Remove R-27ER

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
438

Thanks & true. I am just trying to be humble about it.

It is definitely also not going to have 40 degrees of alpha available at Mach 5 either like dude said, that was wild.

I just want to conclude and highlight my main point that the ER is overperforming there is no question.

The ER is confirmed to never have received a single upgrade in aerodynamic control over the R27R & No one, not GJ has been able to show a source showing the thrust that was placed in the ER’s long burn motor would push the missile at this immediate extreme acceleration shown in game in above video on the deck.

Even if the ER did receive this acceleration off the rail, it still never received a single upgrade to aerodynamically manage & effectively maneuver while the massive forces of this continuous acceleration are applied by the motor.

To do so means the missile would have a maximum overload limit well in excess of 35Gs like that of the R27R.

The R27ER must greatly reduce the insane acceleration or must lose the ability to maneuver while the motor burns. It is technical and physical impossibility that it retain both.

439

She received not a small engine, but a dual-mode one

440

The minimum launch range is 3 km

image

1 Like
441

The MiG-31 and MiG-25 have never been bombers interceptor .These are fighters

442

So which airframes were used by the unit(s) responsible for interception duties then? I’d imagine it was spun off as its own branch considering how important it would have been and the sheer scale of the border(s), i know that the they would have used the Su-9, -11 & -15 due to the number of airliner (and MiG-15) interceptions that have been attributed to them.

Weren’t they what was preferentially used to shadow SR-71s and other ISR airframes(A-12, U-2, RC-135 etc.)? Due to their high altitude capabilities, long range missiles and on-board radar.

One of the MiG-25 manual’s I’ve read keeps making reference to a target with a ridiculously large RCS of 19m^2 I guess the Tu-16 could be a surrogate target used as a benchmark, but I’m struggling to come up with any non-bomber airframes that have anything even resembling a RCS that large.

Sapfir-25A detection range vs RCS
Sapfir-25A detection range vs RCS1102×1013 91.7 KB

Sapfir-25A detection ranges
Sapfir-25A detection ranges1758×1576 193 KB

443

What does the RCS and the purpose of the aircraft have to do with it

444

So the pilot, GCI and engineers would be able to tell at what range a target could be expected to be correlated and engaged, since a theoretical kill chain starts with detection via the onboard radar, and so could effectively be handed off to the pilot after the target was detected to then complete the intercept reliably without further input from the GCI freeing them up to correlate more targets for other airframes.

The engineers care because it puts in place hard limits on the design specifications of the radar since it would need to have some level of detection of a test target to be able to be certified and work as expected, otherwise why include a radar if GCI stations were good enough.

A pilot could need to know what the expected detection range of a target may be since they may have to operate without support or in a dynamic environment where they lack critical oversight and so need to think on their feet, or come across a novel return which they may need to identify or engage and so knowing these thing allow for information that could be useful to be asserted, they might for example need to tell the difference between a B-52, B-58, U-2 and SR-71 or E-3 Sentry and Boeing 707 some of which may rank much higher on the threat matrix than others.

The reason you have multiple options for this kind of thing is to reduce overmatch and so avoid effectively wasting the high performance airframes on things that could be accomplished by cheaper, more numerous airframes, and don’t hand out tasks to lower performance airframes that can’t be completed sufficiently.

1 Like
445

Where RCS appears in the phrase bomber interceptor and fighter interceptor?

446

How would you suppose that you find out what you are intercepting in the first place, before detection occurs?

You don’t segregate interdictors for different targets (e.g. tanks and trucks), in the the same way interception is a mission set that tends to attract specialist airframes since they may have to fly under specific conditions that other airframes may not be well suited for let alone be capable of.

447

Actually, I do.Since there are no bombers- interceptor .And there are fighter-interceptor. And they are armed only with A2A

448

So then what would you send to intercept a B-52? or Classify the Yak-28?

449

MiG-25 MiG-31,Su-27

450

One interesting thing I found when looking at the flareflo missile chart is the effect of the longer time an AIM-7M takes to fall below a certain speed than a 27ER. Despite the 27ER covering a longer distance total once a missile falls below a certain speed the probability of kill goes down, and if a target is hot the distance will close in the extra seconds it takes for the 7M to fall to a certain speed.

Spoiler

With a 1000-meter altitude and 350m/s starting velocity the 27ER falls below 350m/s at 16 seconds having traveled 9500m, and falls below 300 at 18.2 having traveled 10500m.

Same launch conditions the 7M falls below 350m/s at 17.8 seconds having traveled 9000m and below 300m/s at 20 seconds having traveled 9500m.

Against a hot target the extra time the 7M takes to travel is 1.8 seconds in both scenarios so a hot target moving at 350m/s could cover an extra 630 meters with the missile still being very maneuverable.

Flareflo website that I used Missile comparison

Of course once range shrinks to a certain point time-to-target will matter a lot more than keeping a missile fast for a few seconds, but it seems useful in sim where long-range missile shots can just be energy bled by cranking a few times.

451

There was no russian plane downed by a Ukrainian fighter in the conflict let alone with an r27.
Ghosh of kiev is fiction

1 Like
452

This isn’t the place for logic concerning Russian weapons and platforms.

Russia on paper numbers are truer than real life studies. Even by their primary operator.

I’ve noticed that no matter what evidence, source material, video, or otherwise is provided. The Russian platforms will be whatever the developers want them to be. We’ve seen IFVs chewing through Russian tanks in Ukraine. We’ve seen that they overpressure and blow their tops with RPGs…

We’ve known for decades their air platforms are held together by ducktape. Even today the Flankers never got their intended engines and the rear end looks like shit. In addition analysis of the cross sections show that it cannot maintain the stealth as advertised.

