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.
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.
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.
Gliding is only achieved by sustained aerodynamic lift. Good job.
A traditional missile does not glide or rely on lift. Some missiles have zero airfoils and only fins for stabilization and control.
The ER only has an airfoil (clipped delta) used exclusively to offset the excessive weight of the missile. The R27ER does not rely on gliding and sustained aerodynamic lift to function, it is only used to address a problem.
You don’t have to mention it or talk about SAMs and Saudi Arabia etc… its all irrelevant. The R27 series was a total historical failure of the entire 20th century. The ER is overperforming at close quarters in WT.
Does the ER get better? Perhaps, but not remotely possible at close quarters and not with the current Su27 radar we have that guides it. Definitely not any version of the Mig29.
Ukraine is forced to use it.
Their complaining directly about it. They say semi active missiles its utterly inferior and a reason they need the F-16 and the Aim-120.
Seems people really enjoy using the thermal guided variants IRL. This is even more unusual when you consider that countries such as India would also have access to the MICA-IR but are opting to purchase new R-27 variants still to equip their Soviet model aircraft.
That directly contradicts the patents and known primary source material.
So I cannot mention any success of the missile and you only wish to mention its’ poor maintenance and use in third world countries with a few dozen that were in storage for over a decade?
It is the same missile with larger motor, there are no other considerable changes.
So is Russia I suppose?
While the F-16 and AIM-120 both are massive leaps forward in regards to situational awareness and technical capability - the R-27ER is still in use by Russia during this conflict.
Great, glad there is available information that further contradicts the absurd statements made above.
So what we have are considerably larger wings designed better for maneuvering at very high speeds with much more available AoA than the Sparrow. Of course it performs better than Ziggy wants it to.
It seems to imply it can maintain 40 degrees angle of attack (for control surfaces) to as low as 0.6 mach and up to 5 mach. The in-game file data says the fins can deflect 32 degrees. This would imply to me that it is actually underperforming in regards to turn radius off the rail and how soon it should be achieving 35G.
This can be tested, in-game we can fire at a target traveling 0.6 mach and at a distance so that the missile will not quite reach it. If the missile is unable to maintain altitude or angle of attack at 0.6 mach, it is underperforming. Of course, vice versa if it is overperforming.
Don’t remember seeing Russia using R-27 in current conflict. But for sure Russia has to keep R-27 at least for Su-33 and Su-34 as their only available BVRAAM.
Some sources do say M and some said E, and I settled for one, so since it’s you, I believe it.
However, it should not take much away from my point. Sources out there about the Ethiopians Flankers are conclusive on one thing, that they were post-Soviet Flankers. Which would have received all the phase upgrades that corrected reliability and operation issues that plagued initial production version of N001 Mech radar 1985-90.
Ethiopia was originally going to purchase the Su-27P from Belarus but did not fall through. They ended up buying eight Su-27SK as well as three Su-27UBK aircraft directly from Russia. They indicate these versions received additional modes and multirole capability.
The missile was a failure in the Eritrean–Ethiopian War by all accounts from both sides. However, the Flanker was still outstanding as expected.
Pull up a diagram and point exactly to how many airfoils you see on the missile.
Wait, I need you to write clearly.
First you stated the missile had the increase in thrust way back to explain its massive acceleration at all altitudes in game.
Now are you indicating that the ER simply has a larger motor and no considerable changes. Explain exactly what you mean by that.
Russia is utilizing the R77.
The R27 is obsolete and there is just a crap ton of them for sale dirt cheap from old Soviet stock. It’s irrelevant if some country is buying them or using them.
Ukraine does not have active missiles and can only use the R27 out of desperation that comes from their own old Soviet stock.
They have complained about the tactical and technical obsoletion of semi active missiles.
Please elaborate on how the “rudders” as the Russians call them do not produce lift but yet still cause a shift in direction of the rocket? Even a 2x4 plank will produce lift when flying at mach 0.6 - 5.0 when angled at 40 degrees AoA relation to the body of a 3+ meter long cylinder. (Itself also achieving lift at high AoA).
You were wrong about the limited AoA, you were wrong about everything. Please stop digging.
Please, reference the patent and do some thorough reading. Stop coming back here to spout nonsense around the semantics.
No, I stated that the increase in thrust is REAL. It is not just a longer burning motor as you claim. Primary sources from Moscow Aviation Institute proved this, hence the update that further buffed the missile some time ago (that happened to contradict their intitial comparison to the R-24R and AIM-7F some time ago).
