Remove R-27ER

[AlvisWisla]

That’s the thing, no multipath exists… in arcade battles, as multipath is a real thing and no multipath entirely would be arcade.
Very few SARHs defeat it IRL, and fewer ARHs [well the newest variants defeat it].
AIM-120A through C5, and potentially C6 all see ground reflected signatures.
R-77 and R-77-1 see them.
The first MICA EM likely sees them.
Of course they had less volume for electronics and processing than SARHs, which is why Skyflash and AIM-7M had electronics to filter out the ground reflections, and R-27ER did not.

However, ground reflections are just a dumb method of defeating missiles. Terrain following and notching are superior methods.

[UNN_Daedalos]

@AlvisWisla

The first MICA EM sees them.

I will repeat myself on that one, but Mica EM does have multipath filtering.

Not to mention “first MICA EM” doesn’t make any sense, as only one variant of this missile currently exists

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

That’s the thing, no multipath exists… in arcade battles

Did you forget that multipath effects were recently removed entirely from SPAA in GRB, or does that not align with your memory?

@AlvisWisla

and no multipath entirely would be arcade.

The same impact would occur even if it was reduced to realistic levels for relevant missiles and also that points to the fact that you didn’t actually read the excerpt(s) about low altitude performance.

The Narrow Sweep Selection will prevent sea or ground main beam clutter from entering the Speedgate if the target ground speed vector is towards or away from the missile is great enough to displace the clutter doppler frequency outside the Narrow Sweep frequency limits of +/- 5 kHz (150kts [~77 m/s , ~278 km/h]).

The issue with low altitude performance of the Sparrow(AIM-7E) actually comes from the reflections(glint) from the active radar proximity fuse, not the seeker

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Yes, I personally have plenty of videos of the ERs wacky performance.

Would you mind posting the example you specified?

@Ziggy1989

Of course, you are inclined not to believe, because for one, you have on multiple times without any solicitation sworn by God the R27ER is the most accurately modelled feature ever forged by man without providing a single source of its precise specifications. You are just biased for your own reasons.

On the flipside of this, you have done precisely nothing to justify your stance that it is erroneous besides some relatively baseless assumptions to which I have provided sound logic against.

@Ziggy1989

You cannot explain in your own written word what actually makes the ER better for dogfights, even maneuvering better at close range than the lighter and smaller R27R, though its heavier, larger and has a massive amount of thrust (supposedly) and a much longer burn time all the while it is still equipped with the exact same aerodynamics control surfaces and overload limits that are rated for the lighter and smaller R27.

I did explain this though…? You just replied to me explaining this.

@Ziggy1989

You cannot offer any technical explanation for it other than:
“it’s updated based on a primary source” & “it’s the most accurately modelled missile ever made.”

I did just elaborate on some potential reasons it performs similar above.

@Ziggy1989

Additionally, you do not play enough game battles these days to provide any real valuable perspective to me.

That’s tough, I guess.

@Ziggy1989

The Meta changes every major update

Sure does, but I don’t recall the R-27ER being particularly meta. Not the same way the AIM-7F was.

@Ziggy1989

Additional weight on any portion of a missile has zero positive effect on a control surfaces ability to actuate efficiently under an extreme prolonged thrust like that of the R27ER of WT. That is why short-range IR missiles outside of thrust vectoring have very short burns. A missile does not maneuver better under active & additional prolonged thrust.

That’s not necessarily true at all.

@Ziggy1989

Physics is not the strong suit.
Empty weight has nothing to do with it and neither missile operates on empty weight.

The initial added rearward weight places the center of lift much closer to the center of mass. When you have a pivot point and a fulcrum… does it have an easier or harder time when the pivot point is closer to or further from the mass that is being moved?

@Ziggy1989

I was not talking about the Aim54 whatsoever. Yes, the Aim54 can dogfight. It has more recorded kills in a dogfight than any version of the R27 of all nations who fielded it combined.

Yet the country still using the AIM-54 had attempted to mount the R-27 to the F-14 before abandoning the notion due to low inventory of the missile.

