Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:29 am

    I want to initiate a discussion on which of the two is a better Long Range Air to Air Missile.

    Here are are information of both from Official source

    Meteor -- http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/Meteor_ds.pdf

    RVV-BD -- RVV-BD long-range guided missile is presented at MAKS-2011 for the first time. In comparison with its predecessor R-33E long-range guided missile the new one has improved technical performance. High aerodynamic quality of RVV-BD missile and use of dual-mode solid – fuelled motor taking into consideration its all-up weight up to 510 caliber, permit launch – range up to 200 km (R – 33E has launch range only 120 km) and ability to destroy targets with overload up to 8 g (R – 33E able to destroy only with 4 g overload) at the altitude from 15 m to 25 km.


    I think the disadvantage of RVV-BD is that it can destroy target with only 8g ( most aircraft can do 9G these days ) and its heavier 510 kg  but has a longer range 200 km.
    Heavier would also mean it has more kinetic energy.

    Meteor advantage is its lighter and has all the way ramjet propulsion , range as i read was 180 km slightly shorter then RVV-BD 200 km.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:58 pm

    I think the disadvantage of RVV-BD is that it can destroy target with only 8g ( most aircraft can do 9G these days ) and its heavier 510 kg but has a longer range 200 km.
    Heavier would also mean it has more kinetic energy.

    Meteor advantage is its lighter and has all the way ramjet propulsion , range as i read was 180 km slightly shorter then RVV-BD 200 km.


    We must be clear here:

    1) RVV-BD and Meteor are weapons in completely different class : The former is a long range AAM ,the latter is a medium range (see later for some clarifications on the parameters ....)
    2) RVV-BD ,as in perfect russian tradition, is a downgraded export model of the internal missile, exactly like RVV-SD and RVV-MD ; to the opposite, a Meteor eventually sold to Australian Air Force will be completely indistinguishable from one operative with German Air Force ,exactly like today happen with AIM-120 series
    3) The operational tasks for the two missiles are completely different and each of them will be only partially and less efficiently executed by the the other missile.

    Naturally when i say that the first missile is a long range AAM and the second instead a medium range i am forced also to clarify the question of the real parameters of the two missiles.

    We know that RVV-BD engagement range -200 km- is the range that Russian MoD has established as the limit allowed for export models in this class of weapons ,naturally the range of domestic version (exactly like for other crucial features) is significantly higher than that .
    Now a question even more important for what previously said : the engagement range of Meteor is in the 100 km area, those numbers -170/180 km - come from the same persons claiming figures for range of AIM-120 missile ,litterally double in respect to the real.
    Exactly like for AIM-120 missiles the real figures for Meteor's range are immensely less "Hollywoodian"....figures ,obviously, perfectly matching the weapon's solid fuel fraction,the propulsion effciency of a ramjet motor in its volumetric class ,aerodynamic layout etc..etc.. ;



    www.defenseindustrydaily.com/meteor-missile-will-make-changes-to-accommodate-f35-0599/


    In brief Meteor was designed for doubling the nominal range of AIM-120C5 (48 km ) and ,naturally for multiply several times its NEZ .
    That last quality (effect oif its propulsion) is the real advantage offered by Meteor over its competitors ,in particular against highly manoeuvrable or,worse,supermanoeuvrable opponents equiped with modern MAWS, against which PK of actual medium range AAM are very very slim.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:14 pm

    In brief Meteor was designed for doubling the nominal range of AIM-120C5 (48 km ) and ,naturally for multiply several times its NEZ .


    So if AIM-120C5 range is 48 km and RVV-SD range is 100 km , does that make RVV-SD equal in capability to Meteor or AIM-120C5 ?

    Perhaps the Ramjet propulsion which keeps it energetic in all flight parameters compared to coasting that solid fuel uses makes all the difference ?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:47 pm


    So if AIM-120C5 range is 48 km and RVV-SD range is 100 km , does that make RVV-SD equal in capability to Meteor or AIM-120C5 ?


    Question Question Question If you mean RVV-SD equal in the range parameter with Meteor i can articulate a response ,but i truly don't understand for what strange reason the 48 km of AIM-120C5 and the 110 km of RVV-SD should render the two AAM equal in capabilities .


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:19 am

    First of all these definitely two different classes of missiles.

    The 8g target limitation is hardly a limitation... against Hornets the target can't pull more than 8gs safely, nor can most aircraft with folding wing structures.

    Even fewer modern aircraft can pull 9gs with a full weapon load.

    The important factor of course is what these very different weapons are to be used for... the Meteor is a double range AMRAAM... the RVV-BD is not a double range RVV-SD.

    The RVV-BD is for use against targets like bombers, Jstars, AWACs, AEW, tankers, transports, U-2s and SR-71s, the electronic versions of C-130s and various Boeings in military use.

    The Meteor is certainly lighter, and will also have a much smaller warhead so it must get closer to its target to be effective.

    The ramjet propulsion will allow more efficient use of fuel/energy, but being a jet motor could flame out during some manouvers/situations.

    The IR signature of a jet engine will be higher than that of a burnt out Rocket motor.

    Both missiles will be very good used in the ways they were designed for... which is why I suspect that soon enough we will see a variation of the R-77 though I think the delay suggests they are going for a more ambitious scramjet propulsion rather than just Ramjet, which Soviet scientists incorporated in the SA-6 SAM, plus the Kh-31 series and a few other designs as well (Moskit, Yakhont, Oniks).

    While a jet engine can stall or flameout, it can also be throttled back or even shut down and restarted.

    Look at this picture:


    This is an SA-5 missile that was used for SRAMJET tests.
    The can thing on the nose of the missile is the scramjet while the warhead section has been replaced with a fuel supply for the scramjet and the nose mounted seeker is replaced with telemetry equipment to pass data back to the ground control to monitor the performance in conjunction with ground based sensors/radar.

    The idea is to launch the SA-5 missile normally to a high altitude and high speed and then fire up the scramjet to test it.

    The missile was launched and flew up to "above 20,000m" and a flight speed of mach 5, which took about 30 seconds. In flight the solid rocket boosters operated normally and fell away after they were expended to reduce drag and weight.
    The scramjet started when the whole air vehicle reached burn out.

    The Scramjet operated for 120 seconds (2 minutes) and accelerated from mach 5 to mach 6 and travelled about 240km down range.

    Now any way you look at it that SA-5 missile is a large draggy object for such a relatively small motor to propel.

    With new materials and super computers to do the calculations I would suspect a new missile with scramjet propulsion would have even better performance.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:16 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Question Question Question If you mean RVV-SD equal in the range parameter with Meteor i can articulate a response ,but i truly don't understand for what strange reason the 48 km of AIM-120C5 and the 110 km of RVV-SD should render the two AAM equal in capabilities .


