Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:15 pm

    SOC wrote:The point is that a small missile like PAC-3 or Aster is not a suitable candidate for a bulkier TVM/SAGG guidance package. And again, Arrow or THAAD are irrelevant as they are designed for something else entirely.

    This is the point I would disagree , You say Bulkier because traditionally Soviets/Russian missile tend to be heavier and largely because of their weakness in electronics which made their system heavier and bulkier and because of other properties of missile , but with the use/proliferation of COTS and/or Availability of such electronics more liberally globally and perhaps with the advancement of their own electronic industry due to the above two reason their electronics got smaller perhaps closer to western standards in many aspects.

    But TVM/SAGG need not be any bulkier then ARH , An ARH still needs its own RF seeker the electronics ,power supply , cooling system in case of IIR seeker and good computing ability to make it autonomous , it wont be any lighter then say TVM/SAGG.
    { I am ready to proven wrong here if you can prove TVM/SAGG used on the same missile would have been heavier compared to ARH seeker of similar generation available to Russian industry nearly 15 years back }

    The whole theory of TVM/SAGG being heavier steams from the fact that they are used on heavier/bulkier missile which itself could be heavy for many reason including as i mentioned weakness in electronics and requirenment ( longer range , higher speed etc )

    Wouldnt Arrow and Thaad do the same job as S-400 would do yet all these have their own autonomous guidance mechanism beyond a certain point. I mean if SAGG and TVM were that great and ground radar could discriminate a decoy better then a on board seeker due to their sheer power and computing ability then it would have been cheaper for them to have a SAGG type guidance in all these missile , yet they have their own ARH or IIR seeker.

    Which is probably why the SAGG 48N6DM is the 250-km range weapon for the system.

    May be they wanted a cheaper way to get the same job done untill the more expensive but more capable 40N6 became available with ARH seeker.

    And 40N6 may well be an ARH weapon simply because they can loft it to a point in space and let the seeker take over, without having to worry about whether or not the datalinks work to that range, or if the missile seeker can acquire enough reflected energy at that range to work. Again, they retained SAGG for the S-400's primary weapon, the 48N6DM, for a reason.

    Strange both long range weapon but both have different solutions yet they are part of the same S-400 system , it tells me one thing cost is a key factor , some times a good enough solution works great if it comes at 60 % cost of the best solution , so you might want to have both and use it according to your needs which ever fits well for the occasion.

    No. You can use a midcourse data link, or you can lock the seeker on prior to launch. Depends on the weapon, but SARH does not require a data link necessarily. It's far better to use one, because then you aren't transmitting CW illuminator signals that will alert an enemy that you want to kill him until endgame. This is how the S-300V works using GAS/GAI for midcourse, and then SARH for terminal homing.

    See no reason why you cant do that with something like PAC-3 and uncage the seeker at the last moment , ofcourse one can argue when the Ka band of Patriot goes active it will alert the enemy , but then it would be too late for him.

    The point is that ECCM is more effective with more computing power behind it. What has more computing power, the missile or the ground-based engagement radar? Again, that's part of the reason behind TVM and SAGG. You can exploit the capability of your engagement radar to a much greater degree than if you were just relying on it to provide midcourse direction.

    One can argue perhaps F-22 has more computing power over any S-300 system or may be even S-400 so it would jam by default any of these SAM. You would need a combination of many factors to jam a radar and good computing would be one of them.

    I dont think any thing is wrong with SAGG , it has its own pluses and minues , its basicly a poor mans choice till such time the poor man can afford a good ARH or some exotic IIR seeker.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:01 pm

    BTW i have recently came across publication where Russian have displayed some sort of airborne jammers which they claim is capable of Jamming link 16.

    I am not saying it is impossible, just very difficult.

    Directional Datalinks are hard to jam because you need to get between the missile and the launch platform before the receivers in each will take notice of you.

    Second datalinks can operate over a range of frequencies and have codes embedded in them that can make them impossible to jam except by brute force... and to achieve brute force you need an Il-76 sized aircraft jammer... not something small enough to fit in an underwing pod on a fighter.

