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
When fins are at an angle of attack other than zero, they are producing lift. I told you this already. Stop the pandering / trolling around semantics. You are not addressing the fact that your original points were easily dismissed with available sources and materials and instead are going on a much more long winded than necessary attempt at trolling again.
You claimed the R-27 series was meant from long range engagements, implied it should not be capable of maneuvering as it does in-game. The patent dispelled that idea. You said it had limited AoA. The patent dispelled that idea. You claim it is overperforming but what you claim about it has been directly contradicted by the manufacturers and the patent.
Russia has been mass producing the R-27 series even predating the sanctions. Ukraine was mass producing and selling the R-27 series because it is the primary air to air weapon of their air force. It is not irrelevant, India has access to the R-77 series and continues to order more R-27’s to this day.
That isn’t comparable. The VW beetle doesn’t still keep up with mid 2000’s supercars in quarter mile time.
The Russians word for control fin is translated as rudder, hence my use of the term from the patent. The same patent that showed you were wrong about nearly every single aspect of this missile when making these absurd claims.
I was literally referencing the patent. What are you talking about?
It is discussing all variants, and this is particularly evident when it says the missile is capable of 40 degrees AoA at speeds from 0.6 mach to 5 mach.
That was some type of crash out for an internet argument I suppose.
GJ officially announced the only reason they modeled and implemented the R27ER was to artificially increase the game efficiency of the Mig29.
You need to just stop supposing anything altogether.
You do not even know what the mechanical force of lift is, or what basic flight controls are and do.
This is hilarious and further proves this is nothing more than open-source garbage placed on the internet & you demonstrating once again an incapability of identifying it.
The R27ER is incapable of any maneuverings at Mach 5, let alone be able to pull 40 degrees of alpha…
Why? because that would classify it as a true hypersonic missile & place its maximum overload well beyond 35G.
Would you mind sharing the link? Perhaps I didn’t read that.
You know I do but that wouldn’t warrant a totally unnecessary reply. Can you take the argument to DM’s instead of trolling on the thread already? What you’ve claimed has directly contradicted the sources regarding the missile entirely.
So your word is better than primary sources stating otherwise. I haven’t found anything to support “lacks AoA” or “was only meant for BVR” in the same sense that you claimed previously. Please just stop peddling the nonsense.
Wrong and intentionally misleading, just like developers have caught and motioned denying your reports previously.
The R27ER is designed and optimized for extended ranged engagements, or ranges that you consider long range.
The R27ER is designed to extend the range of standard R27 without designing a new missile and specifically given to a fighter that’s primary reason to exist and designed for is for long range intercept of American Strategic Bombers.
To extend the range of the R27 in the extended range version, the missile was given a larger motor, that has a prolonged sustain thrust to achieve the kinematic ability to effectively intercept at those ranges.
That capability comes at a sacrifice of additional weight, Mass & now the missile must overcome the massive amounts of new kinetic energy stored in the missile’s acceleration and prolonged thrust of the motor.
It has zero aerodynamic upgrades over the R27 to maneuver and compensate for the increased weight, mass, acceleration & energy applied by thrust of the new motor ESPECIALLY while it is active. The missile’s motor MUST burn out and cease in providing continual acceleration to receive R27R performance.
It CANNOT maneuver in close quarters and to do so would place the ER’s maximum overload far beyond 35g of the R27R.
The R27ER is immediately propelled after launch even in the rich, thick atmosphere of low altitude to insane speeds off the rail and continues to accelerate and can immediately run down a fighter that is fleeing from over 6.5km away traveling at a Mach 1.14 in as little as 12 seconds. Downing the second fleeing target @ 5.8km, Mach 1.06 as its maneuvering 10 seconds.
The motor that is capable of this level of immediate propulsion to chase a fighter on the deck is otherworldly. It would not be possible to maneuver without an upgrading its aerodynamic layout and control surfaces.
The ER is either overperforming in acceleration & close quarter speed or overperforming in maneuvering performance. It is physically impossible to have both and retain 35G performance at close range without a single aerodynamic upgrade over the R27R.
It CANNOT maneuver in close quarters and to do so would place the ER’s maximum overload far beyond 35g of the R27R.
If your goal is to continuously sidestep your previous points and add new (erroneous) information to each post to constantly force awful discussion practice on your part… it’s working.
No, the Su-27 was not primarily designed for shooting down long range bombers. It was primarily designed as a response to the program that birthed the F-15.
Yet again, you make all these claims about the R-27 overperforming but none of them are substantiated by real information.
Smin directly posted regarding the R27ER and why it was added in the old forum. He is an official representative of GJ entertainment, unlike moderators and tech moderators.
Going back to pull it up will not fix your inability to understand any of the subjects involving basic aerodynamic principles of flight taught to us in elementary school. Neither will you understand basic subjects of rocket science such as projectile motion and ballistics.
I was never replying to you in the first place. So, why would I reply to you in a message? So, it does not reveal how terrible your comprehension is in understanding anything subject related?
No one is trolling. I am speaking specifically in regard to the topic at hand. The R-27ER’s overperformance. Unfortunately, it’s just further revealing that you do not know what you are talking about & why you equate it with trolling and want me to reply in messages. Stop replying to me or block me.
Lastly, you are intentionally misleading to hide your total lack of understanding involving subjects.
I said, missiles like the R-27ER are highly restricted in alpha, because missile fly at incredible speeds and accelerations that any slight increase in alpha can lead to overcompensation, loss of stabilization, loss of missile trajectory and failure.
I already provided to you that rudders and control surfaces do not provide lift. You simply do not know what lift is.
Lift is the aerodynamic force that equals the entire weight of an aircraft to directly counter the negative force of gravity to keep it in the air in flight. lift is generated by motion of the aircraft and is not deployed.
Rudders and flight controls do not provide enough force equal to the entire weight of the aircraft & counter the force of gravity, but simply deflect airflow to change direction (attitude)
A wooden 2x4 does not actually fly or use lift if somehow thrown at the speeds you mention. It simply becomes a projectile and operates using projectile force to travel. There is no sustained mechanical force of lift that carries the piece of wood regardless even if you can magically keep it angled.
I did not reply to your take on flying pieces of wood because its rather embarrassing and not relevant.
My apologies, but it is You do not know anything about the Su27. Soviet doctrine, priorities, history or culture.
The Su27 is kind of my favorite jet btw. I am Soviet main and fanboy. I also actually have played both flankers in WT each a number of actual battles to form a logical assessment on the performance of the R27ER, R27ET & R27 current, unlike you. The SMT as well.
The principal aviation existential threat to the sovereignty of the USSR was strategic nuclear bombers.
Not the F-15 lol!! This is not video games my guy. Sure, the Flanker was required to be able to compete, but it was not the actual threat and why the design exist. Vast numbers of very capable Strategic Nuclear Bombers of the United States of America.
Additionally, the ER was designed exclusively for the PVO Soviet Air Defense Forces role. A branch of military that the Mig29 NEVER served. The Mig29 is a Frontal Aviation asset and has no business carrying the ER, a weapon system designed and optimized for long range over dogfights while out patrolling and defending the vast territorial coast of the USSR hunting for American strategic nuclear bombers.
It was added because it is a higher performance weapon that would assist in increasing the efficiency of the aircraft… yes. That wasn’t them making up the performance.
You’re spreading misinformation constantly. It’s obviously just bait / trolling.