    Ok first thing first the range of 48 Km is for AIM-120A which is the initial model , the AIM-120C5 has a range of ~ 110 km similar to RVV-SD , the AIM-120C7 has similar range but better ECCM.

    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

    So I think the goal doubling of NEZ for Meteor would be against AIM-120A model.

    The range of Meteor is quoted at 100 km+ , In one of the presentation i saw of MBDA the range of stated at 180 km i remember such figures.

    But lets assume that AIM-120C5/7 , RVV-SD and Meteor has similar range , the meteor would still be better because of its all powered Ramjet propulsion and perhaps more modern design.

    From I what I read for BVR missile the effective range would warry depending if the target is approaching or receeding , so the real effective range is roughly half then what it is advertised because solid fuel missile tend to coast and the end game energy is not good enough to engage a manouvering target or target with better kinemetics.

    So for AIM-120C5 and RVV-SD the effective NEZ will be around 55 km or so better then older AIM-120A and R-77 which had around 40 km.

    Meteor has still much better NEZ at 100 km compared to all solid fuel missile

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:24 am

    Just reminded me reading Yefim Gordon book on Mig-31 , where he had mentioned of R-37 as 280 km range missile , the RVV-BD is ofcourse limited to 200 km.

    He states that for a fighter size manouvering target the R-37 effective range is around 150 km and for bigger targets like AWACS and similar non manouvering type it is ~300 km

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:36 am

    Garry , Ramjet engine enjoys a certain advantage and certain disadvantage as well.

    The advantage are is all the way active burning through out its flight , no coasting here , it has low volume and low weight hence meteor is a lighter missile for a longer range , you can stop and burn again a ramjet in flight ( unlike liquid fuel rocket engine ) but you can throttle it and use energy effeciently in different phases of flight , Meteor ramjet is again a solid fuel so question of stopping and buring does not arise.

    The disadvantage of ramjet are it is effecient at mid altitudes typical 10 - 20 km , the higher you go the air gets thinner and you are starved of oxidiser , so Ramjet missile typical cannot use of high altitude advantage like solid fuel missile , ramjet missile uses bank while you turn while solid fuel missile uses skid while you turn since the ramjet intake has to receive enough air to keep it burning , skid while you turn is more effecient and effective against manouvering target.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:48 am

    Mindstorm here are some data regarding BVR missile that I gathered from Toan , he has been reliable on this front

    http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6584-start-180.html

    # AIM-120B (now): 74 km (maximal range), 50 ~ 60 km (maximal effective range), 30 ~ 40 km (NEZ range).
    # AIM-120C5 (2008): 81 ~ 92.5 km (maximal range), 55 ~ 75 km (maximal effective range), 35 ~ 50 km (NEZ range).
    #AIM-120C6 (now): 81 ~ 92.5 km (maximal range), 55 ~ 75 km (maximal effective range), 35 ~ 50 km (NEZ range).
    #AIM-120D (2013): 111 km (maximal range), 75 ~ 90 km (maximal effective range), 45 ~ 60 km (NEZ range).

    Meteor: Meteor (post-2012): 200 km+ (maximal range), 150 km+ (maximal effective range), 100 km+ (NEZ range).

    Effective range of its BVRAAMs in supersonic head-to-head engagement at medial to high altitude:

    * R-77: 50 ~ 80 km (maximal effective range).
    * R-77M: 80 ~ 120 km (maximal effective range).
    * R-77 Ramjet-powered: 160 km+ (maximal effective range)
    * R-37: 300 km+ (maximal effective range for anti-AWACS mission)
    * KS-172: 400 km+ (maximal effective range for anti-AWACS mission)


    I think the Ramjet R-77 and KS-172 is dead project



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:10 am

    But lets assume that AIM-120C5/7 , RVV-SD and Meteor has similar range , the meteor would still be better because of its all powered Ramjet propulsion and perhaps more modern design.

    More modern design?
    Is Meteor a Photon Torpedo or something?

    How could it be better if it has a similar range yet uses a more efficient form of propulsion...

    A rocket motor is simple and relatively cheap with no moving parts... the reason you would use a ramjet propulsion system is to get better range performance... in all the time it has taken to get Meteor ready for service it seems the conventional rocket motor missiles have caught it up.

    Which would likely be a good reason why the Russians seem to have not bothered with a ramjet R-77 and perhaps gone for scramjet powered missile instead.

    Ramjet is more efficient and lighter, but the reduction in weight is not accompanied by a reduction in volume as the meteor still needs a solid rocket booster to get it up to speed and when that is used up you need space inside for the ramjet and its fuel.

    From I what I read for BVR missile the effective range would warry depending if the target is approaching or receeding , so the real effective range is roughly half then what it is advertised because solid fuel missile tend to coast and the end game energy is not good enough to engage a manouvering target or target with better kinemetics.

    A target that changes direction a lot and is flying fast is the worst target because the long flight time of a very long range missile means the intercept point moves the most with such targets and constantly adjusting to different intercept points wastes energy.

    Most very long range missiles use lofted flight profiles to minimise drag and increase flight range to target.

    Their speed attacking the target is something like mach 5-6.

    Do you think you could dodge a rifle bullet in a car?

    If you had warning it was coming and precise range information for the last few seconds till impact you might be able to pull a hard turn, but a 60 kg warhead in the RVV-BD with directional fusing means even if you evade impact with the missile the warhead is going to shatter your aircraft into a hundred pieces anyway.

    A diving missile coming at Mach 6 simply would not be visible to the pilot in any sense of time that has meaning. Mach 1 is 320m/s and Mach 6 is almost 2km per second... there is no way you could see the missile 2km away because the rocket motor is burnt out and it is just falling... how far can any aircraft move and turn in the 1 second that missile would need to cross that 2km of distance between you and it?
    And remember it is already flying to the point where you are going to be if you don't turn, so pulling hard on the stick and cranking the aircraft into a 9 g turn might only put 5m between your plane and where the missile is going to flash past... a 60kg HE warhead would have a lethal radius of at least 40m. Probably rather more with a directional warhead.

    Meteor has still much better NEZ at 100 km compared to all solid fuel missile

    The RVV-BD has a NEZ of about 150km...

    Just reminded me reading Yefim Gordon book on Mig-31 , where he had mentioned of R-37 as 280 km range missile , the RVV-BD is ofcourse limited to 200 km.

    In tests it had a flight distance of 300km to target using an Su-30 for target data because the launch platform was not fitted with the ZASLON-M.

    Garry , Ramjet engine enjoys a certain advantage and certain disadvantage as well.

