Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Share
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:48 am

    Full article discussing the WorldWide AAMs progress here
    http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/air-to-air-domination.html#more


    Russia
    Like the rest of its defence sector, Russia's airborne weapons industry suffered a lack of investment and a dearth of state orders for the last 20 years. Only export sales kept production lines active but, from the late 1990s and into the last decade, international orders sustained a reasonable workload. Russia's weapon builders - unified under the Tactical Missile Corporation (TMC) - face a less well-defined future. Export sales are dropping off as major customers like China and, to a degree, India find alternative sources of supply. The more recent customers for Russian combat aircraft like Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam or Venezuela are not big enough to fill the gap left by China and India.
    At the same time there is a reawakening in Russia's procurement plans, thanks to the Sukhoi Su-35S and next-generation T-50 (PAK-FA) fighter programmes. The 48 advanced Su-35S jets announced in 2009 were the first new-build aircraft to be ordered for the Russian fighter force since the 1990s. More Su-35Ss are likely to follow, bridging the gap until the T-50 is ready for meaningful operations. The expansion of the Su-35S force and the resulting potential for export sales, plus the promise of the T-50 means that for the first time in many years Russia's weapon industry has serious goals.
    The two primary air-to-air weapons from the TMC are improved versions of missiles with their design roots in the 1980s. Revealed in 2009, the RVV-SD (Raketa Vozdukh-Vozdukh-Srednaya Dalnost, medium-range AAM) and RVV-MD (Raketa Vozdukh-Vozdukh-Malaya Dalnost, short-range AAM) are the latest developments of the well-known RVV-AE/R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') and R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') missiles respectively. Products of the Vympel Design Bureau, they are staged improvements of the original designs rather than radical enhancements.
    Several aerodynamic refinements have been made to the BVR-capable RVV-SD. Its rear section has a tapered 'boat tail' shape and the active radar seeker dome is longer and more pointed. Although its propulsion system is unchanged, the revised airframe configuration and flight control software increases range to at least 110 km. The RVV-SD has an upgraded inertial platform in its guidance and control section and a modernised seeker with improved algorithms. At its 2009 debut the RVV-SD was described by Vympel as a "proposal", so the production status of the missile remains unconfirmed.
    The RVV-MD IR-guided dogfight missile introduced several performance improvements but not to the level predicted for most preceding R-73 upgrade concepts. Three main enhancements consist of: a two-colour IR seeker, an expanded seeker field-of-view of ±60° and an extended in-flight standby time of six hours.
    Current or future Russian orders are likely to be built to RVV-SD and RVV-MD standards. Vympel designers have also spoken of further AAM developments based on the original RVV-AE/R-77 and R-73 designs. This includes a BVR missile referred to as Izdeliye 180 with a revised airframe design that replaces the lattice rear fins with conventional tail fins. Vympel says the new fins lessen drag and reduce weight by removing the heavy actuators needed for the old control surfaces. The missile will be fitted with an improved, higher-speed datalink and an inertial guidance system for mid-course navigation. The rocket motor is an improved dual-pulse engine with a maximum burn of 100 seconds and the ability to control the frequency of thrust inputs. A dual-mode (active/passive homing) seeker is likely to be fitted.
    A successor to the R-73/RVV-MD may come in the shape of Vympel's Izdeliye 760 (a derivative of the earlier K-74/Izdeliye 740 concept). It will have an improved IR seeker, an inertial control system, datalink receiver for target updates and an advanced rocket motor with a longer burn time. To make the missile suitable for internal carriage, its cross-section will be reduced. To maximise the weapon's coverage, it can be fired in lock-on-after-launch mode, starting under inertial control before achieving in-flight lock-on. It will be able to engage targets up to 160º from the aircraft's heading. The Izdeliye 760 may have already completed flight tests.
    The follow-on to the Izdeliye 760 is identified as the K-MD (Izdeliye 300), which is intended to outperform the ASRAAM and AIM-9X. Although it will draw on experience from the R-73/R-74 series, it will essentially be an all-new missile. It will use an IR seeker with a focal-plane array and this will have more than twice the lock-on range of the Izdeliye 760 seeker, a high resistance to countermeasures and a target-recognition capability.
    In terms of deployed weapons Russia's most notable recent achievement has been the introduction of the very-long-range R-37 missile as part of the MiG-31BM 'Foxhound' upgrade. One of Russia's 'lost projects' from the 1990s, the R-37 was designed to work specifically with the aircraft's improved NIIP Zaslon-M passive electronically scanning array (PESA) radar. The R-37 has an range of up to 230 km. After many years of delayed development the MiG-31BM/R-37 combination is entering Russian service.
    A second long-range AAM programme exists in Russia, albeit under many different names. Developed by Novator, the K-100 missile (also known as the Izdeliye 172, KS-172, RVV-BD and AAM-L) is potentially a 200 km+ weapon associated with the Su-35S (and export Su-35BM) programme. Versions of this missile have sporadically appeared in public since the 1990s and in recent years full-sized mock-ups were shown carried by Su-35 aircraft. In March 2004 Indian press reports claimed that Russia and India were about to begin collaborative development of the 172 missile, referred to as the R-172. By 2006 the Izdeliye 172/K-100 was confirmed as a potential weapon for Sukhoi's revised Su-35 design and was exhibited in China that year. A full-size mock-up of a weapon identified only as 'AAM' (a catch-all designation) was shown for the first time in more than a decade at the 2007 Moscow Air Show. The K-100 was absent in any form from the 2009 Moscow Air Show, indicating perhaps that the programme has returned to classified status.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:17 am

