AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Post Reply
AndrewJ
Posts: 2449
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:47 pm

AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AndrewJ »

Hello,

A question about the long rang performance of the Alamo B and D. These are long range IR homing missile (70 nm for the D model, according to the database), but currently in the game they are limited by the 10 nm range of their seeker. An aircraft carrying these missiles might as well be carrying the short-ranged Archer instead.

My understanding is that these long range IR homing missiles can actually be fired in what is essentially a bearing only, lock-on-after-launch mode, to make use of their full range capability.

Would it be possible to implement this, perhaps through the existing BOL mechanics? It would certainly add to the capability of the later Russian fighters (as well as presenting some interesting opportunities for friendly fire!)

(My apologies if this is already in there somewhere, and I just haven't clued in yet.)
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by Dimitris »

AFAIK these weapons, and the R-23T and R-40T/TD, do not have a LOAL capability (we looked into this a while back). Their CONOPS is to be fired on tail-on chase of high-speed receding targets (F-111/Tornado/B-1B down in the weeds, SR-71 at altitude etc.), hence the need for a very energetic weapon.

One of the unofficial Falcon-4 updates had the R-40TD modelled as a datalink+IR weapon but IIRC presented no source backing this decision.
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by CapnDarwin »

The following would indicate an ability to fire bearing only:

R-27T and ET variants can be used out of cloudiness, at least 15 degrees away from the bearing of sun, and 4 degrees away from the bearing of moon and ground based head-contrasting conditions. In cases of maximum head-on range launches where lock-command cannot be utilized, missile can be fired in PPS: In this mode, missile will fly straight until achieves target lock. As missile lacks capability of maneuvering before lock, aircraft itself must maneuver so that missile will be pointed to no more than 15 degrees bearing of the target for confident capture by the IR seeker after launch. Equalizing altitude is recommended but not required.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
AndrewJ
Posts: 2449
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:47 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AndrewJ »

Wikipedia (I know, I know..) has this snippet:

"In cases of maximum head-on range launches where lock-command cannot be utilised, missile can be fired in PPS: In this mode, missile will fly straight until achieves target lock. As missile lacks capability of maneuvering before lock, aircraft itself must maneuver so that missile will be pointed to no more than 15 degrees bearing of the target for confident capture by the IR seeker after launch. Equalising altitude is recommended but not required.[3] On combat operations section of the Su-27 manual, this mode of usage is especially recommended for head-on usage for passive attacks at targets with 0 degrees approach angle (i.e. another fighter moving to intercept), leaving target unalerted to incoming missile.[4]"

It references a "Su-27 Flight Manual booklet-1. 2001" as the source for this information. As far as I can tell this is based on the translation of an Su-27 manual which is referenced in the last post on the following website

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,47.15.html

It contains links to both an original scan of the Russian manual (in dejavu format, of all things) as well as word documents in Russian and a very rough English (auto?) translation.

Edit: the scan is only to one section of the manual. The Russian word document looks best, if any of you are Russian speakers. The english one is a bit of a mess.
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by thewood1 »

I am no expert, but in Midland's Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons on pg 45, it states that the R-27R's later model has a BOL capability with a datalink, but has no mention of the R-27T having any BOL or launch before lock capability. Not much mention of the ET being any different.

That is kind of a cool book, but one would expect, its not detailed enough to give me the warm fuzzies on actual Command-usable information.
AlmightyTallest
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AlmightyTallest »

One of the other considerations is the IR seeker technology itself that's used in the missiles. There's a big difference between an uncooled single detector 1st gen IR seeker, and a cryogenically cooled Imaging focal planar array 3rd gen IR seeker and associated electronics when it comes to flare rejection, ability to see a target against other contrasting targets like ground, hot buildings/pavement etc.

Which seems to follow with the instructions on the missile being used against a high contrast target, that is silhouetted against the sky.
R-27T and ET variants can be used out of cloudiness, at least 15 degrees away from the bearing of sun, and 4 degrees away from the bearing of moon and ground based head-contrasting conditions.

The above seems to imply that the seeker could be fooled by the sun, and moon, as well as the ground if it's in the field of view when fired, like the early AIM-9's.

It would make sense if the missile has some kind of inertial guidance, or datalink, but the seeker itself seems to be the big limiting factor.

thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by thewood1 »

The same book stated the 23T could only be used from the inner pylons in the SU-27 because they were the only ones equipped to handle the liquid N2 bottles for cooling the seeker. Amazing the little things you learn about stuff as you dig in.
AlmightyTallest
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AlmightyTallest »

That's neat, so yea, it's a cooled sensor which gives it more sensitivity, but now is it a single cooled detector, or something more advanced?