    I know. Smile

    The advantage are is all the way active burning through out its flight , no coasting here ,

    Actually burning all the way is not an advantage at all, it increases the IR signature of the missile and creates a larger IR plume behind the weapon in flight.

    it has low volume and low weight hence meteor is a lighter missile for a longer range ,

    Actually this is also not great as it means the Meteor is large for its weight... think of how that effects a balloons ballistics...

    The reduced weight is good as the motor has to carry less weight, but the larger volume increases drag.

    you can stop and burn again a ramjet in flight ( unlike liquid fuel rocket engine ) but you can throttle it and use energy effeciently in different phases of flight ,

    This looks a little confused... liquid fuelled rockets certainly can be throttled to control thrust in flight, and throttling the engine makes a lot of sense.

    When a rocket first starts off it needs a lot of thrust to get it accelerating and often climbing too. Once it gets to its max speed any extra thrust is wasted, but solid rockets overcome this problem with two types of fuel mix.
    The inner layer is high energy fast burning fuel so when the missile is first launched it accelerates quickly, but as it approaches top speed drag increases to the point where it matches the thrust so the speed peaks and then starts to fall as the high energy fuel burns out.
    The next layer of fuel is lower energy but burns for much much longer. This second layer of fuel does not accelerate the missile, in fact the speed of the missile will start to reduce, but the slower burning fuel will counter drag and help the missile maintain its speed much longer than it would with a few extra seconds of high energy fuel.

    The high thrust fuel might burn out in 4-10 seconds with the lower calorie fuel burning for a minute... the result is a much longer flight range than if it had all high calorie fuel and maybe burned for 12-15 seconds.

    Meteor ramjet is again a solid fuel so question of stopping and buring does not arise.

    It depends on how the fuel works... a powder delivered to the burning chamber could be stopped and restarted... the throttle could be reduced to the point where it is practically stopped.

    Mindstorm here are some data regarding BVR missile that I gathered from Toan , he has been reliable on this front

    Interesting that he gives range specifications for dead projects.

    I would think dead projects would not achieve such performance figures and then be cancelled.

    Like I said above the ramjet powered AAM is a dead end as solid rocket motors can emulate similar range performance in more compact packages... for internal use in 5th gen aircraft weight is not as important as volume...

    Any future jet powered AAM from Russia will be scramjet powered, which will be a much more significant step than ramjet.

    Very simply it offers the change to greatly increase flight speeds, which makes longer range interception possible as it reduces the time for the target to move out of the engagement area... a mach 8-10 missile really would be a shot from the blue.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:16 am

    Of course the other factor for the Europeans is that these radar guided missiles with very long flight ranges are all very nice, but there is no way a Euro Canard will detect an PAK FA at such ranges while the PAK FA will almost certainly be able to detect them at such ranges as to reach them with the Russian R-37M that will probably be able to hit manouvering targets at 200km (and AWACS much further out).

    The point is that the Eurocanards will have Meteors but no AWACs support, while the Flankers and Pak Fa will have a new array of missiles including IIR guided weapons no doubt...

    All this focus on Meteors...

    Trying to justify not picking the Mig-35 are we Austin?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:41 am

    GarryB wrote:More modern design?
    Is Meteor a Photon Torpedo or something?

    It is still better then any thing out there and more versatile barring perhaps the R-37M and matching the RVV-BD by and large.

    How could it be better if it has a similar range yet uses a more efficient form of propulsion...

    It does not coast in flight but is powered in flight , in the end game it would matter a lot as solid rocket loses lot of energy while ramjet would remain active all through the flight , energy management is better with ramjet for similar range compared to solid fuel

    A rocket motor is simple and relatively cheap with no moving parts... the reason you would use a ramjet propulsion system is to get better range performance... in all the time it has taken to get Meteor ready for service it seems the conventional rocket motor missiles have caught it up.


    Yes in some ways yes there is now dual propulsion motor but ramjet still remains good on many counts specially the end game energy.

    ramjet gives you both weight and volume reduction and the booster is just to start the ramjet after that it is jettisioned. So it does not carry the dead weight of booster.

    Which would likely be a good reason why the Russians seem to have not bothered with a ramjet R-77 and perhaps gone for scramjet powered missile instead.

    Scramjet for BVR missile Very Happy



    If you had warning it was coming and precise range information for the last few seconds till impact you might be able to pull a hard turn, but a 60 kg warhead in the RVV-BD with directional fusing means even if you evade impact with the missile the warhead is going to shatter your aircraft into a hundred pieces anyway.

    True proximity fuse plays its own part and so does directional warhead. Hence the 9G pull wont matter a lot.

    The RVV-BD has a NEZ of about 150km...

    Dont think so , RVV-BD NEZ would be 100 km + like Meteor.

    In tests it had a flight distance of 300km to target using an Su-30 for target data because the launch platform was not fitted with the ZASLON-M.

    Garry , Ramjet engine enjoys a certain advantage and certain disadvantage as well.

    I know. Smile

    The advantage are is all the way active burning through out its flight , no coasting here ,

    Actually burning all the way is not an advantage at all, it increases the IR signature of the missile and creates a larger IR plume behind the weapon in flight.
    it has low volume and low weight hence meteor is a lighter missile for a longer range ,

    Actually this is also not great as it means the Meteor is large for its weight... think of how that effects a balloons ballistics...

    The reduced weight is good as the motor has to carry less weight, but the larger volume increases drag.


    It depends on how the fuel works... a powder delivered to the burning chamber could be stopped and restarted... the throttle could be reduced to the point where it is practically stopped.

    No scramjet dont stop burning once on like solid fuel dont stop and start.


    Any future jet powered AAM from Russia will be scramjet powered, which will be a much more significant step than ramjet.

    Hahaha no way for sure Laughing

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:45 am

    GarryB wrote:Of course the other factor for the Europeans is that these radar guided missiles with very long flight ranges are all very nice, but there is no way a Euro Canard will detect an PAK FA at such ranges while the PAK FA will almost certainly be able to detect them at such ranges as to reach them with the Russian R-37M that will probably be able to hit manouvering targets at 200km (and AWACS much further out).

    Eurocanard would never beat a Su-35S in most engagement for get the PAK-FA.

    Eurocanard is more or less equal to MKI in WVR.


    Trying to justify not picking the Mig-35 are we Austin?

    Well no hope they bought that would have given us great logistical advantage and would have come cheaper , but Indian procurement is the most weirdest and ill-logical ones , no wonder we remain after 50 years the largest importer of weapons not a great thing to be in the list.