    Export sales are dropping off as major customers like China and,
    to a degree, India find alternative sources of supply. The more recent
    customers for Russian combat aircraft like Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia,
    Vietnam or Venezuela are not big enough to fill the gap left by China
    and India.

    Export sales have dropped but also diversified, and unlike the dry period of the last 20 years the Russian military is now actually starting to make orders... and if it needs to replace its military hardware over the next 15-20 years that will involve significant orders too.

    The follow-on to the Izdeliye 760 is identified as the K-MD (Izdeliye
    300), which is intended to outperform the ASRAAM and AIM-9X. Although it
    will draw on experience from the R-73/R-74 series, it will essentially
    be an all-new missile. It will use an IR seeker with a focal-plane array
    and this will have more than twice the lock-on range of the Izdeliye
    760 seeker, a high resistance to countermeasures and a
    target-recognition capability.

    This sounds like Morfei... and if it is, it will also be used in a ground launched version as part of the Vityaz system and in a naval version too.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:26 pm

    Garry if you have read the whole article it seems that Europe & especially German with their Meteor project can be deadly in the race among AAM manufacturing companies worldwide. Also if I may discuss Pakistan in the spectrum we are very much involved in the production of T-Darter & A-Darter missiles produced by South Africa & now also the Brazil had joined this club.
    I just want to say that AAM manufacturing nowadays is becoming more & more diversified & from the full article it seems half of the world has or is going to start their domestic AAM projects which may undermine the sales not just of US but also of Russia
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:48 am

    Garry if you have read the whole article it seems that Europe &
    especially German with their Meteor project can be deadly in the race
    among AAM manufacturing companies worldwide.

    I agree, but it is known that both Russia and the US are working on similar products and I doubt the design of these weapons will be inferior. Their primary aim would be to have superior range and or speed... it just depends on whether the Russian missile has a ramjet or a scramjet engine... if it has the latter then its performance will exceed the Meteor by a wide margin.

    I just want to say that AAM manufacturing nowadays is becoming more
    & more diversified & from the full article it seems half of the
    world has or is going to start their domestic AAM projects which may
    undermine the sales not just of US but also of Russia.

    The Russians had official sales in 2010 of 9.5 billion which is rather more than in any of the previous years since 1990. Now that the Russian military is trying to replace all its equipment I think the problem will not be lack of sales... the problem will be can the production capacity meet the demands.

