Read the forum code of contact
By: 5th July 2004 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-AA-10 ALAMO R-27 IR Version’s
All-aspect Infrared R-27T (70 km) Launch Weight 254 kg
All-aspect Infrared R-27TE (120 km) Launch Weight 343 kg
By: 6th July 2004 at 02:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The so called Long Burn AA-10s have ranges in excess of 100km, and the standard AA-12 has a range that I have seen from 50km~75/80km, depending on the source and the time that source was published.
By: 6th July 2004 at 06:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No, the R-27 does NOT use a lofted profile. The R-27EM did, which is how its range increased.
The actual real engagement ranges, taken from an Su-27 combat employment manual, are:
Speed of Su-27 1100km/h
Target speed 900km/h
Head-on course
height 10,000m
R -27ER, R -27ET, R -27EP - 66 km.
R -27R - 35 km.
R -27T, R -27P - 30 km.
The R-77 range under the same conditions is about 50km.
By: 6th July 2004 at 07:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So you guys are saying the R-27ER and R-27ET never had ranges beyond 100km?
By: 6th July 2004 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not engagement range, no. Kinematic range, yes.
By: 6th July 2004 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Not engagement range, no. Kinematic range, yes.
So, against a relatively slow and docile target like a bomber, the missile, if fired from above, could reach and hit it at greater ranges?
By: 6th July 2004 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So if one would choose a missile, one would choose the AA-10 Alamo in stead of the AA-12 Adder right?
By: 6th July 2004 at 09:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I see. All of you thanks!
By: 6th July 2004 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-You can think that all you like Garry, the truth is only the not-in-service R-27EM used a lofted profile.
All basic R-27 models head directly for the target. Note that ONLY the radar homing versions use inertial + midcourse guidance. This was not some "killer idea" from the Russians but the only solution to their inability to get decent range from their radar/SARH seeker combination to match or hopefully outrange Sparrow.
The IR versions don't have inertial/midcourse guidance, they are Lock-On-Before-Launch (LOBL) only. This means that R-27ET has a range of 66km, but only if the aircraft is detectable HEAD ON at 66km using the R-27ET seeker which is unlikely unless you are aiming at the sun :)
By: 10th July 2004 at 09:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This means that R-27ET has a range of 66km, but only if the aircraft is detectable HEAD ON at 66km using the R-27ET seeker which is unlikely unless you are aiming at the sun
So why create the ET version at all? And why should any airforce buy this kit? :confused: What will the numbers be like in pursuit mode?
By: 10th July 2004 at 13:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-i think u need to weigh in the NEZ of the missile rather then absolute maximum kinematic range..
By: 10th July 2004 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So why create the ET version at all? And why should any airforce buy this kit? What will the numbers be like in pursuit mode?
The ET version is highly useful in tail-on engagements. The R-27 base version has a range of 35km head on, but tail on its only 18km, limited by the engine, not the seeker. The E models boost tail-on range considerably, to around 40-45km.
The Su-27's radar has trouble detecting much past 40km in tailchase against a fighter, so IR is a good seeker to choose for tail-on engagements. You'll probably have a nice juicy afterburner or two, and locking on at 40-45km or so would be no problem. So- you would use R-27ER in head-on engagements, and R-27ET in tail-on ones.
Incidently, the same confusion affects R-73 range figures. The HEAD-ON range is quoted as often quoted as 30km, and certain Western analysts have spouted forth on how it has a great range advantage over AIM-9. Yet, the seeker head in reality has trouble exceeding 8-10km head-on against a head-on fighter class target. In tail-on engagements, the seeker range can increase substantially, but the missile's achievable range will probably be more like 15km.
By: 10th July 2004 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-To sumarize; even though in theory the head-on range of any AAM should be higher than in pursuit mode, in practice the opposite is true thanks to the limitations of the seeker.
By: 10th July 2004 at 18:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-hasnt the alamo allready beat the aim-120 in the indo -us exer. at gwalior?
By: 10th July 2004 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Modern propellant are better but the great increase in range comes from other factors :
- the structure around the solid propellant was made of steel. Nowadays, carbon with liner is much lighter
- the electronic used to be huge. In the first sparrows missiles, the electronics took more room in the body that the propellant. So think about less state of the art russian electronic ...
By: 11th July 2004 at 02:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Modern propellant are better but the great increase in range comes from other factors :
- the structure around the solid propellant was made of steel. Nowadays, carbon with liner is much lighter
- the electronic used to be huge. In the first sparrows missiles, the electronics took more room in the body that the propellant. So think about less state of the art russian electronic ...
The R-27 is modular. Which means the rocket booster, and the warhead/seeker section are seperate. We have seen enough pictures and drawings of both to so easily and visually conclude that the booster is so much larger than the seeker/warhead module.
Posts: 446
By: MarocMirage - 5th July 2004 at 20:24
I read that the Alamo has a greater range than the AA-12, is this true ?
Is there an IR Alamo, you know like the MICA IR.