    Another strange decision is to now integrate Meteor with MKI , some things never stop Laughing

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:48 pm


    Ok first thing first the range of 48 Km is for AIM-120A which is the initial model , the AIM-120C5 has a range of ~ 110 km similar to RVV-SD , the AIM-120C7 has similar range but better ECCM.

    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

    So I think the goal doubling of NEZ for Meteor would be against AIM-120A model.

    The range of Meteor is quoted at 100 km+ , In one of the presentation i saw of MBDA the range of stated at 180 km i remember such figures.


    Austin do you realize to have just cited as source the ,by now,infamous designation-system article on AIM-120 ? (at now only some fanboy ,brainburned beyond any hope ,in very low level sites like F-16 . net and similaria, has still the face to even only think to cite it !!!).

    May be that you don't remember, but in one of my first posts here ,i cited just this comical, amateurish,self-embarassing article as a clear example of the galactical idiocies which ,on the wake of horrible partiality and total ignorance, begin to spread at light's speed on the net ,becoming even subliminally accepted as true .
    I cited in that istance this article (naturally of immensely different technical , professional level and ,obviously reliability ) by Richard Fisher


    [url=http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp ]www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp [/url]

    Austin now i will explain to you what comical operation those decerebrated at designation-system have maked in this ....."article".

    See the range figures that them show : 50 - 70 and 105 km , what those numbers recall to your mind ?

    ...Exact Austin , Bingo !!! Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Them have taken the figures of AIM-120C5 :50 km , AIM-120C7 :70 km , and AIM-120D (...this strange number ,105 km , in fact is simply the range figure of AIM-120C7 -70 km - with the +50% increase in engagement range expected for AIM-120D ....70+35= 105 km Very Happy ) and have bestowed them to.... AIM-120A/B and C5 !!! Laughing Laughing Laughing

    The thing i find even more hilarious is that this authenticate masterpiece of biased ignorance became in few years ,in internet, a true milestone in majority of the discussions on the subject ,naturally only to feed the odd ,Hollywoodian ideas present in the mind of the horde of childish fanboys.
    This comical garbage from designation-system has litterally canceled on internet the serious articles adn publication on the subject by names like J. Lake, R. fisher , R. Hewson etc... unbelievable Laughing Laughing Laughing


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:25 pm

    Mindstorm thanks for clearing the air , i will read Richard Article and respond.

    Can you answer my following query

    1> How would you compare AIM-120C/D with RVV-SD , are these broadly comparable ?
    2> How much would a NEZ of RVV-BD will be against a fighter size target ? As we know for Meteor it is 100 km
    3 > Do you think the current shortrange RVV-MD is comparable to the latest in Western like Python-5 ,ASRAAM and AIM-9x or will Id 300 make it equal.

    An unrelated but can you tell me why does USAF officially says the RCS o F-22 is marble 0.0001 m2 while the PAK-FA designer mentioned it as 0.3-0.4 m2 do both Russia and US calculate RCS differently ?

    Can you also add your view to this thread
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1603-russia-develops-new-long-range-mobile-radar

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:13 pm

    It is still better then any thing out there and more versatile barring perhaps the R-37M and matching the RVV-BD by and large.

    But is it?

    Can it be reliably used with no risk of hitting civilian aircraft or neutral targets?

    The problem with really long range missiles is that the distance the target can move in the time the missile leaves the aircraft and arrives to an interception area to scan for targets is quite long, so any change in speed or direction of the target becomes critical.

    On paper these new missiles have longer and longer ranges, but in reality they will not be used at longer and longer ranges except against large slow targets.

    Most of the time it will be like many AMRAAM shots have been... a BVR missile used at near WVR distances with the shorter range of the engagement being quite normal in combat... no one is going to be spotting the other sides stealth and LO fighters at 200km so there will be very few long range shots of that sort.

    More often the long range missiles will be used at medium range for the advantage that gives your missile in a duel... you missile will be flying faster and have more energy and will have a much better chance of a kill.

    A Mig-29 pilot would never fire an R-73 at a target that is 40km away, they will wait till the target is 15km away and then fire... preferably in a tail shot because that maximises the probability of a kill and at the same time minimises the risk to their own aircraft... the GCI guy in the van directing the Mig-29 in the intercept will give them the attack position coordinates for the ideal attack position.

    It does not coast in flight but is powered in flight , in the end game it would matter a lot as solid rocket loses lot of energy while ramjet would remain active all through the flight , energy management is better with ramjet for similar range compared to solid fuel

    The difference between coasting and flying with a very low throttle at low altitude is moot. A very high flying rocket powered missile is travelling through very thin air of very low drag, so the rate at which it will be slowing down is not very high at all. A ramjet with engines burning all the way... well the difference is like the difference between a ballistic missile and a cruise missile, except the weight difference in this case is not that huge.

    The crucial issue is, does the missile have enough energy (ie height and speed) when it gets to the target area. Height is stored energy so a very high flying missile can gain speed by diving down on the target.

    Yes in some ways yes there is now dual propulsion motor but ramjet still remains good on many counts specially the end game energy.

    But the extra range of the Ramjet powered Meteor means the target has even more time to change direction or speed so it will likely need more energy just to reacquire the target in the terminal phase.

    ramjet gives you both weight and volume reduction and the booster is just to start the ramjet after that it is jettisioned. So it does not carry the dead weight of booster.

    Ramjets need internal volume and intakes and ducting to work. The solid rocket booster to accelerate the missile to supersonic speed is very similar to the high energy fuel in a normal rocket... similar weight and issues and costs. It is not jettisoned after use, it is designed into the structure of the missile so that when it has burnt out the space left behind becomes the ducting for the ramjet, with the intake fairings popping off to allow it to operate.

    Scramjet for BVR missile

    A key feature of a BVR AAM is speed because the faster it is the less time the target has to move out of the kill zone. Ramjets make mach 5-6 reachable, Scramjets extend that potentially to orbital speed.

    Dont think so , RVV-BD NEZ would be 100 km + like Meteor.

    The NEZ is the range at which no manned aircraft can out manouver the missile and escape... hense "no escape zone". Few aircraft can pull 8g with weapons, and no AWACS or bomber, or JSTARS, or troop transport etc etc can perform such manouvers.

    Out turning an 8g target at 200km suggests that at closer range it could do much better.

    The NEZ for the R-77 is something like 40km, which is half its max range of about 80km against low manouver capable targets. If its range was limited for export to 50km like the RVV-BD is then is it a surprise that its NEZ is close to its max range given?

    Hahaha no way for sure

    What makes you so sure?

    They are already working on a scramjet powered Brahmos II, and have been experimenting with scramjet engines for more than 3 decades now.
    The ramjet offers performance comparable to solid fuel rockets available now but ramjets are more expensive than solid rockets.
    Scramjets offer a step up in performance that they can't currently get from rockets within the size and weight parameters.