    BTW even if a ramjet powered R-77 does not enter service, they have the R-37 which is supposed to be compatible with all new Russian fighters... Mig-35, Su-35, T-50, Mig-31.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    R-77 vs MICA

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:50 pm

    it seems

    R-77 Is Superior To Mica-EM   Twisted Evil






    http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/r-77-is-superior-to-mica-em.html


    Last edited by ahmedfire on Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:12 am

    Weird considering there are far more nations using MICA than RVV-AE. Russia don't even use it. Also, Pakistan was begging for MICA until French Senate rejected clearance. Ever since that Indian batch of R-77s went bad, there hasn't been much demand for it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:39 am

    The R-77s main problems were first that there were only a few hundred aircraft that could actually carry and fire it (Mig-29S) in service in the Russian Air Force, but the most importantly the active seeker and parts of it were made in the Ukraine so there was a scramble to develop Russian components to replace the fairly important Ukrainian components.
    Another issue is that radar guided missiles are great for closing targets but receding targets are much harder to get a clean lock, so because they are presenting their engine nozzles it is much easier to get an IR lock on with such a target.

    As such the Russian AF prefers to carry a mix of IR and radar homing missiles, which the R-27 and R-27E model missiles had.
    Now however the Russian MIC has developed all digital versions of their R-77 and R-73 missiles and significantly increased their performance. The electronics are lighter and faster and more precise and accurate and allow flight path shaping to greatly increase range performance and accuracy.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:19 pm

    Can you please remove !! in topic title , since it hurts our Google search rank?

    Otherwise interesting!

    ok our patriot
    i did not know that (!!) is aproblem dunno

    Vladimir79 wrote:Weird considering there are far more nations using MICA than RVV-AE. Russia don't even use it. Also, Pakistan was begging for MICA until French Senate rejected clearance. Ever since that Indian batch of R-77s went bad, there hasn't been much demand for it.

    ok,but it does not mean that it is not superior to mica Cool
    ariants of the R-77 have been exported to most current operators of late model MiG-29 and Su-27/30 series fighters, and there are claims the missile may have been licenced by China. The seeker and guidance package are known to have been licenced by China for use in the PL-12/SD-10 Sino-AMRAAM.


    The R-77s main problems were first that there were only a few hundred aircraft that could actually carry and fire it (Mig-29S) in service in the Russian Air Force, but the most importantly the active seeker and parts of it were made in the Ukraine so there was a scramble to develop Russian components to replace the fairly important Ukrainian components.
    Another issue is that radar guided missiles are great for closing targets but receding targets are much harder to get a clean lock, so because they are presenting their engine nozzles it is much easier to get an IR lock on with such a target.

    As such the Russian AF prefers to carry a mix of IR and radar homing missiles, which the R-27 and R-27E model missiles had.
    Now however the Russian MIC has developed all digital versions of their R-77 and R-73 missiles and significantly increased their performance. The electronics are lighter and faster and more precise and accurate and allow flight path shaping to greatly increase range performance and accuracy.

    Look at the size of the other WVR missiles, they're a bit smaller and likely to be a bit more agile. Look at the size of the other BVR missiles, they're all 50% bigger. When no one else does something it's likely that something was a mistake. The Russian, Chinese, Indians etc all have had the chance to build something similr and no one has.

    Also look at the missile itself. It has the strakes which cause a lot of zero lift drag compared to a missile body cylinder. It's just a bad overall design philosophy for a weapon. The thing is, it doesn't matter because the French pilots and planes are good enough to make the question academic other than on message boards where French Fanboys try and make it out to be better than AMRAAM at BVR and better than the others at WVR when there is no way that is possible under the rules of engineering unless the other guys screwed up..


    The R-77 employs conceptually similar guidance to the AMRAAM, with an inertial unit, datalink uplink receiver and a terminal seeker, specifically the 9B-1348E in the baseline active radar variant. The missile is credited with an A-pole range of 54 NMI, the capability to defeat a 12G target, can be launched at 8 G, and requires an AAKU/AKU-170 launcher.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html


    The R-77's main superiority compared to the AIM-120B/C is in range and manoeuvrability. The R-77 is bigger than the AIM-120, and carries more powerful propellant. The range of the R-77 is between 50km and 80km depending on the model. The R-77’s unique “potato masher” fins at the rear provides lower drag at supersonic speeds than large fins, and are able to cause the missile to turn much faster at 12G, which is significantly more than most crewed aircraft at 9G. The missile’s speed is limited to Mach 3 due to excessive nose-cone heating.

