it seems

R-77 Is Superior To Mica-EM






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

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

Otherwise interesting!

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.

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.

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

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
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

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..

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

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

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 ?!!

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.

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 ?!!

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

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.

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 ,so i putted flanker aginst dassault


so,why no one comment on the first picture ?

ahmedfire wrote:

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


so,why no one comment on the first picture ?

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 .

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.