    1> How would you compare AIM-120C/D with RVV-SD , are these broadly comparable ?

    No. The AMRAAM is in much wider service with airforces trained to use it full of inventories of aircraft equipped to fire it.
    The RVV-SD can only be used by a very limited number of Russian aircraft that are actually in operational service and are likely in such small numbers in stock that in a real conflict most planes will be equipped with R-73s, and R-27s in various models.
    This is changing.

    3 > Do you think the current shortrange RVV-MD is comparable to the latest in Western like Python-5 ,ASRAAM and AIM-9x or will Id 300 make it equal.

    On paper these western weapons are far superior because they have proper thrust vectoring gimballed nozzles, and IIR FPA seekers.
    In practise the RVV-MD is a very capable missile very resistant to flares and very difficult to outrun or out turn and would be very comparable.

    In many ways the NATO shift in focus to BVR combat is because even with ASRAAM and IRIS-T and Python-5 there is a good chance both pilots will have time to launch a missile before the missile from the enemy aircraft kills them, which will likely end in a 1 all draw with two aircraft shot down.

    I300 will restore paper parity and possibly superiority in some areas, but more importantly will be able to be used from internal bays as used in the PAK FA and perhaps PAK DA.

    You do realise that I300 is Morfei? 9M100. It will be a cross platform missile... for the Navy it will be their SEA RAM, while for the Army it will be the short range self defence missile for the Vityaz, and in the AF it will be their short range AAM... a missile that might end up being used to shoot down Meteors in combat.



    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:42 pm

    1> How would you compare AIM-120C/D with RVV-SD ,are these broadly comparable ?

    Yes them are comparable in almost any cardinal aspect ,with the former enjoying some advantage in third party target designation and in-flight retargeting in link-16/AWACS enabled networking engagements (for the AIM-120D also a datalink much more secure against jamming) and the latter in "hard" kinematical qualities (corner speed ,terminal G limit,aerodynamic layout ergonomical efficiency etc..) and seeker's aperture ,with the consequent jamming burnout capabilty.
    Naturally you must take into account that RVV-SD is an export model.....


    2> How much would a NEZ of RVV-BD will be against a fighter size target ? As we know for Meteor it is 100 km

    Before respond to this question i must clarify an important thing : NEZ is NOT the area within which if you fire a missile it will surely hit its intended target Smile Smile (several AIM-120A and AIM-120C delivered at very close range in pasted wars has been evaded by target aircraft ,devoid of any jamming suit ,only because them became aware to be under missile attack and of its direction ....at the contrary we know that none of the downed aircraft was aware to be under attack and don't conducted any evasive manoeuvre ).
    NEZ indentify simply the variable area ,depending from environmental elements like : altitude of engagement ,overall weather conditions, temperature etc... and ,obviously, target capabilities ,within which a specific ,aware target, in spite of any manoeuvre executed (including receding at full afterburner speed long the same vector of the incoming missile in the opposite direction or long a geometrical direction disadvantageous for the interceptor) cannot exit outside the engagement envelop - "escape" - of a particular missile or render its Pk unacceptably low.

    Therefore ,taking into account that NEZ is a variable figure , we can say that a missile like RVV-BD in a mid altitude interception attempt against the typical fighter aircraft in the class of F-15 (naturally here don't are taken into account supermanoeuvrable and/or supercruising aircraft) lie in a region equal to less than 40% of its maximum range.

    The ramjet propulsion of Meteor allow the missile to capitalize a far longer burnout time ; effectively this mean that the typical speed drop experienced by other BVRAAM in the "coasting " phase and even more in the high G turns characterizing the terminal chasing phase is several times lower for this missile , a very important factor in modern engagements against very manoeuvrable targets with advanced MAWS against which the Pk of "classical" medium range missile would be very very low except in particular geometrical and energetic condition of the engagement.


    3 > Do you think the current shortrange RVV-MD is comparable to the latest in Western like Python-5 ,ASRAAM and AIM-9x or will Id 300 make it equal.

    In some features AIM-9X ,Python-5 and similaria are superior to RVV-MD (we are not sure of comparisons with domestic version of the same missile...) such as presence of IIR seeker, in-flight data channell or target's self designating capabilities in others them are substantially inferior ,like absolute G-limit ,engagement A-pole range , burn-out time and seeker homing range.
    We must never forget that AIM-9X at example was simply conceived to attempt to close a wide disadvantage with original R-73; even the same designers have never claimed the superiority over the original R-73 (still today unrivaled in some cardinal parameters worldwide !!) but simply to have designed a product capable to eliminate the disadvantage against Russian aircraft .



    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3834/is_200001/ai_n8887442/



    Naturally the absurd problems experienced by NATO aircraft WVR (but also BVR ,in particular for the very bad surprise of the original N019 capable to effectively jam the contemporaneous AN-APG-63 up to well within the transition aerea to visual range combat..) against original ,even if outdated, versions of MiG-29s in pasted DACT exercices, was not only linked to the efficiency of the R-73/HMS combo but also to the unrivaled aerodynamic quality of the same Fulcrum , as well demonstarted even recently in the last Thracian Star 2010 exercice between Bulgarian Mig-29A devoid of HMS and R-73 and equiped only with AA.8 Aphid and opposing F-16 Block 50 with JHMCS and AiM-9X.

    Pasted articles ,in english, on the subject which can provide some other informations on what just said are :


    Roy Braybrook “Mig-29 vs F/A-18 : Keep out of dogfight” Pacific Defence Reporter

    Mig-29 downs F-16 in Mock Dogfight” Jane’s Defence Weekly November 10 1990 , pag. 922

    Joris Janssen “Mig-29 is better than F-15C “Jane’s Defence Weekly April 6 1991 , pag. 526





    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:16 am

    Thank You for answering all my questions in details much appreciate.

    Mindstorm wrote:Therefore ,taking into account that NEZ is a variable figure , we can say that a missile like RVV-BD in a mid altitude interception attempt against the typical fighter aircraft in the class of F-15 (naturally here don't are taken into account supermanoeuvrable and/or supercruising aircraft) lie in a region equal to less than 40% of its maximum range.

    So essentially it would mean at mid altitude the RVV-BD will have a NEZ of 80 Km at 40 % of 200 km.

    The ramjet propulsion of Meteor allow the missile to capitalize a far longer burnout time ; effectively this mean that the typical speed drop experienced by other BVRAAM in the "coasting " phase and even more in the high G turns characterizing the terminal chasing phase is several times lower for this missile , a very important factor in modern engagements against very manoeuvrable targets with advanced MAWS against which the Pk of "classical" medium range missile would be very very low except in particular geometrical and energetic condition of the engagement.