The impossible to intercept hypersonic weapons have been shot down by old patriot systems.

This game has a definitive bias. The R-27 is not and never was half the missile that other nations carry. Yet here we are with an instant death weapon that will not get nerfed due to ego.

2 Likes
453

Early war (not ghost of Kiev obvious propaganda but countries at war gonna do what they do) there was. But I don’t know if it was with a R27. There was a former Ukrainian air show pilot who downed 4 aircraft (if I’m not mistaken at least 1 of those was an actual jet) before he got shot down. The Russians lured him into their air defense range and he got shot down and died.

454

Can you explainnyour logic to me here.
I am not denying your claim, but whem recording this, why did you think it was a good idea to disable tge tactical view?
That gives speeds so everyone could even validate your claims. That is much easier than just saying “look how hard it accelerates” because we would actually be able to put a number on the acceleration

This seems so illogical.

456

Most of this thread is nonsense. Instead of looking at it from the point of view R-27ER > All other SARH they are making absurd claims about the realism or accuracy of the performance.

458

This graph does not disprove a single point I have made on the ER, but I see the issue.

You misunderstood what you read; I should be more precise & I am glad you are here though.

I said effective maneuvering. This is regard to combat effect. Not any maneuvering whatsoever.

The fact remains. the ER did not receive a single aerodynamic upgrade in its design over the R27R. It uses the same exact detachable control surfaces of the R27R & actuators, every aerodynamic surface of the ER is the same as the R27R. This was intentional, because the R27ER is the extended range version of the R27, was never intended to be a magical replacement of the entire series.

No one is able to show how the missile can operate (because it never could) under the immense forces of prolonged continual thrust that accelerate the missile to over Mach 3.5 in less than 5 seconds after launch at low altitude & while its continuing to accelerate, maneuver & immediately chase kill at ranges of 6.5km on the deck in 12 seconds without a single upgrade in aerodynamic profile and control over the R27R to manage the other worldly and accelerations and continual thrust.

The most undeniable proof the ER is a wacky utterly fake model as follows.

The R27ER in fact uses the same exact, detachable surfaces controls of the R27. It is why the control fins are rated for a maximum 35g overload in WT.

The R27ER is not technologically capable of ANY combat performance seen in WT. It is a physical impossibility for the missile to be equipped with a prolonged massive thrust increase that would accelerate it to immediately past the maximum operating speeds of all small, high-short-range air to air missiles and maneuver in turn radius and close-range performance of the smaller R27R.

To operate under these absurd levels of continuous hyper acceleration and maneuverability all while propelled by an active thrust would require a Maximum Overload far in excess of 35gs.

Additionally, the R27R is restricted in aerodynamic profile and control, it is only capable of maximum flight speed of Mach 3.5-4 before total aerodynamic failure at high altitude.
The R27ER in War Thunder immediately accelerates to the maximum possible flight speed R27R is capable in just under 6-8 seconds after launch at low altitude & dogfights with high precision even while under the active propulsion of the rocket motor all the while it is still equipped with the same aerodynamic design and controls surfaces of the R27R restricted to a 35G overload.

in reality, the R27ER never had a massive thrust the pushed the missile to these immediate absurd speeds at low altitude. Not only is giving the missile a massive thrust increases a dumb idea (if you expect to maintain performance at lower ranges), but to decide to give it a massive thrust increase on top of extending the duration the new motor provides active thrust and still expect the missile to still magically retain the same flight performance as the smaller, lighter R27R, but now just does it “super fast” is comical.

459

Interesting you brought that up, its actually absolutely irrelevant… You did make me realize something though.

That none of you who defend the ER performance actually have a single source (does not exist) that provides a logical, technical reason the R27ER can maneuver just as good as R27R in close range, same aerodynamic control, heavier & still operate at incredible speeds under the force of immense prolonged active thrust of the larger, heavier motor and continuous immediate acceleration.

Therefore, all you can do is point is known R27 specifications, like noting the above R27R & ER’s Minimum Launch Range 3km limit. llol the problem with that is it has no relevancy in determining missiles capability in flight after launch anyway.

A Minimum Launch Range is the manufacturer’s declared operational limit the R27 has
the technical ability to be launched.
It means that 3km is the shortest operational range the R27R and R can technically receive a signal illumination, update fire control, ignite be launched.

A minimum launch range does not mean: "This missile is deadly & maneuvers well, so we gave it 3km launch range."

It is not the same thing as a weapon engagement envelope

A Minimum Launch Range is the technical limit that involves only one step in the missile’s multiple processes, Missile Launch. Just because the R27 has minimum launch range, and a maximum launch range does not mean the missile is combat effective after launch offers zero evidence or any relevancy to the ERs magical ability kill in a dogfight.

the Minimum Launch Range is not measure of any a missile’s short-range dogfight ability, kill probability, flight performance or a measure of any kind that can determine how a missile performs in flight after launch. A minimum launch range is nothing more than the manufacturer’s declared technical limitation at which the missile can technically be launched.

The manufacturer list only technical limitations, such as Minimum & maximum Launch Ranges that are not calculated based on a tactical ability to kill. They are calculated based on its technical ability to operate.

A minimum launch range is a technical limitation, not hits at the overall capability of the missile. You misread the source and is no proof the R27ER can accelerate and perform as it does in WT.

1 Like