The larger motor and no other considerable changes does not mean it isn’t higher thrust. You’re just playing around semantics right now for the sake of arguing… which you have been warned about in the past.
Also the R-27, which is still in production not only in Russia but also in Ukraine.
It’s not obsolete, countries with access to much more advanced missiles and fighters continue to order them even today.
Ukraine has AIM-120’s, IRIS-T’s, etc. If they felt like modifying MiG-29’s the carry these I’m sure they could… they modified them to carry an assortment of other ordnance such as HARM’s.
This is obviously an issue. In spite of this, they have been successful in downing even small drones with these ordnances. The fact that they are still in MASS PRODUCTION and bought by 1st world nations around the planet is a testament to the fact that they are straight powerhouses and can still be utilized effectively.
Would you mind re-stating your original argument? Seems you’re just spouting nonsense to keep this pointless debate going. IIRC your original claim is that the R-27ER is overperforming in maneuverability and kinematics but so far there is absolutely nothing that indicates that at all.
As the patent says;
The use of the inverse tapered rudders prevents control reversal at higher angles of attack - this allowing them to use the same “rudder” and control section on the larger beveled motor models (ER).
The use of the “rudders” and “destabilizers” (the vortex generating strakes and the control fins) were based on the conditions for ensuring high maneuverability and reliable control of the rocket along all three channels (pitch, roll, yaw)…
It seems the primary focus on the entire design is high maneuverability for combat against newer generations of maneuverable fighter aircraft. NOT specifically for long range engagements.
Directly from Artem (producer of R-27ER1 in Ukraine)
R-27 air-to-air missiles are designed to intercept and destroy hostile piloted aircraft, drone targets and cruise missiles in long-range and close-in manoeuvrable air fight.
Directly from Vympel (producer of R-27ER in Russia)
The missiles are designed to equip modern fighter aircraft with weapons that provide clear superiority over enemy aircraft in a “duel” during air combat.
This might be getting a little off topic, but there are now AMRAAM models with two way datalink, I’m sure they could be launched from high speed and then given mid-course by other sources. Anyhow… they also have surface launched AMRAAM in Ukraine iirc so it’s not like they couldn’t have tried it if they wanted to.
Thanks for reminding us of the patent, though. Quite useful and supports the in-game performance.
You can call it rudder, if you want. Though rudders only regulate lateral direction (yaw).
A rudder is a type of aerodynamic device called a surface control, it is not an airfoil and provides any lift that actively assist in keeping the missile airborne during flight.
Control fins or “rudders” are one of several types of movable/deployable surfaces used in aerodynamics of aircraft & land-based vehicles. They are also used in Hydrodynamics of sea-base vessels of both surface & submarine. They work under the same general principles of fluid design of both watercraft and aircraft.
Just like an actual rudder of a ship and that of many aircraft, their rudders deflect the flow of fluid or gas that travels along its surface to changes course laterally. It’s not relying on mechanical force of lift to do it, and neither can its deflection be considered lift and will explain why.
The control fins or a “rudder” simply deflect air flow in any given direction to maintain stability & change attitude by generating forces normal to their plane.
Lift is generated by airflow deflection, but only a component. Mechanical force of lift is a force that is generated from an aircraft’s own motion that directly opposes weight of aircraft and maintains flight directly opposes the force of gravity, which is downward. Lift is applied upward and must equal the entire weight of the aircraft/missile to maintain flight. Control surfaces do not generate any lift as the aircraft/moves through the air, nor do they provide any relevant deflection of airflow that equals the entire weight for sustained flight, but only serve to change attitude of the platform.
You just do not know what lift is.
The control fins of the R27 series missiles are specifically designed to deflect airflow and change the missile’s attitude (direction) under guidance command. They are not designed in shape to provide any lift by simply existing on the missile either. The R27ER is a self-propelled weaponized guided projectile that relies on projectile motion and ballistics to reach a target and uses airflow deflections to guide the missile. It does not glide around and relying on lift to travel and maneuver on a target.
Lift comes with additional drag and is only ever applied to an air-to-air missile’s design to either offset an inefficient motor or applied to offset excessive weight that cannot be covered by the missiles.
