they were just going for simplicity. I'm just speculating here.

 

Still, even if it's realistic (Actually, especially if it's realistic) the fact were stuck with the poor performance of these missiles is disheartening.

 

Lets play this hypothetical question further.

 

In 1983 Soviet Union took a new missile family, the R-27 in service. It was designed to be four module missile that each part can be swapped and updated. Seeker, Autopilot, Warhead and Rocket Engine.

 

Later on engineers made an update variant, Extended version. That replaces the rocket motor module, one of the four.

 

All this time, engineers has never updated any of the software, nor hardware in any other modules than just give it a extended range. No software updates for algorithms, no hardware changes for the seeker etc.

 

And why? Some people like to say that it was because there was no money after Soviet Union economy fell.

 

Yet at the same time Russia kept developing and researching a various other missile projects with far more higher expenses. Same time the older missile designs like R-23 family had more capabilities than this new R-27 family.

 

Why has not Russia updated the R-27 missile at all by any other means than just the extended range in the last 40-50 years? As the missile design and development has started way before it was taken in service at 1983, likely mid-late 1970's, making it almost 50 years old missile to fly with.

 

From the start, the R-27 family would be totally dumb missile, incapable for anykind BVR combat because it literally falls from the skies after 7-8 kilometers in optimal launch parameters for non-maneuvering target, making it not even capable for BVR combat.

 

And meanwhile, Soviet Union and Russia keeps updating their aircrafts with better radars and IRST to find targets at long range etc, while relying only with a R-73 and gun. All this time they are sending aircrafts up in the air for defending their country, with a knife. Spending lots of money for everything else in BVR combat, except the BVR missile.

 

Either the missile is extremely well performing from the start and doesn't require such a updating, because they could keep it using and even cancel other missile projects and try various other kinds for nothing to perform better. Or the missile is so terrible that it is just dead weight but they just keep dragging it up in the air for in sake of the illusion to show others that they do have a "BVR capability", even when they do know that others know, it is just a dead weight.

 

But nothing is cheaper when you have no budget, than send a updated combat aircrafts for a situation to defend your airspace, with weapons that doesn't work.

And that it is not just the Russia today, but over 20 other countries as well... All drinking the kool aid, that their countries defense is based to illusion of the BVR combat capability.

 

So no, the missile will not receive any updates, because Russian government has already informed that the missile is terrible, weak, old and obsolete and has never received any kind updates and all the missile specs are openly available to anyone see that there is nothing in that missile than the basic guidance system and extended motor from 50's.

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

 

Yet at the same time Russia kept developing and researching a various other missile projects with far more higher expenses. Same time the older missile designs like R-23 family had more capabilities than this new R-27 family.

 

Maybe Russia realised that SARH already was outdated thus researching ARH became a priority. And with the end of the cold war there was no immidate conflict and fitting a bigger rocket solved the range problem without quick and cheap until the economy could recover?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Win10 64, Asus Maximus VIII Formula, i5 6600K, Geforce 980 GTX Ti, 32 GB Ram, Samsung EVO SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Russia realised that SARH already was outdated thus researching ARH became a priority. And with the end of the cold war there was no immidate conflict and fitting a bigger rocket solved the range problem without quick and cheap until the economy could recover?
You don't start a weapon development when enemy is starting a war... You can't buy innovations...

 

And seeker is a mind of the missile. If your seeker is bad, you don't hit anything. If you don't hit anything, your missie has no purpose. It doesn't work. So no matter what you do by extending the range of the missile flight time or range, it doesn't matter if the missile can't find the target and guide itself to it, no matter the range.

 

The missile primary purpose is to explode. If the missile doesn't explode, it is far less effective as now it is just kinetic object that destroy targets by impacting to them. So the missile needs to have a way to explode to increase the area of effect to destroy something that is near it. For that R-27 use small radar proximity sensors but options are to use laser ranging sensors. The missile will at nearby target start metering distance to something solid that will reflect back it pulsing radar or laser emission and perform ranging, once the missile is closest possible range of the target, knowing that range first decrease and then it starts to increase, it knows it is at closest possible range and will miss, it will trigger itself to explode. The secondary trigger is impact fuze, just hanging there within the ride like causin, but once someone poke him, it will explode.