    Regarding your comments about Soviet and Russian electronics and radars... certainly they are bigger and bulkier and often have a lot less modes or features because their electronics was often hard wired rather than software driven.

    Where you are way off base is the fact that they were often more powerful than western radars (in terms of raw power and ECCM performance rather than range and the number of targets they could track).

    Comparing the tiny seeker in an AMRAAM with the tracking radar of S-300 or S-400 for that matter is amusing.

    HOJ capability is nice but what if a jamming beam is directed at the ground between the target and the missile and the jamming signal is reflected off the surface of the earth at the missile?

    Or more practically, a Plane that is no where near the target starts jamming the AMRAAM and tracks it with IR sensors via the heat plume surrounding the Mach 4 missile... when it gets close to the jammer... it turns off and the original target for the missile starts jamming... and when the missile turns to engage that as it gets close the original jammer starts up and the second jammer shuts down... that AMRAAM will hit nothing but the ground... and then of course there are towed jammers/decoys... and even expendable decoys that can be fired from 122mm calibre unguided rocket pods (S-13).

    Dealing with SAMs is much harder because a ground based system can have all sorts of sensors and enormous antennas and other equipment spread over several kms of territory.

    When their missiles can hit large aircraft at 400km how do you sneak up and jam their datalinks with anything more powerful than a fighter sized aircraft?

    Any platform blasting out the required energy to jam a datalink will be hard to disguise and protect from such a system.

    Some signals are hard to jam...

    For instance MMW radar is very hard to jam or use an ARM against... otherwise you wouldn't bother with an IR guided missile against an Apache... you'd just fire a Kh-25MPU... a 40km range 300kg missile that detonates a 90kg HE warhead a few metres above the main rotor of an Apache would ruin any attack helos day.

    Equally a MMW radar jammer for tanks to protect them from the fire and forget missile of the Apache... why haven't they bothered? They have SHTORA to jam the IR missile tracking components of ATGMs... why no MMW radar jammer?

    There is a lot of talk about how the 35 GHz transmitter for the ATAKA and Shturm can be jammed yet I have never heard of any successful attempt to do so.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:36 am

    Garry you are assuming too many thing , first you assume that S-300PMU2 has directional data links can you show any reference that it does have this ? Another thing that you assume these datalinks are impossible to jam or its much harder to do.

    ECM its a game of wits as much its a game of technology , we never know if US or say Israel have figured out a way to jam these datalinks , its an assumption but its also possible.

    An AMRAAM seeker may be small , but there are other factors like Antenna Gain , Power Output and ECCM features that would decide how effective it would be against a jamming environment , small does not mean its easy to jam thats a wrong notion people have. Else every small thing like RVV-SD or PAC-3 would just fall from sky under jamming environment.

    HOJ works on the source of Radiating Frequency , possibly the closer you are to source the stronger the signal so they would simply try to find the strongest source of originating signal and lock on to it.

    Like I said a good system today be it SAM or BVR missile will have its own seeker preferable operating in Ka or J band thats harder to jam and has burn through capability , at the least it would provide a great autonomy to the missile and can be effective beyond LOS target , even a good IIR seeker would be nice to have.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:56 am

    Garry you are assuming too many thing , first you assume that S-300PMU2 has directional data links can you show any reference that it does have this ? Another thing that you assume these datalinks are impossible to jam or its much harder to do.

    Datalinks on their own are hard to jam because any signal of non directional datalink is a cube square of distance.

    Think of a spherical bomb blast... as it spreads in 3 dimensions the energy is spread in the form of an expanding sphere. As it expands the surface area rapidly increases... at 1m a 1m ball is very concentrated energy... at 1km the ball is enormous and that energy is spread over a very wide area.

    Even with a non directional signal you can position the antenna in the rear of the missile facing back to the launch area, so any signal that is not correctly coded from the front of the missile can be ignored... and remember what these datalinks provide... the missile can still simply home in on radar waves reflected from the target.

    The R-27ER doesn't even use a datalink, so even successful jamming is not critical.

    With a directional signal the jammer would need to get between the missile and launcher to successfully jam it.

    It would be very similar to trying to jam a beam riding missile like Kornet-EM.

