R-27 AA-10 Alamo question

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 545

COuld the Mig-29s in the 80s an 90s carry more than 2 R-27 missiles ? I mean can they carry in theory atleast 4 R-27 missiles ? thanks
Original post

Member for

7 years

Posts: 932

In theory, yes. There is no structural limitation, you can put APU-470 (which is the pylon/adapter for R-27) on mid pylons. There is no software limitation either, however standard MiG-29 does NOT have wiring to utilize the R-27 missile from mid pylon. MiG offered this modification for export models (as in the image), but for most airforces, there is no reason for it: Back in 80s, its counterpart F-16 did not have any BVR capability in anyway, and today its simply better to integrate and carry lighter R-77 missiles. http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=211975&d=1359942604
Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 2,661

Back in 80s, its counterpart F-16 did not have any BVR capability in anyway
AFAIK the F-16C/D which started deliveries around 1985, was equipped with the APG-68 and could carry two Aim-7s. Also used by ANG F-16A/Bs I think.

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 2,812

AFAIK the F-16C/D which started deliveries around 1985, was equipped with the APG-68 and could carry two Aim-7s. Also used by ANG F-16A/Bs I think.
I am pretty certain there were no AIM-7 armed F-16 in Europe right up to the end of the cold war. In fact I don't think there was ever any AIM-7 armed F-16 in Europe (maybe Turkish AF?). Many European F-16 were upgraded to AIM-120 capability in the 1990s, though (block 25 programme).
Profile picture for user TR1

Member for

9 years

Posts: 9,579

Indeed. The first F-16s to operate with a BVR capability were the F-16 ADFs operated by the Air National Guard, first conversions carried out in February 1989. Eventually converted about 260 planes. Of course they never left the US mainland, so F-16 as far as Europe was concerned had no BVR until the end of the Cold War. They planned for Sparrow capability, but decided to just wait for AMRAAM.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 8,850

Correct. The ADF was strictly home defense upgrade, although some examples have reached foreign service after the end of the Cold war - Italy and Jordan coming into my mind.
Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 4,939

Was it not the Iraqi MiG-29 that was the only Fulcrum wired for mid-wing R-27? I doubt four offered much more capability than two as the missile was meant for bomber destroying, not dogfighting. The long fins cause much drag and are very unconventional. It's reliability in real world conditions proved to be less than admirable, more like the French R.530 than AIM-7E. I'm pretty positive it had problems with high-G maneuvers under wing, too. The R-27 was more hype that threat and it wouldn't have been significant to double their load.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 8,850

Do you have any real-word data to support that stance or just making up things from thin air? AFAIK, the only conflict where R-27s were ever fired in anger was ERAF vs ETAF with many external factors playing the role (improper storage, poor maintenance, firing outside or on the edge of the maximum range etc..) If you got more, then I'm all ears.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 2,163

The R-27 was more hype that threat and it wouldn't have been significant to double their load.
The MiG-29 was probably the optimum solution to mass air-warfare over Europe in the 80s. You can fire a couple of BVR AAMs, follow them up to get in close when they probably miss then use your HMCS to use your ultra-high performance IR AAMs to effect the kills. -It didn't need long range as the battleground was condensed. -It didn't need high performance radar as the contested airspace would have been extremely chaotic and no other aircraft had a decisively superior situational awareness environment at the time. -It had the best WVR weapon system in the world, by a distance, at the time. -It could run off rough fields so was relatively tolerant of the inevitable runway cratering that would occur.

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 2,812

The MiG-29 was probably the optimum solution to mass air-warfare over Europe in the 80s.
But the MiG-29 must have been very expensive though, considering its design specification and equipment levels. Almost like a slightly scaled down F-15 in purchase and running costs I'd say.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 8,850

But the MiG-29 must have been very expensive though, considering its design specification and equipment levels. Almost like a slightly scaled down F-15 in purchase and running costs I'd say.
Roughly as expensive to run as early F-18As

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 2,812

Quite expensive so.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 8,850

Yep. You can hardly go cheaper than that with any twin-engined design, though.

Member for

7 years

Posts: 932

The R-27 was more hype that threat and it wouldn't have been significant to double their load.
Considering a) R-27 variants are still the main armament of all upgraded Su-27s and even Su-35... b) PAK-FA will desingned to be compatible to fire R-27 externally c) Even though there ara newer missiles, R-27 is still in production; the question arises: If R-27 is such a bad missile, WHY?

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 2,163

But the MiG-29 must have been very expensive though, considering its design specification and equipment levels. Almost like a slightly scaled down F-15 in purchase and running costs I'd say.
Yep, but frag one engine and you can get a Fulcrum home... maybe even get another missile or two away with that helmet/archer combo. Don't really have the same option in a viper do ya? :-)
Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 2,661

Considering a) R-27 variants are still the main armament of all upgraded Su-27s and even Su-35... b) PAK-FA will desingned to be compatible to fire R-27 externally c) Even though there ara newer missiles, R-27 is still in production; the question arises: If R-27 is such a bad missile, WHY?
I'd imagine the R-27 today would be a very different missile today. ?? Not unlike the Sidewinder which has evolved from a largely unreliable missile to the arguably best-in-class Aim-9X Block II.