It's an interesting concept, seems like Russia went with a large and long range missile mated to a more rudimentary IR seeker, where the U.S. has a good IR seeker technology, but mated to a smaller missile with limited range.
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by thewood1 »

You should check out that book. It does go into some of that detail. But I suspect there are a lot of gaps in what they have.
Windom Earle
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:25 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by Windom Earle »

Well, I've just read that Su-27 manual - nothing close to that was cited. Moreover, it is stated that heatseaker should be locked on target before R-27T/R-27ET launch.
Another manual:
rudocs.exdat.com/docs/index-350791.html?page=9
(in Russian)
says mostly the same.
Tomcat84
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:13 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by Tomcat84 »

I think a 70 nm range would be extremely optimistic for a Duck. Seeker wise a lot also depends on aspect and throttle setting of course, is Command smart enough to handle IR seeker sensitivity based on aspect and throttle setting? I have never really tested this.

Also I get the idea a lot of Russian missiles (AA-12 for example) are very optimistically modeled range wise in lots of software like Command and Falcon 4 BMS etc. But, can't point you to a source for that, sorry... [:)]
My Scenarios and Tutorials for Command

(Scenarios focus on air-warfare :) )
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by thewood1 »

How much real-world combat have Russian missiles seen? I see some AARs for some western missile fights, but don't remember seeing many for Russian or Chinese hardware.
AlmightyTallest
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AlmightyTallest »

Well, you wouldn't want to use the data from the Eritiean conflict of 1999, they had about 24 R-27's fired, for only a single damaged Mig-29.
In the 1999 Eritrean-Ethiopian War, Eritrean MiG-29s fought Ethiopian Su-27s both piloted by Russian mercenaries.[5] There were possibly as many as 24 R-27s fired by both sides. Only one R-27 fired by an Ethiopian Su-27 at an Eritrean MiG-29 proximity-fuzed near enough the MiG that the damaged aircraft eventually crashed on landing.

You can read the more detailed .pdf on the air engagements and events surrounding them here: http://www.acig.info/CMS/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=138

Apparently R-73's and 30mm cannon were better in the air engagements than the R-27's used.



I know Wiki isn't the best for references sometimes but the ranges for the R-27ET are listed as follows.
R-27ET AA-10 Alamo-D, the infrared-homing extended-range version, Weight 348 kg. Missile can be used at 20 to 27000 meters altitude. Effective kill range: 2 to 52.5 km head-on, 0.7 to 12.5 tail-on. Maximum range: 104 km. Maximum allowed vertical separation: 12 km. [2]

From ACIG.org
The R-27 (izdeliye 470) entered production only in 1986 (i.e. hardly four years before AIM-120), yet I'd compare its technology standards with those of the AIM-7F (not even the AIM-7M, as usually done), which reached IOC in 1977.
the most authoritative references I can find to launch ranges are:

R-27R
50-60km head-on
up to 18km tailchase

R-27ER
65-70km head-on
up to 43km tailchase

R-77
60km head-on
20km tailchase

The head-on acquisition range of the -T seeker is unlikely to much exceed 10km, limiting it to tail-on engagements for BVR use. Hence for R-27T/ET you can use the tailchase value as the maximum range.

Note that the N001 radar of the Su-27 can only reliably track a fighter at 65-70km head-on, and about 35-40km in a tailchase.
The range of 240km for N001 is absolute fantasy, an estimate originally put out by the US DoD assuming parity in radar/processor technology with the US. (They gave 305km for the MiG-31's Zaslon).

The range requirement by the VVS/PVO was 200km against a BOMBER sized target. The range achieved by N001 is 130km against a BOMBER sized target. These figures are well documented. A 16 sq m RCS target is generally used as a bomber by the Russians, equivalent to a Tu-16.

If the R-27ET has inertial guidance, why doesn't the Vympel ad mention it? It does mention it for the R-27ER.
I only can say what was told to me: the Su-27 has (considerable) stability problems if only one R-27 is fired. So, they are firing them in pairs. That - plus the massive unreliability, caused by poor handling - was one of the main reasons for the heavy missile expenditure during that war.
R-27T1 has downgraded IRCCM, all the rest is as the R-27T. This is also true for the R-73/R-73E (and the R-27R/R-27R1 with jamming and clutter rejection)
However, since the US will also have obtained non-export R-27s, the ECCM/IRCCM methods will have been compromised.

Incidently, the export MiG-29 radars were also mainly differentiated by their lack of ECCM, in other respects they were largely identical to the Soviet model


Figures supposedly from Su-27 combat employment manual from a Russian language forum.

Speed of carrier 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-27R figure agrees with the MiG-29 combat manual figure posted earlier, so I am fairly confident these are the correct numbers.

While everybody - including the US-Americans, Sweedes, Finns and French - who ever got their hands on R-27s highly prized its avionics and automatized systems, all of them also concluded that these systems are also extremely sensitive to rough handling. Their general conclusion about the poor performance of the weapon during the war Ethiopia-Eritrea was that it was caused by poor handling.

Yet, the R-27 might not have performed completely poorly in general: the Su-27s, apparently, had less problems in deploying them successfully than MiG-29s. There were, however, other non-R-27-directly related problems too: the pilots reported that they had to fire R-27s in pairs as otherwise the flying performances of their planes - even Su-27s - would be negatively influenced.