Now, as for your continual difficulty in understanding basic subjects such as, what is the mechanical force of lift is & how it is applied. Fluid dynamics & aerodynamics still unable to identify what are flight controls surfaces and how they operate. What missiles is and what are forces they operate under,
You actually believe that any airflow deflection is utilizing the mechanical force of lift…
It is why you brought up calling the control fins of the ER a rudder, which rudders regulate Yaw and does not employ the mechanical force of lift to operate anyway.
Again, lift is a mechanical force generated by motion of aircraft that directly opposes the weight of the aircraft to maintain flight. Weight is a force of gravity. The mechanical force of Lift exists to counteract it and does so upwardly. I literally sent you a NASA link on what lift is for beginners in aeronautics, wow.
Air to air missiles such as the R27ER are designed with least possible drag as it operates on projectile motion of a rocket motor and ballistics to get it from point A and B. Drag always comes with lift and is never utilized in rocket design unless to tackle propulsion problem or excessive weight problem.
There is zero lift in the entire missile other than the clipped deltas that were placed instead of tailfin stabilizers to provide lift to offset where most of the weight of the previous missile is anyway. The center of lift and quarter cord point of the only airfoil (lift producing surface) will not magically leave and disappear just to reappear elsewhere on the missile. Suddenly give it an ability to maneuver with the added weight an control the additional forces of massive acceleration Mach 3.5
You see the world through a silly lens of video game reality…
The Mig29 radar and entire sensor suite is technically incapable of linking and pairing the Aim 120. The Ukrainians are technically incapable and require the approval of the nations that supplied them.
Additionally, Ukrainians would never waste the time, both the Ukrainian Su27 and the Mig29 are obsolete. The Mig29 has an exceedingly poor radar in detection and tracking and is utterly obsolete. It would offer not tactical difference with Aim-120s overusing old obsolete Soviet stock R27s and illuminating VKS fighters.
The Su-24 Fencers that were upgraded to carry western precision guided strike weapons was a technological feat. But the Ukrainians never did it alone and could never have done without the approval and direct technical support of the nations that provided it.
Irrelevant. Ukraine still maintains its production plants from the Soviet Union. They are not making them because their good missiles. They still have production factories and material and do it out of desperation. Russia is low on cash and running low on missiles. It’s cheaper and easier to also produce old obsolete R27 missiles like the R27 under sanctions then to produce advanced active radar missiles they would rather exclusively make and use instead.
It is now a war of attrition, rather than a war on technological might. Russia has brought in multiple ancient Soviet T-62s to the frontline. Does that make the tank suddenly technologically capable?
There are still old VW Beetle factories in South America still operated by locals after VW left. They still produce 1970s Beetles and sell them.
Does that make the VW Beetle of 1970 any better compared to modern technology of cars today? No, it means nothing.
You do not know what Lift is or what a rudder is let alone be able to interpret anything you are reading about missiles.
Everything noted is not any actual technical data, made up and does it make any sense. Thats where you read word rudder!? from this source. Rudders regulates yaw and cannot regulate any anything else alone. It’s a bunk source riddled with many errors the more I look over it.
Here is proof you are also making stuff up for no reason. The word destabilize is wrong like rudder. Even if it did mention Vortex generators or strakes, they do not ensure any high maneuverability all whatsoever loll. You entirely made that up.
All it does is destabilize airflow stay attached to the wings of an aircraft to maintain the boundary layer and reduces the stall point in high angles of attack. Stalling a missile out in high angles of attack it not even remotely.
You are then intentionally attempting to conflate vortex generations of aircraft and strakes of aircraft with control fins control fins on missiles. Or genuinely do not understand and of them.
Control fins do not destabilize airflow but only deflect it. Rudders exclusively regulate Yaw alone…
Most importantly, all the wacky features and conclusions you just mention are speaking only in regard to the original features of the R27 Anway which is lighter and smaller and operates less restricted kinetically than the ER. That missile can utilize high alpha and performance at close quarters. it still means nothing in terms of the R27ER’s ability to overcome the additional massive, prolonged thrust.
the R7ER never received any improvement in aerodynamic design to address the weight, mass and insane acceleration and prolonged thrust of the new motor. I am still 100% correct
The thrust would severely limit is close quarter performance the continuous acceleration of the long burning motor would increase performance decrease.
It’s still fake and the missile that was modelled to artificially increase the performance the Mig29 the missile was also buffed to perform in line with the Mig29