@Ziggy1989

The R27ER was never used in dogfights. Its technically incapable of being launched while in BFM and not at all reason for the design in the first place.

I’m fairly certain the R-27ER has been used in what could be considered “WVR” fights… though I’d expect them to simply drop a 350kg missile in real life for the inverse reason that people will pull 12+G sustained in War Thunder.

@Ziggy1989

We are talking about the specialized R27 extended range variant that was specifically designed for the Su27 and its PRIMARY mission in defense against US Strategic Bombers. It was never optimized for dogfighting and it was never used for dogfighting.

Yes, we are talking about that variant. My statement stands.

@Ziggy1989

This belief that the ER was designed to magically dogfight is a made-up

No one said this, it can be designed for something entirely different than what it is useful for in-game. Look at artillery pieces for example.

@Ziggy1989

You are conflating the R27 and the ER as if they are the same exact missile and it somehow magically retains all of its maneuverability in its entire flight envelope of the original version and even more. Your only answer is because the ER is heavier?

That’s not what I said, but if you refuse to acknowledge my points and point to lack of a source… but you’re doing the same exact thing… seems kind of like I’m talking to a wall.

[AlvisWisla]

That was from SPAA radar systems, which is an entirely different system to SARH missiles, airborne radars, and of course ARHs.

[tripod2008]

So you think you can’t find radar equipt SPAA in GRB?

[warthogboy09]

@CorporalApollo

I’m strictly a sim-player since about a year back so I have some bias due to 9M’s being completely invisible in sim of course, however I find the R73 incredibly easy to flare, Su27’s merging with me pose little to no threat with their R73’s to me as I can pretty confidently say I can flare off roughly 7-8/10 of them…

I disagree with this assessment specifically in Sim. While yes, the 9M is oppressive as a first engage weapon, being invisible and passive so generally beats an unaware target an resistant to a random flare, it is worse as a WVR weapon.

In my experience, both the 9M and R-73 are resistant enough WVR to generally avoid CM. The only reliable defeat against both is preflaring. This tips the scales in favor of the R-73 as it’s engagement envelope is far more favorable WVR, particularly on HMD equipped aircraft, and as such is much easier to force people to run out of CM just by threatening a high off bore shot that the R-73 makes a credible threat, compared to a guaranteed waste of a 9M in the same scenario. Once the TVC logic is finally figured out, I think the R-73 jumps far and away above the 9M, even in Sim.

[CorporalApollo-psn]

@warthogboy09

I disagree with this assessment specifically in Sim. While yes, the 9M is oppressive as a first engage weapon, being invisible and passive so generally beats an unaware target a resistant to a random flare, it is worse as a WVR weapon.

Well, if it does get to the merge, where WVR is at play (I’m assuming you mean dogfight scenarios with ‘WVR’ as 9M beats the R73 in pretty much every other scenario in sim), you do not want to be sitting in the Su27 or Mig29, I believe having the FAR better airframe makes a bigger difference than a TVC missile will. Western jets like F16 and Gripen run circles around them, it’s not even close. And given that you can pretty consistently flare 8/10 of the R73’s (not pre flare, just by flaring right as you see them get fired) it’s just a lottery to see if you can get one to track whilst you’re shitting away all your speed just to get the enemy in your FOV for HMD… After that, your energy retention is so bad that you generally won’t get another opportunity. This is why I find it ridiculous to call Russians “dominant” in WVR right now. Of course this doesn’t take into account that everyone isn’t perfect and every player will make mistakes, perhaps offering the Russian jet another opportunity in a dogfight. I’ve flown every single top-tier airframe except the F14 in sim and the Russian jets are just miserable across the board right now and it’s clearly shown in the use 80+% win rate and red team ‘player retention’ issue we have.

[GeneralArmchair]

The R-73 is not the better WVR weapon. It’s the better GUNS range weapon. There’s a huge difference between WVR ranges and Guns range. R-73’s IRCCM doesn’t really start working until ~1.5km and doesn’t really get amazing until within 1km.