Of course, it is also truth that both sides had perfect picture about the performance of enemy's weapons and consequently were able to do their best in order to deny clear shots from the opposition.
To be honest, after working so much on my next book - "Air Combat in BVR-Arena; History & Future" (Working title) - my conclusion is that one can't depend on the Russians for anything in relation to BVR. The Ethiopia-Eritrea war was for them something like Vietnam was for the Americans: their first major experience to this topic. The Russians have completely forgotten (and also did their best to ignore) the negative lessons from Lebanon and Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and had correspondingly to re-learn everything about BVRAAMs during this war in Africa.

For this reason, what the Russians offer in BVRAAMs is mainly based on pure theory: only their most recent weapons are a reaction to the Eritrea-Ethiopia experience.

The problem even with this fact is, however, that these newest weapons are only based on reports from Ethiopia and Eritrea, not on any kind of well-coordinated major effort by RuAF: the development of tactical methods and doctrines within the RuAF was stopped before the airforce was re-named "Russian" (instead of Soviet).
Typical ranges for R-27, 10000m altitude, co-altitude target:

R-27T
Head-on 2 - 33km
Tailchase 0.7 - 5.5km

R-27ET
Head-on 2 - 52.5km
Tailchase 0.7 - 12.5km

R-27R
Head-on 2 - 42.5km
Tailchase 0.7 - 7.5km

R-27ER
Head-on 2 - 65km
Tailchase 0.7 - 16.5km

These are kinematic ranges. A rear aspect shot at a typical target with an R-27ET is at most 16.5km; well within the seeker range,
Export deliveries of anything else but early R-27Rs and R-27Ts are to be confirmed yet, while the combat-experiences with what Ethiopian and Eritrean su-27s and MiG-29s - respectively - used in 1999/2000 were very negative, pointing at different problems with the sensitivity of seeker heads, reliability of avionics, functionability of steering mechanisms and capability to really and effectivelly target highly manoeuvreable fighters.
AndrewJ
Posts: 2449
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:47 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AndrewJ »

Thanks for all the information gentlemen. It's really great to have informed discussion like this .
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84
I think a 70 nm range would be extremely optimistic for a Duck. Seeker wise a lot also depends on aspect and throttle setting of course, is Command smart enough to handle IR seeker sensitivity based on aspect and throttle setting? I have never really tested this.

Yes. Try some IRST tests with various aspects and throttle combinations and you should notice it.
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by Dimitris »

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest
The R-27 (izdeliye 470) entered production only in 1986 (i.e. hardly four years before AIM-120), yet I'd compare its technology standards with those of the AIM-7F (not even the AIM-7M, as usually done), which reached IOC in 1977.

I'm curious to know who makes this claim. The R-27R had a monopulse seeker just like the AIM-7M (which entered production in 1982) and its "butterfly" control wings have been described "as close to aerodynamic perfection as you can get with a mass-production weapon" by a person who _knows_ this stuff.
AlmightyTallest
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:00 pm

RE: AA-10 Alamo B/D - Long range performance?

Post by AlmightyTallest »

That would be Tom Cooper a researcher and publisher at ACIG.org

http://www.acig.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=622

While the butterfly control wings may be perfection, perhaps Tom was talking about the electronic aspects of the missile meeting the AIM-7F standard, which is something I've heard by other pilots on other forums. The IOC he mentions also seems to point to the AIM-7F IOC, not the 7M IOC.
Basic R-27R/R-27R1 (AA-10 Alamo-A) is 4.08m long, weights 253kg and has an advertised kynethic range of 60km. It is equipped with the 9B-110K homing head, designed by Agat. During the first 30 secs after being launched, the missile is quided inertially, then course corrections are data-linked from the launch aircraft, and the terminal light phase is controlled by the SAR system, the intercepting target needing an effective radar cross secion of at least 3sqms. Actually effective combat range is between 20 and 25kms when fired under ideal circumstances (level over 10.000ft and from forward aspect at closing target). The R-27R1 has an advertised snap-up capability of 33.000ft/10.000 meters, ad can be fired against targets traveling at speeds of up to 1.890kts (3.500km/h), levels between 20 meters and 25.000 meters, and manoeuvering up to 8gs.
These early models were not much more but upgraded R-24s, with much better close-cycle hydraulic acutators and movable wing aerodynamics, offering a smoother ride (despite this, it seems that R-27s suffer from more drag during manoeuvers than the R-23/24 family). Yet, being built in modules, the R-27 is considerably easier to upgrade and enhance than any AAMs previously produced in the USSR/Russia. Consequently a plethora of additional versions entered service subsequently or were claimed to be in R+D since the early 1990s.

He usually likes to get his info straight when he publishes info, so if you can help him out with that you can get in touch with him about any issues. With the sources he has and the contributors at that site, it's pretty interesting.


Thinking of the monopulse seeker, it seems the AIM-7F had one according to this report from 1978:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/122499.pdf
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”