    On paper you could jam a SALH Hellfire by lasing targets around the real target with even more powerful lasers.

    On paper you can transmit datalink signals that confuse the SAMs... the problem is that the signals are coded and transmitted by the radar antenna of the SAM system so when it gets signals from other directions it wouldn't be hard to make it ignore them.

    The TOR and the Pantsir and even the ATAKA use a radar command guidance datalink... not much talk of jamming those either.

    ECM its a game of wits as much its a game of technology , we never know if US or say Israel have figured out a way to jam these datalinks , its an assumption but its also possible.

    Anything is possible, but whether it is likely or not is another thing.

    They could pack a C-17 with high power jamming equipment and fly it 50km from a double digit Russian SAM site and jam the heck out of it... but how long can an aircraft that size operate that close to an operational SAM system that is part of an Air Defence network?

    The Russians tested a Tu-22M3 in the jamming role but found that an Il-76 could carry a much more powerful jammer... I don't think they will be flying it through NATO countries jamming everything though.

    An AMRAAM seeker may be small , but there are other factors like Antenna Gain , Power Output and ECCM features that would decide how effective it would be against a jamming environment , small does not mean its easy to jam thats a wrong notion people have. Else every small thing like RVV-SD or PAC-3 would just fall from sky under jamming environment.

    The nose of a missile is very small and needs to hold rocket fuel, power supplies for control surfaces, motors to move those control surfaces, a radar antenna and computer guidance module, and datalink. How powerful do you think the computer and radar are that are fitted to missiles like that?

    The Radar in the Granit was the size of the radar in a Mig-21, but the radar in an AMRAAM is much smaller and lighter and not even as powerful as a Mig-21s radar... that could be jammed.

    It is much easier to jam the tiny radar and computer in a missile than to jam the much larger and much more powerful AND MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED radar in the nose of any aircraft.

    The radar and computer in a missile are designed to work once only. They have neither the power of sophistication or complexity of a fighter mounted radar.

    HOJ works on the source of Radiating Frequency , possibly the closer you are to source the stronger the signal so they would simply try to find the strongest source of originating signal and lock on to it.

    And a directional beam bounced off a large surface like a mountain or the sea surface could appear to be that strong source.

    Also jamming signals can be alternated between different aircraft in different flights to fool incoming threats.

    Like I said a good system today be it SAM or BVR missile will have its own seeker preferable operating in Ka or J band thats harder to jam and has burn through capability , at the least it would provide a great autonomy to the missile and can be effective beyond LOS target , even a good IIR seeker would be nice to have.

    You want the missile seeker optimised to suite the intended targets for terminal homing... the antenna needs to be small enough to fit in the seeker head of the missile.

    A good IIR seeker would likely be better than a radar homing missile as it is passive, but it will be so expensive that you will only be able to afford a few hundred... and when the first few hundred targets the enemy directs your way are UCAVs and cruise missiles you might think that perhaps a few cheap SARH missiles might have been a good idea too.

    The Russians have had the R-77 design available since the early 1990s yet not all their radar guided AAMs and SAMs use ARH.

    It is not by accident that the Soviet Union had more SAMs (and likely more ATGMs) than the rest of the world combined.

    Not every threat requires a gold plated solution.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:07 am

    BTW Austin... you do realise that the HOJ capability of the AMRAAM has nothing to do with datalinks?

    The AMRAAM has non directional datalinks so a signal trying to jam the datalink ...if successful will merely prevent the launch aircraft sending the missile updates on the targets position.

    The AMRAAM cannot home in on a datalink jammer because the datalinks operate in L band and the seeker of the AMRAAM does not so it can't even detect an L band signal let alone home in on it.

    If the wing mounted L band AESAs on an Su-35 were used to detect the datalink between an aircraft launching an AMRAAM and that AMRAAM and could transmit an overwhelming amount of noise in the datalinks precise frequency and make that missile lose any signals transmitted from its launch aircraft, as far as the AMRAAM is concerned it can't see any signal to home in on till it gets near the point of interception and turns on its radar... the Su-35 pilot could turn towards the missile and rapidly accelerate and climb so that without updates from its launch aircraft the missile will continue past and below the Flanker and start looking for the Flanker well behind where the real aircraft actually is... meanwhile the Flanker should be getting much closer to the aircraft that launched the AMRAAM and can launch an IIR guided missile that is looking for targets through its entire flight so it wont blast past its target with its eyes shut like the AMRAAM just did.