    http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r77.asp



    Russian BVR Missiles - Technology Growth
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:19 am

    ahmedfire wrote:

    Also look at the missile itself. It has the strakes which cause a lot of zero lift drag compared to a missile body cylinder. It's just a bad overall design philosophy for a weapon. The thing is, it doesn't matter because the French pilots and planes are good enough to make the question academic other than on message boards where French Fanboys try and make it out to be better than AMRAAM at BVR and better than the others at WVR when there is no way that is possible under the rules of engineering unless the other guys screwed up..


    That strakes, well i see it will improve glide and contribute to Body buildup performance , as BVR weapons , and well most importantly MICA has TVC in shape of vanes ,and MICA is lighter which will improve maneuverability .

    of course there would be a tradeoff in shape of reduced range through either drag or reduced rocket motor ISP because use of vanes , but well i see it as a fair and must be accepted tradeoff .


    somehow however i think French want to make a "dual role" weapons, and MICA is the result of it..

    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:54 am

    That strakes, well i see it will improve glide and contribute to Body buildup performance , as BVR weapons , and well most importantly MICA has TVC in shape of vanes ,and MICA is lighter which will improve maneuverability .

    of course there would be a tradeoff in shape of reduced range through either drag or reduced rocket motor ISP because use of vanes , but well i see it as a fair and must be accepted tradeoff .


    somehow however i think French want to make a "dual role" weapons, and MICA is the result of it..

    bigger size in R-77 give it alonger range and still can face a 12G target ,mica could has alittle mire turnings than r-77 but r-77 still has efficient turnings to defeat (theoritically) any exist aircraft but with another advantages like many seekers available than mica and longer range ..

    longer range not just because of more fuel<<it also because of the air craft it self.. i'll quote that

    In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.


    The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:29 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:

    bigger size in R-77 give it alonger range and still can face a 12G target ,mica could has alittle mire turnings than r-77 but r-77 still has efficient turnings to defeat (theoritically) any exist aircraft but with another advantages like many seekers available than mica and longer range ..


    well MICA also have IR seeker version .. and we haven't seen any "R-77ET" or "R-77P" yet..



    longer range not just because of more fuel<<it also because of the air craft it self.. i'll quote that


    which will work both way, MICA can also gain advantages through its own launching platform's speed and altitude.


    The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
    [/quote]

    All Seekers on current Active and Semi Active RADAR homing AAM available today are monopulse
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:22 pm

    well MICA also have IR seeker version .. and we haven't seen any "R-77ET" or "R-77P" yet..

    what about that



    which will work both way, MICA can also gain advantages through its own launching platform's speed and altitude.

    comparing flanker with 2.25 mach with rafale 1.8 mach ?!! No

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:31 am

    I have never seen independent evidence of any alternative seeker options for the R-77... and that includes in model form.

    I rather suspect this is largely because the Russian AF has not had the missile in service for the last 20 years, so it has not been developed the way the R-27 family has.

    This is not to say the Russian AF does not have a long range IR guided missile, both R-40TD and R-27ET missiles are widely deployed so there is little actual need for an R-77T model at the moment.

    The Russian missile makers are currently working on the 9M100 missile which will have a lock on after launch IIR seeker that can be used from the weapon bay of a stealth fighter... or bomber for that matter, and also will be used as a ground and likely sea launched missile as well. The land based model will likely be called Morfei.
    The point is that once such a seeker is developed then it would be ideal to put in the nose of an R-77 and with the use of the datalink system already used in the missile would allow the missile to be fired on a bearing looking for an IR target. Being a passive guidance system it could be searching for targets as it is launched looking for a specific target till it gets within IR range and gets a lock without emitting energy and warning the target.
    Until such a missile is ready of course the R-27ET would suffice for most roles.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:53 am

    ahmedfire wrote:

    what about that




    Problems with your figure is.. there are no solid evidence that those missiles have been built .

    as for MICA IR






    comparing flanker with 2.25 mach with rafale 1.8 mach ?!! No


    Which obviously not fair since those aircrafts are of a different classes.. try MiG-29M instead
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:45 am

    Which obviously not fair since those aircrafts are of a different classes.. try MiG-29M instead

    Mig-29 and Su-27 have speeds of mach 2.35 or so.