    For similar engagement range of F-15 will Meteor turn out to be a better misile than RVV-BD ?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:33 am


    For similar engagement range of F-15 will Meteor turn out to be a better misile than RVV-BD ?


    If you put speed out of the equation, Meteor in this type of engagements and at the previously cited conditions (in particular middle altitude ....at very high altitude the situation change )against this type of targets is surely superior to RVV-BD.

    Naturally if you want to remove force-multipliers units like AWACS and Stand-off jammers avoiding completely theirs OCA escort, for confront successively the other aircraft of the atack group enjoying a ,bynow, onesided tqactical advantages, VLRAAM like RVV-BD are game-changing weapons, without any corrispective at world .

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm

    I am a bit confused here so let me summarise this Mindstorm

    RVV-BD: Advantage includes

    Intercepting certain targets at long range 200 km like AWACS,JSTARS,B-52,B-2 ( meteor cannot )

    Intercepting cruise missile at long range of tomahawk class , i am assuming the range will be like 200 km since its a slow and non-manouvering targets.

    Intercepting targets like a manouvering fast one like fighter aircraft at mid altitude RVV-BD will be say 80 km at best ?

    Since RVV-BD is a heavy missile and can cruise at high altitude ~ 25 km it can trade potential energy into kinetic energy isnt it when it top attacks the target ?

    Meteor Advantage:

    Due to ramjet propulsion it has energy through out the way hence the NEZ is ~ 100 km for fighter size targets at mid altitudes, much better than RVV-BD , AIM-120C/D , RVV-SD.

    Cannot intercept targets at long range like Meteor does.

    Does not fly high and is effective at mid altitudes , I assume mid altitudes means 10-15 km ?


    Can you say this would be the right summary of our discussion ?

    Also I wanted your views on why RCS of F-22 is rated at 0.0001m2 but the Chief Designer of PAK-FA stated the RCS of F-22 and PAK-FA being nearly equal at 0.3 - 0-4 m2.

    Also what do you think about the intercepitibility and detection of VVLO targets like B-2 once it enters Russian Airspace ?

    Thanks.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:52 pm

    So essentially it would mean at mid altitude the RVV-BD will have a NEZ of 80 Km at 40 % of 200 km.

    No.

    The RVV-BD has a range artificially limited, so calculations made from its range make little sense.

    It is like a 2,400hp engine with a governer on it that restricts power to 1,500hp to improve the life of its parts and reduce fuel consumption.

    When talking about the engines limits and performance you need to keep that in mind... especially when talking about growth potential an other such things.

    For similar engagement range of F-15 will Meteor turn out to be a better misile than RVV-BD ?

    The F-15 is an extreme choice as it it one of the few aircraft (in its E model) that can actually pull 9 gs with a load.
    For most other aircraft the difference is not so important.

    If you put speed out of the equation, Meteor in this type of engagements and at the previously cited conditions (in particular middle altitude ....at very high altitude the situation change )against this type of targets is surely superior to RVV-BD.

    That is like saying taking fire and forget guidance out of the equation Metis is better than Javelin isn't it?

    Speed is an important part of any equation when talking about long range missiles.

    Meteor is lighter, but will likely create a bigger RCS when carried externally due to the intakes.

    Ramjet propulsion is certainly more efficient than solid rocket engines, but in practical terms they are slightly different missiles for slightly different missions.

    Naturally if you want to remove force-multipliers units like AWACS and Stand-off jammers avoiding completely theirs OCA escort, for confront successively the other aircraft of the atack group enjoying a ,bynow, onesided tqactical advantages, VLRAAM like RVV-BD are game-changing weapons, without any corrispective at world .

    I would say the opposite.

    Without AWACS and a decent network of communication and control finding targets at 150km+ let alone hitting them will be difficult for most air forces to achieve without splashing a lot of civilian airliners or your own UAVs.

    Intercepting certain targets at long range 200 km like AWACS,JSTARS,B-52,B-2 ( meteor cannot )

    Of course it can... but more likely at 180km rather than 200km... the difference of 20km is insignificant given the flight time to that range anyway.

    Intercepting cruise missile at long range of tomahawk class , i am assuming the range will be like 200 km since its a slow and non-manouvering targets.

    Assuming it is located and correctly identified then both missiles could probably intercept such targets as they take their own engagement radar with them.

    Intercepting targets like a manouvering fast one like fighter aircraft at mid altitude RVV-BD will be say 80 km at best ?

    A manouvering target would drastically reduce the max range of both weapons as the intercept point for the missile to fly to would be constantly changing.

    The best way to defeat a BVR is to change speed and direction every 20 seconds or so... it will be using so much energy to correct its flight path by the time it gets close it will drop from the sky with no energy left.

    At the last few seconds when both missiles go active there are some aircraft that could in theory out manouver the RVV, while no manned aircraft is likely to out manouver the Meteor at their respective high kill probability ranges.

    Since RVV-BD is a heavy missile and can cruise at high altitude ~ 25 km it can trade potential energy into kinetic energy isnt it when it top attacks the target ?

    It climbs because the higher you go the less drag there is to slow you down, so it moves through the air more efficiently at very high altitude.

    Climbing takes energy, but when you go into a dive on the target you actually get all that energy back so it is worth using it this way.

    Let me put it this way... with a jet engine on a Mig-25 at full speed it can fly at just over mach 1.2 or so at sea level with the engines at max speed... with a lower engine setting at high altitude it travels at mach 2.83... it actually accelerates too fast at high altitude and will damage itself if the engines are left at full power at high altitude.

    What do you think that does to the range of the aircraft?

    Why do commercial airliners spend fuel climbing to medium altitudes... even for short 30 minute flights?

    The flight from here north to Christchurch takes 30mins and by the time the little 767 has reached cruising height it is time to descend... why bother with the higher engine setting to climb all that way? Because it means they can use a much lower engine setting for the descent, so they get that energy back and overall save money on fuel... in a rocket you can't throttle the engine for efficiency so if you want to maximise range you use the most effficient flight profile... which means a lofted trajectory.

    Due to ramjet propulsion it has energy through out the way hence the NEZ is ~ 100 km for fighter size targets at mid altitudes, much better than RVV-BD , AIM-120C/D , RVV-SD.

    No. All missiles have energy through out the flight to the target.
    Ramjet engines mean that fuel can be saved to allow acceleration later on, which is not possible with solid fuelled rockets.
    The flight control system might throttle back the missile so it takes a little longer to get there, but that means it has more fuel when it arrives that can be used to speed up AFTER making a turn that bleeds off a lot of energy... the slower you are the tighter the turn you can perform...