    Obviously a very risky tactic as the Flanker pilot really can't be sure they effectively blocked the datalink transmission till the AMRAAM blows past without turning on its seeker.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:00 am

    Here is a good update on RVV-BD missile page 35

    http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to21.pdf

    1 ) It says RVV-BD uses high performance bi-pulse solid fuel motor , is this same as the new dual pulse motor that modern missile uses ? From what i have read about Indo-Israel Barak-8 SAM ,which uses dual pulse motor , it provide high end game energy compared to normal solid fuel. If its the same thing then we can be sure RVV-BD will have significant end game energy.

    The was Dual Pulse motor would from what i have read it fires every 2 seconds or so which provides sustainable energy during flight and end game energy ( someone correct me if i am wrong )

    2 ) It also says Novtor lost the long range missile competition so AAM-L is a thing of past , RVV-BD won at the end of the day over Novtar ?

    3 ) Interesting thing is the seeker provide wide angle +/-60 field of view plus a 60 Kg warhed is similar to what many Ground Based SAM usually have , looks like a big bad missile.

    4 ) The GD seems excited with the missile says flies with a swing ( an indication of unstable aerodynamics ? ) and nothing has long reach both inside and abroad.

    I thing they anticipated that for any future sale of Su-35 or current customers of Su-30MK would be demanding a long range missile to justify the performance of BARS and Irbis , plus with Meteor in the market by 2014 or so they want to be a big ahead in the game.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:05 am

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-israel-introducing-mr-sam-03461/

    The Barak 8 missile reportedly extends its range to 60-70 km/ up to 42 miles, thanks to a dual-pulse solid rocket motor whose second “pulse” fires as the missile approaches its target. This ensures that the missile isn’t just coasting in the final stages, giving it several chances at a fast, maneuvering target.

    Ok so the way dual pulse motor works is perhaps when the seeker detects the target it fires the second pulse ( or second motor ) even if its coasting via slow burning motor so that it has better end game energy.

    Not a bad way to solve your end game energy problem no matter in which phase of the flight you are.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:09 am

    It seems that in this case "dual pulse" solid fuel rocket can mean different things.

    In the conventional use a dual pulse solid rocket engine operates the way I have described in the past... get a tube with a star shaped object down its core and pour in the solid rocket propellent in a liquid form. When it sets hard take the star shaped core out and place the tube in another tube with the ends blocked off and hold it in the centre while you pour more solid rocket propellent to fill the tube around your solid rocket fuel core.

    You end up with a larger tube of solid rocket fuel with an outer layer of lower energy rocket fuel that will burn for minutes and an inner core of much higher energy faster burning solid rocket fuel. Right down the centre of the high energy fuel is a star shaped cavity. By making it star shaped you increase the surface area of fuel that can burn. If you just put in solid blobs of rocket fuel and burnt it from one end to the other then you would need thick strong rocket walls to withstand the heat and pressure. By burning the fuel from the centre out the unburnt outer fuel supports the rocket walls right till the last lower pressure fuel is burnt so they can be made much thinner and they don't need to be heat resistant.

    As the central core of fuel burns the missile accelerates and climbs in a few seconds. The rest of the fuel counters drag so the missile maintains high speed all the way to the target... it greatly extends the range of the weapon.

    With this new Israeli missile it sounds like it has separate rocket motors, so when the first fuel burns out the missile coasts and the missile can ignite the remaining fuel as needed... either to extend range or to add performance during the terminal phase of the attack.

    AFAIK the R-33 uses a high energy acceleration fuel and a sustainer fuel and the long range models of the R-27 do too, and I would expect that is what the RVV-BD does but have no evidence either way.

    I would take the claim of enabling several chances at hitting the target with a grain of salt as missiles have tiny control surfaces and are no where near as manouverable as an aircraft.