 

Missile secondary purpose is to find a target, track the target and intercept the target. A missile that can't perform its primary task nearby enemy, is useless missile, even dangerous missile for own troops. You don't want a missile to blow up in warehouse or when attaching to aircraft or while flying.

On the rail the missile task is to receive the commands where the target is, where the target will be in the next X period of the time. The missile knows where it is (hanging on the rail), and where it isn't (not intercepting target). It needs to know where it needs to fly (to intercept the target), to get where it must be (close to the target). All the time the missile task is just to find a optimal route to the target in shortest possible time, and perform primary task, explode.

 

What one will do with a missile, that can fly little bit longer, but doesn't know anything where the target is?

What one will do with a missile, that has potential to fly far, but spends its time collecting flowers along the path?

What one will do with a missile, that has no capability to find a target, track the target, intercept the target, but has potential to blow it up to pieces?

 

Why someone would keep a such a missile in the service for 40 years, protecting the whole airspace, hanging with the latest fighters, responsible to keep their pilots a live, supporting all the ground troops from denying ground strikes and air strikes... When such a missile can't do anything of those?

 

It really ain't a difficult question. And it is not about ARH vs SARH seeker variant, but can the missile get close to its target and explode or not. Can the missile perform its required task, blow the target before the launching platform explodes?

 

 

 

--

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.....


Edited by Fri13

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, someone might keep using such a missile if they lacked an alternative?
Again, why to use a missile that can't do its purpose in the first place, and rapidly produce a replacement with simple seeker head update as it was designed to be able?

Why to design complex new fighter radars to support that obsolete missile, when it is all to the vain?

 

Why to have a Air Force that can't perform its duties?

 

All just for a theater, as western analytics says?

 

--

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.....

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

Saying 'why this? why that?' is not an argument. Reality doesn't care about your whys, just about theirs. Economy and manufacturing went in the drain for quite some time; production of the parts may have been in a location which was no longer considered desirable, and ramping up new manufacturing is no small feat. Etc.

 

 

The R-27 family works reasonably, but it's no longer competitive with newer weapons. It doesn't mean they're not dangerous; it means they're not as good.

 

 

 

Again, why to use a missile that can't do its purpose in the first place, and rapidly produce a replacement with simple seeker head update as it was designed to be able?

[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

Ok, I did some testing and wanted to post them here. I will post my conclusion in post after this.

 

THE TEST PARAMETERS: the launch of the R-27R, R-27ER, and R-73 in parallel at 1000m and 5000m, default weather setting over the PG on a non-maneuvering target.

 

*I didn't do the 10000m one since only the gap would only raise proportionally

 

THE TEST CHARTS:

 

1000m

 

R-73

attachment.php?attachmentid=202636&stc=1&d=1548009230

 

R-27R

attachment.php?attachmentid=202637&stc=1&d=1548009230

 

R-27ER

attachment.php?attachmentid=202638&stc=1&d=1548009230

 

5000m

 

R-73

attachment.php?attachmentid=202639&stc=1&d=1548009254

 

R-27R

attachment.php?attachmentid=202640&stc=1&d=1548009254

 

R-27ER

attachment.php?attachmentid=202641&stc=1&d=1548009254

 

Red line shows the range reached when the missile speed drops to 1500kmh

1000:

R-73 ~6 km

R-27R ~8 km

R-27ER ~17 km

 

5000:

R-73 ~8 km

R-27R ~11.5 km

R-27ER ~24 km

 

 

THE TEST RESULTS:

 

-Both R-27R and R-73 burn for around 6 sec, while R-27ER burns for 12 sec.

 

-Both R-27R and R-73 reach the same speed at the same time and then start to slow down.

 

-The R-27R reaches only 3000kmh in 4 seconds, the R-27ER reaches 3000kmh in 2 seconds even dough it is a much heavier missile with the similar rocket engine.

R-73.PNG.02b2eb51b2d7e2179be1f25261ee86a5.PNG

R-27R.PNG.ab56117099c7e4ffa6df37945264fd88.PNG

R-27ER.PNG.ed66a90653e6105a1cebe22fd6e9951a.PNG

44857007_R-735000.PNG.12106149ed337d75a3ba25fddb99ff67.PNG

751375127_R-275000.PNG.5cd5c7b2402063268eb5fa98614b7fe9.PNG

R-27ER5000.PNG.f81975ce2c1522fd6cfc9e61ad877783.PNG

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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