[Saprano_2132]

I mean, stating “entry to service” or “start of production” dates doesn’t matter much imo

Things like Su-27S/J-11 and MiG-29 9.12/13 served well into the 90s and early 2000s in some cases, so at some point they would’ve gotten R-27ERs

(Also that SMT date is incorrect, there’s 3 separate SMT variants irl, the date you posted was for 9.17A, but in game we have the 9.19R, an upgrade of the MiG-29SMT 9.19 from the 2010s)

[Saprano_2132]

And for the Yak-141, they’ve given it R-27ERs because it’s what it would’ve used if it actually went into service, being a mid 90s aircraft it obviously would’ve used 27ERs, and of course there’s also a loadout sheet provided by Yakovlev

(for what I assume was for an export proposal of Yak-141?)

[_Fantom2451]

@Saprano_2132

(for what I assume was for an export proposal of Yak-141?)

Yes, that was for Farnborough expo

[Saprano_2132]

Ah I see, thank you

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

The initial added rearward weight places the center of lift much closer to the center of mass. When you have a pivot point and a fulcrum… does it have an easier or harder time when the pivot point is closer to or further from the mass that is being moved?

Ziggy1989:

"Rearward weight places the center of lift much closer to the center of mass??

So, if I understood you correctly… You believe & logically conclude that since the newly added weight R27ER resides entirely at the back end of the missile; therefore, it somehow magically shifts the center of lift up closer to the center of mass & will therefore create some sort of pivot point and fulcrum?

Which would then somehow result in a perfectly regulated increase of performance in immediate close quarters maneuverability & overall dogfight agility to the point that the R27ER is actually better than the than the lighter & smaller R27R and Aim7 Sparrow even though both were optimized and designed for shorter ranges.

The R27ER additionally would receive a magic ability to disregard any of its technical limitations, having zero improvement in control surfaces & aerodynamics over the R27R allowing it to overcome and operate perfectly at any altitudes under the continuous kinetic energy that is applied and stored in the missiles sudden & sustained increase of motion caused by the massive thrust increase & longer burn duration of the motor.

Thus, you conclude that the very large & heavy R-27ER can actually maneuver better in a dogfight at close quarters, even as it immediately accelerates to Mach 3.5. A speed much faster than the average bullet flies all while it is still actively propelled by a massive continuous thrust and long burn motor.
All because it’s heavier? Yo…

In reality The R27ER utilizes very little lift in its design, it is weapon system (guided self-propelled, weaponized projectile) that relies on projectile motion and ballistics to operate and reach a target. Airfoils are only applied to offset excessive weight in a localized area.

The R27ER produces no lift in the front at the nose (fin stabilizers), The R27ER produces no lift in the center (control fins), neither in the fuselage/body of the missile (cylindrical). The R27ER is a missile that is reliant on the lowest possible drag penalties like lift induces as it operates entirely in the realm of supersonic during the entire flight envelope, even when the missile is the terminal & ballistic. It is optimized solely for stability at high speed and long-range air intercept. Not dogfighting at all whatsoever.

The only airfoil and lift generated in the entire missile’s design is the clipped delta wing/tail fins that are intentionally placed at the tail end of the missile to maximize stability & offset where excessive weight of the missile is located.

The center of lift will not magically leave the quarter cord point of clipped deltas, the only airfoil producing lift & magically move to any other location of the missile just because further additional weight was added into the ER. It’s just a heavier missile with zero additional aerodynamic improvements over the R27R. It never received any technical ability that would enhance its maneuvering performance, nor did it ever receive any technical ability to efficiently manage the additional forces produced by the massive thrust increase and long burn motor while it is active.

The R27ER simply overperforms kinetically and kinematically at close range, and there is nothing more to it. Reason being GJ originally modelled it in game to artificially increase the game efficiency of the Mig29, a close quarter point defense fighter.

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

"Rearward weight places the center of lift much closer to the center of mass??

So, if I understood you correctly… You believe & logically conclude that since the newly added weight R27ER resides entirely at the back end of the missile; therefore, it somehow magically shifts the center of lift up closer to the center of mass & will therefore create some sort of pivot point and fulcrum?

Are you pretending to not understand the addition of weight towards the rear moves the center of mass much closer to the center of lift?

