So you think you can’t find radar equipt SPAA in GRB?
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
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)
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?)
Yes, that was for Farnborough expo
Ah I see, thank you
"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.
1 Like
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not claimed in the slightest. Just bad reading comprehension.
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.
1 Like
Not necessarily
2 Likes
I disagree
1 Like
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.
I quoted your full explanation so if I misunderstood perhaps you could explain it better?
Source?
Sorry? What does this even mean if you don’t mind elaborating further? What missile doesn’t rely on “projectile motion” to operate?
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.
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.
No one but you said this, I’ve had to explain that at least three times now.
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.
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.
There is a possibility this may be a dual plane value.
Cruise missiles.
Which operate under sustained aerodynamic lift, unlike missiles such as the R27ER that operates on projectile motion.
Just stop.
The Su27s initial production N001 was so unreliable that it had a service life (before failure) of only 5 flying hours. The radar was so poor that the Su27 entered official Soviet service in 1986, but the radar was denied entry and was only accepted years later into service in 1991 once all the issues were resolved…
The Su27 flew without an officially recognized radar until 1991… That how bad it was and pains me to say it.
As for the R27ER overperformance.
The Chinese conducted their own evaluation of the R27ER and the Su27’s only real extensive modern use together in combat.
The CCP conducted a series of combat evaluations of multiple Soviet weapon systems that were used in the Eritrean–Ethiopian War that took place from May 1998 to June 2000 this includes the Su27 along with its primary air to air missile designed to operate with, the R27ER and ET.
Ethiopia operated Post Soviet Flankers, the Su-27SK & Su27UBK that were also flown by Russian mercenaries, both flankers are equipped with upgraded N001M radars with multirole capabilities. Eritrean operated the Mig29 as primary fighter.
Over the duration of the war the Chinese concluded that only 4 out 97 total R-27s launched were able to strike their intended target. The efficiency of the missile placed it about 4%, which is comparable to the efficiency of the American AIM-4 Falcon missiles in the Vietnam War.
That is a massive technological issue the Chinese noted. Even the Aim54A of the 1970s has more kills against fighters than any variant of the R27 that was ever fired from the Su27 or Mig29 of any nation ever combined. The R27 as a whole was so terribly inefficient it cannot not even be considered Aim-7 Vietnam efficient, but actually Aim-4 levels of low in 1998.
Its further explains why the CCP immediately to dropped any reliance of the R27 and went on to develop their own radar guided air to air missiles that have zero commonality with the R27 and are more akin to western design principle.
Other reports claim that zero kills ever made the entire war using either AA-10C and the AA-10D (R-27ER & ET) that all missiles failed, and any kills were scored with the R73.
You still do not get it.
Because the Aim7F was given a sustainer motor to maintain optimal speeds for maneuvering at the same time extend the range. An insanely higher thrust and long burn duration would never allow the Aim7F to dogfight and would immediately overload the missile.
The R27ER is overperforming at close range. It has zero ability to control the massive thrust, longer active burn time and maintain maneuverability at close range without aerodynamically changing it completely. A new missile would have to be designed at this point.
3 Likes
Am I reading this correctly that the angle of attack is up to 40 degrees?
Cruise missiles are designed to glide while maintaining altitude for a long period of time, the R-27ER was designed to do similar but with other goals in mind… such as intercepting fighter sized targets. That is why it has such a maneuverable control scheme capable of maneuvering at very high final approach speeds… which conveniently is the difference between it and cruise missiles. The R-27ER is expected to hit targets while traveling at a very high rate of speed as opposed to a cruise missile.
These are the same R-27’s that were beyond their shelf life and never maintained from a logistics team, being stored in a third world country? I imagine the performance will be subpar. Likewise, the failures of the AIM-7 are not modeled in-game or it would have something like a 30% success rate at best.
Russian aircraft continue to use the R-27 to this day, Ukraine having had success in downing even modern Russian fighters with these weapons in more recent times.
If the missiles failed - the maintenance issue likely was the cause. These missiles need to be inspected and maintained just like other equipment. Even in the case of tanks and their main armaments… they require WEEKLY inspection and not just boneyard storage.
I am not talking about the sustainer at all, immediately off the rail the AIM-7F has superior turn radius and maneuverability over the AIM-7E series due to improved turn radius. This is directly attributed to the relocation of components and the larger rearward motor.
Clearly not, that’s why they did what they did. The R-27ER is not superior to the R-27R in close quarters scenarios with the exception of time to target in head-on or tail-on conditions where either would hit. The R-27R has superior off-bore capability because it is not forced to turn so wide from the massive thrust like on the R-27ER.
In fact, properly maintained missiles are being used as cheap SAM’s… one having allegedly hit an F-15 (but not downed it) from the Saudi’s.
I don’t think it is dual plane, but it could be. Regardless, the AIM-7 is skid-to-turn and locked in single plane whereas the R-27R/ER would be perfectly capable of dual plane not being locked to a certain axis.
I should also mention that countries continue to buy hundreds of R-27 series missiles to restock their inventories in spite of access to better more modern ordnance.
http://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/2019-news-aerospace-industry-air-force/july/5292-india-buys-thousand-russian-air-missiles.html