    Cannot intercept targets at long range like Meteor does.

    This is an advantage of Meteor over RVV-SD and AMRAAM, but not RVV-BD... it can certainly intercept targets at long range... that is what it is for.

    Does not fly high and is effective at mid altitudes , I assume mid altitudes means 10-15 km ?

    Does not fly high is not an advantage.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:31 pm

    Garry you are missing the point , both RVV-SD and Meteor on paper are capable of intercepting target at 100+ km , the difference is Meteor uses ramjet propulsion and is energetic in all flight profile while RVV-SD uses solid fuel along with coasting which slows the missile and the end game energy needed for 100 + km of RVV-SD is lower but for Meteor it is not diminished.

    So practically the Meteor would retain end game energy at 100 km interception while RVV-SD would diminish it making it practically useful (NEZ) at 60-70 km.

    Thats the whole point of Ramjet propulsion.

    RVV-BD is a true Long Range AAM becuase for slow non manouvering target like cruise missile or awacs it can intercept at say 180-200 Km , while meteor cannot because its not a long range missile but a energetic missile at 100 km interception.

    While Meteor is superior to RVV-BD for mid-altitude interception where ramjet is effecient , RVV-BD is superior on most parameter specially VLR inteception.

    While R-37 the true VLRAAM can do the same at 300 km , not to mention Mig-31 at M 2.5 and 20 km can make a big difference in kinemetics for R-37

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:01 pm

    Intercepting targets like a manouvering fast one like fighter aircraft at mid altitude RVV-BD will be say 80 km at best ?

    Yes , probably is so and its PK would be ,very very low against a modern, aware, manoeuvrable (or worse supermanoeuvrable) target like for all BVR medium range missiles operative today worldwide.

    Naturally this considering engagements between comparable forces...if,instead we talk of overwhelming attacks by part of a side enjoying crushing : numerical advantage - 17:1 -,AWACS , stan-off/in ,Jammers, training, age of the aircraft, modernity of weapon suit etc.... against mostly untrained opponents, equiped with immensely downgraded export versions of already old aircraft , devoid of any ECM suit, of any type of MAWS and of same generation weapons,and with radar completely out of work, for prolonged embargo even medium range BVR missile can achieve in those conditions acceptable PK's levels (in the most recent conflicts at example AIM-120A/C managed to achieve ,with AWACS/jammer aid against "blind" and largely outdated/downgraded aircraft ,firing often at very reduced rangeand from the most favourable geometry a PK of 0,46 ..... at least acceptable ).

    The problem at which Meteor attempt to find a solution is not gain the upper hand in engagements against third world nations ,where air superiority could be achieved ,taking into account the product of all those positive contingential elements previously mentioned, even by F-16A employing only gun.... but confront in enormous "many vs many" engagements an advanced Air Force equiped with modern very manoeuvrable aircraft with modern MAWS and ECM suit ,and all the other corollary resources like : AWACS, stand-off jammers, ground based ELS ,OTH radars ,SIGINT posts, advanced OLS etc..etc..etc.., against which the BVR phase would represent only a brief window with very limited losses on both side before the merge .

    Meteor is the first technological attempt to produce a medium range BVR sufficiently efficient against modern fighter aircraft .



    Can you say this would be the right summary of our discussion ?

    More or less is so.


    Also I wanted your views on why RCS of F-22 is rated at 0.0001m2 but the Chief Designer of PAK-FA stated the RCS of F-22 and PAK-FA being nearly equal at 0.3 - 0-4 m2.

    If i would have not been busy at work i would have explained it in the other topic, in any instance that is another very important information to consider when someone debate of this subject on internet :

    Those figures of RCS of 0,0001 or 0,001 (-40/30 dBSM ) are refered to totally academic critical narrow reradiating cones for the head-on inception angles not .... i reapeat NOT ...to the average RCS of this type of aircraft Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Even very little variation from that critical angle, always considering only an head-on radar illumination, produce enormous variations in the final RCS ,even in the scale of some orders of magnitude ,those figures ,representing the lower RCS achieved by a particular platform in a single, academic ,super critical,frontal angle , was conceived to "dramatize" public marketing ; the problem is that the horde of ignorants fan-boys have quickly jumped on them believing that them was the average RCS of those aircraft !!! Razz Razz

    What Alexander Davidenko (coming from the same research center where the same Physical theoretical structure of modern stealth was created and from a part of the achievements of which ,with P.Ufimtsev works and publiations, the same American scientifical community of the sector formed itself...this is a good video on that [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgeUaD4SB_8 ]www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgeUaD4SB_8 [/url] ) cite here, as in Russian tradition, is instead the AVERAGE area of diffraction for a realistic multiplatform tactical engagement ( many vs many engagements between data sharing aircraft) ,in those conditions the resultant RCS of an aircraft like F-22 would be 0,3/ 0,4 square meters.

    Therefore no one has lied : LM executives talk of a single,academic, super critical head-on angle RCS figure , Davidenko refer,instead, to effective average RCS figure for a typical three-dimensional tactical many vs many engagement, clear ?

    In any instance critics of F-22 in American Air Force commutity have very often breached this low level "Veil of Maya" in public communication ,alluding to the real capitalizable RCS level of Raptor .
    Those are some of them by Sprey and Wheeler :


    "In truth, against short wave length radars, the F-22 is hard to detect only over a very narrow band of viewing angles. Worse, there are thousands of existing long range,
    long wavelength radars that can detect the F-22 from several hundred miles away at all angles."



    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/thread/05516f44d354fb43



    The F-35 advocates will protest, what of its two most prized features: 'stealth' and advanced avionics? What the Pentagon will not tell you is that 'stealthy' aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft.



    http://f35insouthburlington.blogspot.com/2010/05/q-with-winslow-wheeler-by-juliet-buck.html



    Last edited by Mindstorm on Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:10 pm

    Garry you are missing the point , both RVV-SD and Meteor on paper are capable of intercepting target at 100+ km , the difference is Meteor uses ramjet propulsion and is energetic in all flight profile while RVV-SD uses solid fuel along with coasting which slows the missile and the end game energy needed for 100 + km of RVV-SD is lower but for Meteor it is not diminished.

    With respect Austin, both missiles are designed to intercept targets at beyond 100km.
    The different propulsion options is a design trade off.
    The Russians have plenty of ramjet powered missiles in service right now... if they wanted an equivalent to Meteor they could have done it years ago.

    Meteor is NOT energetic all the way to the target, it will be operating at minimum throttle all the way to the target... thrust will be just high enough to overcome drag and maintain speed.
    It will be flying straight and level to the interception point to conserve as much energy as possible.

