Yeah & the R27ER has no ability to maneuver at those speeds either.
Because it would then meet all the criteria to officially classify it as an operational hypersonic missile.
It’s not, never was and never will.
to be fair it wasn’t manoeuvering, the launch was 40+ km so it didn’t need to.
what bothers me with this missile is : low range manoeuvering, with some shots working at less than 2km while my 530D launched a bit earlier missed, i don’t really see any good reason for it to happen.
And the fact that it doesn’t seem to decelerate that much when it’s very fast, which seems a bit strange.
Other than that, the ability of this missile to maneuver doesn’t shock me that much. An ER fired low “only” goes M3.0 - M3.5 (still much more than the usual M2.5 other missiles reach)
what’s for sure is that missile came in game too early. It’s a 1990s missile that came online around the time fox3s were starting to appear. R27R was fine, being a 530D, 7F/M equivalent.
For reference (date of introduction in active service) :
7M : 1982
R27R : 1985
S530D : 1987
R27ER : 1990
AIM-120A : 1991
R-77 : 1994
MICA : 1996
1 Like
Fair.
That is the issue it overperforms at close ranges.
It’s not possible with the same limitations as the R27R & 35G maximum overload.
The missiles are also notoriously unreliable & obsolete, the performance in a head on were not much better than the R27R.
Ukrainian sources report on this & highlights the experience of Ethiopian pilots who flew against Mig29s. (The journalist just got the NATO designations mixed but is specifically talking about the ER/ET.)
Ukraine wants nothing to do with the R27 of any variant anymore and mentioned its obsoletion several times & direct reason they need the F-16 and the aim-120.
1 Like
Thats pretty cool, but the ER thrust performance is not on the cover.
You can come to Russia and read it
1 Like
Just as I suspected.
It all really comes down to a “trust me, bro”.
As for the sketch drawing.
What of it? Deflection at angle of attack in airfoil? Yup, symmetric foils of a round shape require constant deflection.
Not in game though ^^"
So i’m interested by your source.
1 Like
Because the rocket is flying in space with some kind of angle of attack. And she has to constantly deflect the steering wheels.Since at AoA = 0 its lifting force is zero
It was a misconception on his behalf.
A minimum launch range is the technical limit the R27 can be launch (just leave the rail)
It is the range the R27ER can receive signal guidance, update its fir control and launch.
It means nothing, whether the missile while hit a target.
I did not asked you, but the other guy.
Let him answer please i wanna see the source.
3 Likes
Wrong.
The a missile is flying at over the speed of sound. It needs zero angle of attack to generate lift.
Can you find a pure supersonic missile as this sketch drawing with static angles of attack built in?
I already have you dead in the water, look up what a cambered airfoil is.
What’s that?
You don’t understand what you’re writing about
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/935575539027181619/1144327513837932647/image.png?ex=663db54b&is=663c63cb&hm=ac493028a90b43331a971fe1f08a80b3b729d7329b5d2c4b3aa831505fdd5400&
M=2, Lift=0
The Su-27SK Manual also says
Give it
I’m asking to SEE the Source, not being told to check one.
1 Like
No pictures of a book cover.
You are unable to show any supersonic missile with built in deflection at any of angle of attack like your sketch drawing. if it flies supersonic, they do not need it.
Your logic is flawed, right from the gate.
Lift can be generated AoA = 0. It is already done in subsonic & transonic aircraft especially fighters of the 4th generation.
At the bottom says positive lift at 0°angle of attack.
Although it says only for the rear hemisphere
There’s no positive camber on missile fins though? Am I missing something?
The positive camber is what’s producing the lift, since it creates a low pressure region above the wing, lifting it…