    Current models are not slower.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:56 am

    http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2356&catid=262

    R-77M AA-12 mod PD - longer range version
    R-77 AA-12 mod IR Imaging seeker
    R-77E AA-12 mod possible ARM variant

    i think the point is not if russians already producing IR version of R-77 or not,,the point is if they can do that or not ,ofcourse they can ,russians has abigger experience in thermal homming than any western country,, ols 35 is fully better than osf on rafale ,,
    the new ols-50 is arevolution in IRH developmwnts...


    Which obviously not fair since those aircrafts are of a different classes.. try MiG-29M instead

    see the videos of french DASSAULT ,they easily saying that rafale can defeat any flanker lol! ,so i putted flanker aginst dassault angel


    so,why no one comment on the first picture ? Very Happy



    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:34 am

    ahmedfire wrote:

    see the videos of french DASSAULT ,they easily saying that rafale can defeat any flanker lol! ,so i putted flanker aginst dassault angel


    so,why no one comment on the first picture ? Very Happy


    So that's the problem eh ?... well i never take such promotional video seriously.. but calling missile is inferior from others because of strakes ?.. well that need a clear examination.


    Mig-29 and Su-27 have speeds of mach 2.35 or so.

    Current models are not slower.

    I'm aware of this thank you.. however it is more wise to compare Rafale with the MiG's instead of Flankers .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:12 pm

    however it is more wise to compare Rafale with the MiG's instead of Flankers .

    Why?

    There are more Flankers in service than Fulcrums and they are producing more new Flankers than they are new Fulcrum variants.

    If this NATO invasion of Libya had occurred in a years time it would be Flankers the Rafales would be facing, not Fulcrums.

    i think the point is not if russians already producing IR version of
    R-77 or not,,the point is if they can do that or not ,ofcourse they can
    ,russians has abigger experience in thermal homming than any western
    country,, ols 35 is fully better than osf on rafale ,,

    I would expect that now that they are actually buying new missiles and spending money that new model R-77s will likely be developed and revealed.

    There are rumours of ramjet models with mockups being shown publicly, and also of the R-77M with a more powerful rocket motor to extend the flight range of the missile which has been reportedly been worked on for internal carriage for stealth aircraft.
    With the R-27T and R-27ET the IR seeker used was the same as that fitted to the R-73 of the time with a larger nose and a wider field of view.
    It would make sense to do the same with the R-77 of course eventually too.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:20 pm

    BTW in your first picture the amusing thing is that the only factor that the R-77 fails in is control surface deflection angle.

    This is rather ironic because the grid fins control surface was chosen specifically because it is able to retain energy at high angles of attack so when the control surface is deflected it provides more angular energy than a conventional surface deflected at a greater angle because a conventional surface deflected at a greater angle is just as likely to stall as produce a turning force, unlike the grid fin of the R-77 which will produce strong turning forces without stalling.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:33 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:
    That strakes, well i see it will improve glide and contribute to Body buildup performance , as BVR weapons , and well most importantly MICA has TVC in shape of vanes ,and MICA is lighter which will improve maneuverability .

    of course there would be a tradeoff in shape of reduced range through either drag or reduced rocket motor ISP because use of vanes , but well i see it as a fair and must be accepted tradeoff .


    somehow however i think French want to make a "dual role" weapons, and MICA is the result of it..

    bigger size in R-77 give it alonger range and still can face a 12G target ,mica could has alittle mire turnings than r-77 but r-77 still has efficient turnings to defeat (theoritically) any exist aircraft but with another advantages like many seekers available than mica and longer range ..

    longer range not just because of more fuel<<it also because of the air craft it self.. i'll quote that

    In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.


