R-27EA in service?

[+dtmdragon 2,693]

From what I can find on Google the active homing version of the R-27 AA-10 Alamo was never actually produced and put into service. But I was watching a recent RT video clip on you tube about the SU-34 now being armed with air-to-air ordnance over Syria which suggests otherwise. The reporter does a brief speal on each missile and when he talks about the R-27 he states is a fire and forget missile or something to that effect. So for a R-27 to be fire and forget it must be the active homing variety (R-27EA) and not the SAHM R-27ER? What do you guys think?

[MigBuster 2,883]

Western journalists often talk complete bollocks when they are describing NATO jets so perhaps not compelling evidence....................

 

A photo of the missile with serial no and R-27AE printed in Russian on it like you may find on Western jets perhaps?..otherwise can anyone tell the difference in missile head shape?....

 

Okay so R-77s exported but none on active RuAF fighters in a combat zone?..........yet seems these never went into service either?

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

 

alamo - c

Edited December 8, 2015 by 76.IAP-Blackbird

[MigBuster 2,883]

Which one is it? .............. every document I look at has a different Alamo designation for the R-27EA: 

[MigBuster 2,883]

Okay so appears to be a massive thread on why it was removed from DCS:

 

Incorrect. The AE was removed not because of user request but because the team knows that the missile has never entered Ru service and it was unrealistic to include it. As simple as that.

-Matt

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=19815&page=4

Edited December 8, 2015 by MigBuster

[+dtmdragon 2,693]

It's the Alamo E but it is externally identical to the R-27ER Alamo C as it simply had the R-77 seaker head in place of the SAHM Alamo C head.

Edited December 8, 2015 by dtmdragon

[MigBuster 2,883]

It's the Alamo E but it is externally identical to the R-27ER Alamo C as it simply had the R-77 seaker head in place of the SAHM Alamo C head. It was a Russian journalist from RT that made the statement about it it being fire and forget.

 

Is that definitive?..............I thought this was a good source http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html#_Listings_AA

 

Yes I know.........my point was the journalists over here are certainly not experts and often state things that are incorrect.......not that they would know either way...that is why some kind of evidence would be useful.

Edited December 8, 2015 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,883]

It's the Alamo E but it is externally identical to the R-27ER Alamo C as it simply had the R-77 seaker head in place of the SAHM Alamo C head.

 

btw dtm I am assuming you are aware that the IR versions of the R-27 would of course be "Fire and Forget" ?

[+strahi 1,058]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

[MigBuster 2,883]

Agat clearly developed some kind of seeker. 

 

What year is that book? is it Yefim?

[+strahi 1,058]

Agat clearly developed some kind of seeker. 

 

What year is that book? is it Yefim?

 

Yes, Y. Gordon. I can send you a PDF version

[MigBuster 2,883]

Yes, Y. Gordon. I can send you a PDF version

 

I have a lot of them........can you tell me the title please?

 

and no thank you........it's a published book so it would violate copyright (I guess the above might be considered advertising)

 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may

be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical or photo-copied, recorded or otherwise,

without the written permission of the publishers.

[+strahi 1,058]

 

I have a lot of them........can you tell me the title please?

 

and no thank you........it's a published book so it would violate copyright (I guess the above might be considered advertising)

 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may

be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical or photo-copied, recorded or otherwise,

without the written permission of the publishers.

 

 

[MigBuster 2,883]

Okay thanks so 2004......I will see if he mentions anything in the later MiG-29 and Su-27 etc books.

[MigBuster 2,883]

In the MiG-29 (2006) book he doesn't list it as a carried weapon but provides a random picture at the end.

 

 

 

If the EA had a pointy nose like that.........the ones shown on RT would likely be R type.

 

 

 

 

 

[MigBuster 2,883]

Have had quick scan through the 2007 Su-27 book.......seems to be mostly ET/ER and R-77. Noticed some photos of dummy missiles with pointy heads in there but no text ref telling me what they are!.

 

It is not uncommon for people to be sure something will come into service and then it gets cancelled so that could be why it was in older books. If ED state it never went into production ( Russian based company who work in the defence Industry) then it's not looking good at the moment.

[Snailman 517]

R-27EA is completely same like the R-27ER or EP.  Just the warhead is different. Pointed nose is an experimental model. EA and ER has very little difference, look at drawing:

 

 

R-27 is a modular missile, assembled as per need. The drawing showing it longer than the others, is bad. The active seeker head is being produced for at least 10 years, so if finally being used - should not be a surprise. Not public? again not surprise ))   Journalist... eh.