@Ziggy1989

Which would then somehow result in a perfectly regulated increase of performance in immediate close quarters maneuverability & overall dogfight agility to the point that the R27ER is actually better than the than the lighter & smaller R27R and Aim7 Sparrow even though both were optimized and designed for shorter ranges.

The R-27ER is not superior to the R-27R in dogfight type engagements, the AIM-7 is a different missile entirely… But interestingly they share similar layout with wing control. The R-27 series has larger wing to body ratio than AIM-7 and a better overload, turn radius, etc.

@Ziggy1989

Thus, you conclude that the very large & heavy R-27ER can actually maneuver better in a dogfight at close quarters, even as it immediately accelerates to Mach 3.5. A speed much faster than average bullet flies while it is still actively propelled by a massive continuous thrust and long burn motor.
All because it’s heavier? Yo…

You’ve constructed that argument, not I.

The devil’s advocate arguments I made against your claims were in good faith and yet here you are attempting to put words in my mouth. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. I’ve seen nothing in-game that indicates the R-27ER maneuvers better than the R-27R in close quarters… Quite the opposite.

@Ziggy1989

In reality The R27ER utilizes very little lift in its design, it is weapon system (guided self-propelled, weaponized projectile) that relies on projectile motion and ballistics to operate and reach a target. Airfoils are only applied to offset excessive weight in a localized area.

The R27ER produces no lift in the front at the nose (fin stabilizers), The R27ER produces no lift in the center (control fins), neither in the fuselage/body of the missile (cylindrical). The R27ER is a missile that is reliant on the lowest possible drag penalties like lift induces as it operates entirely in the realm of supersonic during the entire flight envelope, even when the missile is the terminal & ballistic. It is optimized solely for stability at high speed and long-range air intercept. Not dogfighting at all whatsoever.

The only airfoil and lift generated in the entire missile’s design is the clipped delta wing/tail fins that are intentionally placed at the tail end of the missile to maximize stability & offset where excessive weight of the missile is located.

The center of lift will not magically leave the quarter cord point clipped deltas, the only airfoil producing lift & magically move to any other location of the missile just because further additional weight was added into the ER. It’s just a heavier missile with zero additional aerodynamic improvements over the R27R. It never received any technical ability that would enhance its maneuvering performance, nor did it ever receive any technical ability to efficiently manage the additional forces produced by the massive thrust increase and long burn motor while it is active.

That’s a long winded way of claiming the wings produce no lift… Which is wrong. Even the body produces lift when AoA is applied. For someone who criticized me heavily on conflating canards and vortex generators you really dug a deep grave for yourself with that argument.

The R-27ER has rather large “wings” (control surfaces?) that angle themselves so as to maneuver the missile in flight. These “wings” produce a significantly larger shift of air than the AIM-7’s naturally as they are much larger. It is better designed and suited for high overloads (especially at high speed) in comparison due to the taper of the fin.

On top of these features, it has forward fins on the nose (that AIM-7 lacks) and larger fins on the rear than the AIM-7 as well.

You keep using the pretentious argument that the R-27ER is better than the R-27R in regards to maneuverability - now also claiming that I’m the one saying these things (you are, not me). This simply isn’t true. The R-27ER does not maneuver as well as the R-27R. It does maintain a similar overload though, courtesy of the design. The larger motor moved weight further to the rear of the missile with the same design as I stated earlier. This means the center of lift is closer to the center of mass, which is beneficial towards enhancing the maneuver capability of the missile.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

The R-27ER is not superior to the R-27R in dogfight type engagements,

You simply haven’t played a relevant number of battles in any new aircraft at top tier the last several patches to form an updated assessment based on game experience. You play 10 battles in a new jet and never touch it again. Your primary experience in War Thunder at top tier is in test flying. Not competitive game battles.

In addition, you continually demonstrate that you are unable to comprehend what you find on the internet.

I apologize, there is just no value in going back and forth with you. Unfortunately, you have an overwhelming desire to reply on every single topic.

@MiG_23M

That’s a long winded way of claiming the wings produce no lift… Which is wrong.

Not claimed in the slightest. Just bad reading comprehension.

