Without strict testing conditions it’s hard to tell why it didn’t hit the target. From testing with custom missions, the R-27R/ER are slightly underperforming, but within the 5% margin for error gaijin permits when testing maximum ranges… in this case I was testing for the 10km altitude test. Gaijin optimizes missiles based on their 1-5km altitude performances generally.
Big changes to all of the R-27R/ER missiles on dev server.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1153305075905732709/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1153305132939878420/image.png
Massive reduction in drag coefficient, thrust, burn time, increase in AoA and maneuverability. Should be more energy loss against cranking targets and more realistic range figures at higher altitude (improvement) while seemingly nerfing low altitude range a bit.
For R-27ER it is 20% reduction in drag and 11% reduction in overall deltaV.
this has increased in proportion to the increased overload, so for “30G” maneuver nothing really changed I believe
1 Like
The R-27ER, and the 27E series in general, is truly getting to idiotic levels of drag coefficient. It becoming a goddamn farce at this point.
Not only does it have a lower drag coefficient than the R-27R, which is completely nonsensical, but it eclipses the drag coefficient of all other comparable missiles in-game despite there being no real reason to do so aside from probably the fact that its a good way to hide kinematic buffs to the missile without it being readily apparent to the community.
This is really shaping up to be one of the worst updates in WT history
Drag coefficient is not unilateral to all missiles. It’s heavily influenced by caliber and other values.
The ER/ET are larger in caliber than the R/T and thus have a lower CxK value in return… they’re also longer missiles which helps to reduce drag as well.
2 Likes
do you have a source for R-27 being 25g’s?
The last time I showed that the Super 530D had high drag, they reduced the drag coef of both 530D and R-27ER simultaneously since both are the same caliber size. The thrust on 530D is correct. The new drag coeff on R-27ER made it line up with the performance chart.
I put in a new report that the 530D was high on drag and fuel mass is incorrect, which likely means the same is occuring for missiles of the same caliber. They also reduced the thrust on the R-27ER and reduced burntime to make sure it fits the same profile as before, while reducing fuel mass.
What matters is if the new drag coeff is in line with missiles of higher and lower caliber, and the answer is yes.
According to more authoritative sources it is 35g.
2 Likes
Yeah, I think this could be a mistake, that source says 35G’s maximum overload, this might be the dual plane value, with a 25G single plane value also commonly quoted.
1 Like
Missile is skid-to-turn only, maneuvering only on one axis at a time and due to limited differential deflection will have the same maneuverability in single or combined plane. The Moscow aviation institute indicates R-27R/ER is capable of 35G overloads to target and mentions nothing less.
The only sources that state an overload of less are those such as Janes from the 90s…
And mostly stems from the maximum target overload to intercept being approximately 8G’s (rule of 3x overload to intercept = 24G)… in reality this is maximum target overload for R-27R (not ER), and at longer ranges. The maximum maneuvering potential for the missile is not at maximum range, and this is reflected as it burns through energy in-game too. The R-27R at >50% of it’s maximum range launch at 5km will hardly be able to hit a target maneuvering at 7 or 8G.
The maximum overload of the missile and target is skewed further by an inaccurate or unreliable proximity fuse, something shared with earlier SARH based missiles and something the Russians have overcome on their R-77 and newer missiles.
1 Like
why would skid to turn prevent dual plane?
The missile is not capable of dual plane in the sense that the control surfaces cannot be deflected in such a way iirc. There is limited differential deflection capacity.
What would be the logical benefit of the new fin designs over the R-24s?
The new fin designs induce much more drag, and the idea that the Russians did so without any clear benefit doesn’t make any logical sense unless the R-24s aren’t actually 24G missiles.
Either R-27s are 25G and R-24s are much less than 24 (alternative theory), or the R-27s are 35G and R-24s are 24G (current situation).
Whatever the explanation is, it has to account for R-24s.
The R-24/R-27 have no roll control in combined plane, and in the event of control reversal due to fin AoA they need to have roll control. As such, it is roll stabilized and HAS to use two rudders for maneuvering, two for roll control with limited differential deflection angles. The missile has to maneuver in single plane.
American and Russian sources refer to the missiles maneuverability as single-plane rather than dual-plane.
European sources often refer to the missiles maneuverability as dual-plane.
Previously used source mentioned that the missiles maneuverability is 30g in a single plane.
35g mentioned in the new source is not dual plane maneuverability.
5 Likes
Then how come American sources stating the AIM-54 pulls 25G’s gets dismissed as “they’re stating dual plane” and the AIM-54 is instead gets a paltry 18G’s? Seems like a bit of a double standard.
2 Likes
The AIM-54 may actually be 25G in single plane, or maneuvers constantly in combined plane. There is no primary source that states which… which is why it is currently limited in the game.
This is because the AIM-54 uses Bank-To-Turn (BTT), allowing it to utilize dual-plane maneuverability.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1130043915404320818/1153370200515821578/IMG_1426.png
5 Likes
Riiiight, so, pardon my remark here, but its an intentional modelling decision thats advantageous for the R-27’s and disadvantageous for other missiles.
Thats super cool
2 Likes