Remove R-27ER

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
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
460

It depends on the specific missile in question, and normally has to do with fuse arming (Sidewinders have separate delays for the Proximity and Impact fuses) and control surface unlock, the AIM-9L for example (see following excerpt) which lists;

The minimum Aerodynamic range is determined by the fuse arming time and Missile maneuverability data

Which probably is simply the distance covered in the time it takes for the fuses to arm (low altitude and zero closure rate), considering the distances given tend to be given as 1000 / 3000ft (~305m / ~914m ) + 300ft / 1000ft (non / maneuvering ) for every 10 degrees of angle off the tail.

Exerpt

image
image788×1109 270 KB

image
image785×1117 131 KB

and the Sparrow, with a nice handy timeline that lays things out nicely.

AIM-7 guidance -1
AIM-7 guidance -11434×2030 387 KB

461

and what makes you think that the drives have not changed?The rocket still has an available maximum overload of 35G and it doesn’t matter at what speed.The game also added a tacview

462

The minimum launch range is determined by several factors.This is the stage of stabilization of the rocket.As well as the scattering of fragments, and I’m not talking only about ER, but this also applies.And also the carrier can catch up with the hit target

463

That’s a lotta words and not a lotta logic or “proof”. Unfortunately, your place in this argument comes solely from your unfounded opinions (once again).

The patent clearly states the fins have sufficient force to actuate 40 degrees from 0.6 mach to 5 mach. The R-27ER is only 13.7% heavier than the R-27R after motor burnout, and the additional weight is all behind the center of lift. This naturally would aid in the maneuverability of the missile seeing as the actuators are not the limitation. Instead, the pivoting moment will be able to apply more natural torque on the missile body and make it easier to change direction.

Your argument fails to consider the fact that the missile was designed from the onset to use the larger motors and various different seekers. These things were accounted for when designing the control actuators and the wings, fins, destabilizers… or as Russia translates them, “Rudders”.

Just stop the nonsense.

464

Yes sir!

Thanks for telling me what is right and wrong, sir. I won’t have any thoughts unless they are your thoughts. Obviously this didn’t agree with Soviet technology being superior and is wrong, sir!

Let’s ignore that the vacuum shows that the American equivalent does not operate as consistently. Let’s also ignore the fact that this missile outperforms everything else - it’s also nearly unavoidable.

We’ll play the game how you and Comrade MiG-23ML tell us it should be played. I’m sure there’s no bias involved in those views.

3 Likes
465

What’s bothering you about the R-27ER? That she’s fast?

466

It’s above accurate - other missiles have documented high failure rates in real life and in the game.

This missile has above average real life failures, and next to none in the game. The missile can outpace any competition, and still is excessively accurate. It does not experience the same moonshot issue that the SARH missiles get. It gets to keeps track of the target even without lock for a short period… Everyone else’s missile explodes instead.

In a game were nonsensical changes are applied to everyone else in the name of “balance”.

467

as for the current conflict.I am not sure that Ukraine has an ER version, this is the first one.Secondly, neither the Su-27 nor the MiG-29 were produced on the territory of Ukraine.So there are big questions about the efficiency of the RLPC.The third R-27ER needs to keep a constant glow, which already makes you vulnerable, so the enemy has Fox-3 missiles

468

The fact that it tracks the target without illumination is a bug.About accuracy, it seems to be the same for everyone
do not forget that the R-27 is the first rocket with an INS

469

Aren’t these ER’s? They have the same “bump” in the body where the new motor of the ER/ET can be seen. Also if I recall R-27’s were also manufactured in Ukraine as well as Russia.

Spoiler

image
image1280×823 44.1 KB

1 Like
470

Yes, there is an E version.But the planes were not produced there, nor were the Radars for them

471

Right but that shouldn’t impact a countries ability to test and evaluate the missile especially if they produce the missiles themselves.

472

It doesn’t bother.But how does a person have statistics that this is the most failed rocket in the world?

473

Oh no idea, I was just weighing in on the Ukrainian question on if they operate the ER/ET.

1 Like