 

R-27ET works in middle-course guidance mode, same way like EA. which means it flies towards the interception point, guided by radar and when it arrives into seeker range it locks on and guides itself with IR seeker. So it is in fact semi-fire and forget )

 

http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/p27/p27.shtml

Yefim is good, but not necessarily accurate today those books were written 10 years ago.

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Snailman

[Snailman 517]

There is also an EM variant, without lofted profile, specialized on intercepting low flying objects, such as cruise missiles.

 

Well not sure about RuAF service... but we know that unapproved equipment were used as part of combat testing many times in the past, USSR times alike. Second, Russia uses all kind of armament, including missiles, planes, submarines and ships, which are actually for sale. Even if a R-77 might not be officially used by RuAF, in Syria they might use it for advertisement. They learned how to wage a marketing war)

Edited December 9, 2015 by Snailman

[MigBuster 2,883]

Good point on the ET.....suppose it would only be F&F at closer ranges.

 

That link suggests testing initially began in the early 80s........am still surprised there is nothing on production or photos of live missiles available.....doesn't make sense to keep it a rumour to me.

 

So basically without a physical difference unless those numbers in the RT video give away the seeker type we are not going to know what they are it would appear.

[Snailman 517]

Good point on the ET.....suppose it would only be F&F at closer ranges.

 

That link suggests testing initially began in the early 80s........am still surprised there is nothing on production or photos of live missiles available.....doesn't make sense to keep it a rumour to me.

 

So basically without a physical difference unless those numbers in the RT video give away the seeker type we are not going to know what they are it would appear.

 

The R-77 has this homing head. From a book also 6 years old. There are 4 more ARH heads listed in this book, one for R-33M missile and two unknown, listed by factory  designation only. I suppose these are modular designs as well.

 

As the text says, this head is inertial guidance with radio correction (which is NOT radar guidance) + Active radar homing head.  The next one for the R-33 is Intertial with radio correction + semi-active homing + active radar homing.  We can assume the long range infra-red missiles are also have this mixed guidance (R-77T and R-77MT) also supposed to be slaved to the IRST sensor wich have better range in detection

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Snailman

[+dtmdragon 2,693]

Cheers guys, don't think we're going to get a hard and fast answer on this one lol

[+Gepard 11,156]

R-27ET works in middle-course guidance mode, same way like EA. which means it flies towards the interception point, guided by radar and when it arrives into seeker range it locks on and guides itself with IR seeker. So it is in fact semi-fire and forget )

 

 

 

If the mid-course update mode is the same like in the R-24 or R-23 on MiG-23 (and i bet it is the same) then a radar guidance toward the activation point is not neccessary. An former LSK MiG-23 pilot explained it to me in that way. "You find the target with the radar or the iR seeker of the plane, get all needed information for launch. Then send the missile on the way to a calculated point and unlock the target (go back to search mode or even switch off the Radar). For the IR guided missiles you must do nothing else because the seaker will (hopefully) find the target on the pre calculated point. For the semi active seeker heads the activation point is 6 to 10 km away from target. When the missile comes to this point you must lock on the target." This was called "silent shot".

 

With a MiG-29 IR seeker range of approx 20km you can surprise an enemy. The first warning he gets if his RWS becomes crazy and the missile is very very close. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds from impact.

[Snailman 517]

R-23 missile has semi-active radar guidance. That mean is needs target tracking. At least until the IR seeker activates (in case of and IR variant). Such medium range missiles have far longer range than any IRST sensor - even the best ones can detect only tail-on afterburners from 20km or farther.

 

R-24 was different (I had to read in some books) - you are right in that it had the first inertial type guidance. This means it was following a preprogrammed mathematical target until the target was actually locked on by the guidance radar - then the passive seeker head was homing on the illuminated target. In short it could be launched without a locked tracking radar thus avoiding all jamming. It also used monopulse seeker and it was the most jamming safe missile produced that time.

 

The R-27 series also have inertial guidance but with radio command correction. It can also receive updates on the command line (mostly from a phased array radar), but it can get near the target on it own data received before launch. In the terminal phase depending on seeker type, it can home on radar illumination (semi active, need a lock), active radar, IR seeker or passive radar seeker that homes on the target's own radar signal (AWACS or jammer plane).

 

OFF. heard info on the TP-23 IRST of MiG-23 was claimed much better than the KOLS on the MiG-29... similary they say RP23MLA Ametist radar was more accurate and stable than the Rubin on the MiG-29