@MiG_23M

Even the body produces lift when AoA is applied

Missiles such as the R27ER are severely restricted in alpha. They travel exceedingly fast and again, rely on projectile motion to operate. Any slight increase in unregulated alpha will greatly destabilize the missile’s trajectory and immediate failure ensues.

The R-27ER is a missile specifically designed and used exclusively in REAL LIFE for long range intercept. That is why it is equipped with an insanely powerful thrust & longer burning motor. It is designed to maximize stability in order to regulate this additional thrust and cover the trip to target.

A belief that more weight somehow makes a missile magically better in turn performance in close quarters while the motor is burning is silly video game logic.

Additional weight and mass will never equate to positive ability for missiles to maneuver, always the opposite. Just stop. please.

[Fireball_2020]

@MiG_23M

and a better overload

Not necessarily

[Gale_Cleven]

I disagree

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

You simply haven’t played a relevant number of battles in any new aircraft at top tier the last several patches to form an updated assessment based on game experience. You play 10 battles in a new jet and never touch it again. Your primary experience in War Thunder at top tier is in test flying. Not competitive game battles.

In addition, you continually demonstrate that you are unable to comprehend what you find on the internet.

I apologize, there is just no value in going back and forth with you. Unfortunately, you have an overwhelming desire to reply on every single topic.

The turn radius, acceleration, overload, etc is more measurable now than ever. Please present some information of substance to substantiate your claims that the R-27ER is superior in dogfight scenarios. This isn’t an issue about gut feeling or experience. The discussion is about the performance of the missile in either efficiency in air RB or in performance. In both of these scenarios, it is a measurable thing that can be substantiated with video proof.

@Ziggy1989

Not claimed in the slightest. Just bad reading comprehension.

I quoted your full explanation so if I misunderstood perhaps you could explain it better?

@Ziggy1989

Missiles such as the R27ER are severely restricted in alpha.

Source?

@Ziggy1989

They travel exceedingly fast and again, rely on projectile motion to operate.

Sorry? What does this even mean if you don’t mind elaborating further? What missile doesn’t rely on “projectile motion” to operate?

@Ziggy1989

Any slight increase in unregulated alpha will greatly destabilize the missile’s trajectory and immediate failure ensues.

I suppose this arbitrary statement could be stated for any missile. The alpha of the missile is irrelevant though, as we know it pulls 35G and what the acceleration is like… this gives us a good indication of the turn radius which will be significantly larger than the R-27R in-game. This is something that is testable and measurable. You can even do so in actual matches now.

@Ziggy1989

The R-27ER is a missile specifically designed and used exclusively in REAL LIFE for long range intercept.

The vast majority of missiles are designed for this purpose. Missiles are the only weapon aircrafts use to engage other aircraft outside of guns range. The missile was already stable, that is what the guidance and autopilot system does. There was no change to the wing configuration, only the motor. The change happens to increase mass towards the rear of the missile which will naturally lower the stability margin since the wings are unchanged. Weight shifting towards the rear brings center of mass and center of lift closer together. Conveniently, the faster you go… the more the center of lift shifts to the rear as well. Stability increases.

@Ziggy1989

A belief that more weight somehow makes a missile magically better in turn performance in close quarters while the motor is burning is silly video game logic.

No one but you said this, I’ve had to explain that at least three times now.

@Ziggy1989

Additional weight and mass will never equate to positive ability for missiles to maneuver, always the opposite. Just stop. please.

The AIM-7F is heavier than the AIM-7E but has significantly improved close range performance in spite of the similar layout. This is directly contradictory to your stance.

@Fireball_2020

Not necessarily

It is true, the R-27 series has better overload than the AIM-7 series. It has a peak of 35G. This can directly be attributed to the differences in design (stabilization fins at the front, larger wings on mid-body that can independently rotate to avoid skid-to-turn techniques), as well as the larger fins in the rear. Weight management is better than earlier Russian designs as well… similar to how things were arranged in the AIM-7F but with more modularity.

[_Fantom2451]

@MiG_23M

Source?

RU2259536C1 - Aircraft guided missile - Google Patents