    The RVV-BD is not a skyrocket that burns all its fuel in a few seconds and then coasts 200km to the target.

    It will have two types of fuel on board, as I have repeated over and over... the first to burn will be high energy propellent that burns rapidly but also accelerates the missile rapidly. When that has burnt out... 10-15 seconds, the main fuel will start burning and it will burn for several minutes and perform the role of a gas generator in a base bleed artillery round... it simply reduces drag.

    The Ramjet is far more efficient as it scoops the O2 it needs from the air it is travelling through. It can also manage its fuel and at 80km flight distance suddenly put on a burst of high thrust to accelerate to intercept a target at that range. The solid fuelled rocket has no such flexibility.

    RVV-BD is a true Long Range AAM becuase for slow non manouvering target like cruise missile or awacs it can intercept at say 180-200 Km , while meteor cannot because its not a long range missile but a energetic missile at 100 km interception.

    Slow nonmanouvering target?

    You watch Hollywood movies too much Austin... do you think a single flick of the control stick and a pilot can evade a long range missile?

    Or do you think it will be a manouver contest like a dogfight?

    A target at 200km might get plenty of warning it is under attack... or it might be a total surprise when the radar of the incoming missile suddenly goes active... the point is that the target aircraft might be at 5,000m altitude and an RVV-BD coming down from very high altitude at mach 4-5... if the missile misses by 20m there is still a chance its directional warhead might spray the target with enough fragments to rip it to pieces.

    To dodge the missile you need to see its precise flight path so you can turn your aircraft into the turn and greatly increase the amount the missile has to turn to hit you. A missile falling at such speeds will turn from a faint dot to a blur and a loud bang too fast for most pilots to do much at all... but if the missile gets its angles wrong and misses... do you really think it will turn back up 180 degrees and have another go?

    The Meteor might have a chance in a relatively shallow engagement where it is not so high as the RVV-BD or as fast and the target is not too low flying, but a rocket powered missile will likely hit the ground before managing a 180 degree turn at such speeds.

    While Meteor is superior to RVV-BD for mid-altitude interception where ramjet is effecient , RVV-BD is superior on most parameter specially VLR inteception.

    I disagree.

    Meteor is not a VLRAAM.

    It is an AMRAAM/RVV-SD type missile with extended reach and potential re engagement capability in the event of an initial miss.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:48 pm

    With respect Austin, both missiles are designed to intercept targets at beyond 100km.
    The different propulsion options is a design trade off.
    The Russians have plenty of ramjet powered missiles in service right now... if they wanted an equivalent to Meteor they could have done it years ago.

    Both missile are designed to intercept targets beyond 100 km is true in letter but one is designed to intercept a manouverable target at 100 km range more effeciently (modern fighter aircraft ) while the other is a true VLRAAM designed to intercept certain class of target more efficiently like AWACS,JSTAR , Bombers and subsonic cruise missile.

    The propulsion system is not a tradeoff but an optimisation to do a certain job well.

    It has nothing to do with what kind of experience Russians have or what kind of experience EADS lack but more of what is the right tool for the job.

    It is not to say RVV-BD wont be effective against supersonic/manouverable target like fighter but it will be at substantial reduced range ~ 80 compared to ~ 100 km for Meteor , but a Meteor will never intercept a AWACS at 180 km because its not a true LRAAM.



    Meteor is NOT energetic all the way to the target, it will be operating at minimum throttle all the way to the target... thrust will be just high enough to overcome drag and maintain speed.
    It will be flying straight and level to the interception point to conserve as much energy as possible.

    If Meteor is NOT energetic all the way is what you think then you have not really understood the reason for using ramjet propulsion. Ramjet gives you constant energy throughout the flight envelop i.e. when ramjet starts burning when solid booster is ejected till Ramjet fuel burns off , the energy produced is constant and do not reduce or stop like coasting in case of solid fuel missile.

    Hence Ramjet missile tend to be effecient in energy management through out the entire flight envelop hence better NEZ while solid fuel might initially kick off at Mach 4 ,then a slow sustainer or burner sets in that would propel it at mach 2 or they might just coast in between and finally it would have some high energy fuel or might use the same sustainer fuel but would trade potential energy into kinetic energy by flying high and then flying down for a kill.

    Both Ramjet and Solid fuel are effecient for certain task.


    The RVV-BD is not a skyrocket that burns all its fuel in a few seconds and then coasts 200km to the target.

    Who said that , the russian have already declared that RVV-BD uses dual fuel propulsion which i would say with certainity that the first part is high burning more energy fuel that takes the missile to 25 km and sets it to cruise mode while the second one is slow burning energy effecient fuel thats used in cruise mode and terminal homing trading PE to KE in end game.


    It will have two types of fuel on board, as I have repeated over and over... the first to burn will be high energy propellent that burns rapidly but also accelerates the missile rapidly. When that has burnt out... 10-15 seconds, the main fuel will start burning and it will burn for several minutes and perform the role of a gas generator in a base bleed artillery round... it simply reduces drag.

    We both are saying the same thing , i am really not aware of the exact grain geometry of solid fuel or how much time it burns and stops till sustainer fuel take over but we are both saying the same thing.


    The Ramjet is far more efficient as it scoops the O2 it needs from the air it is travelling through. It can also manage its fuel and at 80km flight distance suddenly put on a burst of high thrust to accelerate to intercept a target at that range. The solid fuelled rocket has no such flexibility.

    Solid fuel ramjet like meteor is much less effecient then liquid fuel ramjet like Brahmos you should keep that in mind , having said that they do energy throttling but not much there , generally ramjet gives you the same constant energy across all flight regime , throttling too is much effecient with liquid fuel compared to solid fuel ramjet.

    Slow nonmanouvering target?

    yes like Tomahawk Cruise missile or AWACS.


    A target at 200km might get plenty of warning it is under attack... or it might be a total surprise when the radar of the incoming missile suddenly goes active... the point is that the target aircraft might be at 5,000m altitude and an RVV-BD coming down from very high altitude at mach 4-5... if the missile misses by 20m there is still a chance its directional warhead might spray the target with enough fragments to rip it to pieces.

    To dodge the missile you need to see its precise flight path so you can turn your aircraft into the turn and greatly increase the amount the missile has to turn to hit you. A missile falling at such speeds will turn from a faint dot to a blur and a loud bang too fast for most pilots to do much at all... but if the missile gets its angles wrong and misses... do you really think it will turn back up 180 degrees and have another go?

    Well its more complex , A fast missile at the target is encountered by Aircraft manouvering alerted due to ESM , Jammers and Chaff


    Sponsored content

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:15 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:15 am