    The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

    The range of the R-77 has been overhyped indeed. It's maximum range (A-Pole, max kinematic, etc) is about 80 km for the RVV-AE. That's assuming the target is slow and dumb. Versus a fighter, hell, even a F-35, the R-77 only has about 50 km range, and that's according to Rosoboronexport.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  nightcrawler on Sun May 01, 2011 7:55 pm

    ^^ besides your claim I never got a definite clue regarding its range even WIKI quotes at least seven different ranges all drastically different
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 02, 2011 1:12 am

    The problem is that the range of an AAM is not fixed.

    A sidewinder in Vietnam might fly 18km and hit a target from a high altitude high speed launch but at low level subsonic flight its effective range might be closer to 2km.

    Most ranges given are ideal ranges where the missile is fired from high altitude (where the air is cold and thin) at a target that is flying directly toward the missile, so the 80km launch range against a target like a troop transport aircraft or AWACs aircraft or refuelling aircraft does not mean the missile will fly 80kms to the target... it means the missile can be fired when the target is 80kms away and as long as the target keeps closing it will probably hit the target at maybe 60km.

    The important point is that the R-77 or RVV-AE trades flight range for terminal flight performance... the rear grid fins offer higher drag than the little triangular fins of the AMRAAM, but when both missiles get close to the target area and turn on their radar and start manouvering to get to an interception point the rear grid fins can be turned to a sharper angle without stalling than the smaller fins of of a conventional missile.
    It is the equivalent of having better tires on a car to allow sharper turns without slipping.
    Better traction means the missile can turn harder and follow more manouverable targets and it is less likely that the target will be able to evade the missile.

    The R-77 can hit targets pulling 12g.

    Having said all that the Russians have already revealed what look like the R-77 and the R-73, but they have called them RVV-SD and RVV-MD respectively, and these new weapons are all digital and with improved guidance and flight performance.

    The RVV-SD (which is the new version of the R-77) that the Russian AF will likely take into service with their Su-35s etc has a head on range (is head on from high altitude at speeds of 1.5 mach or faster) of up to 110km in range.

    Now they have talked about an R-77M which will have a larger and more powerful motor to extend range that they have had in development for the T-50 and also another longer range R-77 model with ramjet propulsion also in development so this RVV-SD will be the base model most likely with longer range models to come.

    (details of the RVV-AE, RVV-SD, and other products here: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/ )
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri May 13, 2011 8:52 pm



    Air-to-air missile non-comparison table

    http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 14, 2011 8:49 am

    nightcrawler wrote:^^ besides your claim I never got a definite clue regarding its range even WIKI quotes at least seven different ranges all drastically different

    It's in the Rosonboronexport catalog. I don't know where it is but the links are posted somewhere on this forum.

    Like Garry said, there's a hell of a lot of variables when it comes to "maximum range". One can easily get an outrageous range if they somehow managed to fire it in space, and had it traveled several thousand kms.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 4:14 am

    A good example of what I mean about launch parameters for missiles, the Kh-58 is an ARM used fairly widely on older and newer Russian aircraft.

    It is a solid rocket fuelled missile and it is credited with a flight range to a ground radar target of 120km.

    It is commonly used on aircraft like the Su-24 but there is a new model with folding fins being developed for the T-50. It has an INS system that determines the location of the target before launch so if the target turns off the missile will still likely deliver its 150kg blast warhead somewhere near the targets antenna and do some damage.

    My point is that there is a SEAD model of the Mig-25 and when it carries the Kh-58 at 18,000m at mach 2.4 the missile can hit targets 250km distant.

    Its normal range of 120km is for fairly low altitude launch so when launched high and fast the range is more than doubled.

    An R-77 fired from a Su-25TM at 600km/h at 1,000m will not have the same range as an R-77 fired from a Mig-31M flying at mach 2.4 at 18,000m. Very simply you can't give an accurate range for a missile because it depends on the height and speed of the launch platform and the target.

    Max range comes from a closing target, but a target flying away from you is a completely different thing.

    Even then for some weapons there are other limitations... an R-73 from high altitude could probably hit targets 40km away... but unless that target is on fire... or an SR-71 travelling at mach 3.4 then it will not likely get a lock on that target till it is much closer... say 15-20km.

    Sponsored content

    Re: BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:23 am