    The only reason they can pull high g turns is because of their speed... at mach 4 even a relatively gentle change of direction will pull high gs.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:37 am

    some update on A2A misile development of Russia
    http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/air-to-air-domination.html

    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:12 pm

    RVV-BD Long Range Air to Air Missile

    http://www.missiles.ru/RVV-BD.htm

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:48 am

    Here is a nice video of Meteor , It seems Meteor has two way data links , perhaps its time the revive the Ramjet based R-77


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:15 pm

    http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/02/13/mig31/

    Very interesting...range of MiG-31 interception will double due to new air to air missile. This is clearly for the BMs, so we might FINALLY see the R-33 successor enter service.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:59 pm

    TR1 wrote:http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/02/13/mig31/

    Very interesting...range of MiG-31 interception will double due to new air to air missile. This is clearly for the BMs, so we might FINALLY see the R-33 successor enter service.

    It'll be the domestic RVV-BD, which was developed from the R-37 anyway. If you look at the RVV-BD and notice the folding upper rear control fins, you can tell that they were operating under the "this goes under the MiG-31" theory anyway. They did away with the R-37's folding lower fins, implying that they aren't going to dork around with the conformal missile carriage of the FOXHOUND and retain a four missile loadout under the fuselage. Although they could always wire the underwing stations (at least the inner pair, an RVV-BD might overstress the outer wing) to fit more and up the maximum load to six.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:03 pm

    SOC wrote:
    TR1 wrote:http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/02/13/mig31/

    Very interesting...range of MiG-31 interception will double due to new air to air missile. This is clearly for the BMs, so we might FINALLY see the R-33 successor enter service.

    It'll be the domestic RVV-BD, which was developed from the R-37 anyway. If you look at the RVV-BD and notice the folding upper rear control fins, you can tell that they were operating under the "this goes under the MiG-31" theory anyway. They did away with the R-37's folding lower fins, implying that they aren't going to dork around with the conformal missile carriage of the FOXHOUND and retain a four missile loadout under the fuselage. Although they could always wire the underwing stations (at least the inner pair, an RVV-BD might overstress the outer wing) to fit more and up the maximum load to six.

    My thoughts as well. Range comes into question though, as BD also seems to be intended for internal application and hence has reduced range compared to R-37 ( they stated 200km for BD, while the missile family clearly has potential for more).

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:52 pm

    My thoughts as well. Range comes into question though, as BD also seems to be intended for internal application and hence has reduced range compared to R-37 ( they stated 200km for BD, while the missile family clearly has potential for more).


    Tr1 the 200 km range of RVV-BD has literally nothing to do with "supposed" internal carriage, it instead has anything to do with the fact that the missile in question is nothing more than an export version intended for export .

    On the specific of its range at pag 26 of Aviation Week of July/August 2011 is specified


    The missile's key feature is ots extended range, which company officials note is 200 km using a two-stage motor, or significantly more of the 120 km for the R-33E .Although Russian industry had been working on longer-range versions, the defense ministry has set 200 km as the range for the export version




    On the Take-Off magazine of December 2011 pag 34 is specified :

    "Boris Obnosov confirmed that Vympel was developing a long-range weapon in addition to the RVV-SD medium- and RVVMD short-range missiles.
    Last year, paperwork for an export version, designated as RVV-BD, was finalised, which cleared it for display at MAKS 2011."


    According to the official information disseminated during the air show, the new missile’s performance is far more advanced over that of the well-known long-range R-33E


    Most probably, the RVV-BD is an export version of the advanced longrange missile being developed under the programme of MiG-31 interceptor upgrade in service with the Russian Air Force (an upgraded MiG-31BM was shown at a static display during MAKS 2011).


    Practically ,as its cousins RVV-SD and RVV-MD, is nothing more than a scaled down export version of the domestic LRAAM purposely designed ,adapted and limited for international market ; in particular RVV-BD is offered for the foreign market as a successor of the R-33E offered with MIG-31E.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:05 pm

    Although they could always wire the underwing stations (at least the inner pair, an RVV-BD might overstress the outer wing) to fit more and up the maximum load to six.

    Sorry what?

    Overstress the outer wing pylons?

    On the Mig-25 all four wing pylons managed to carry R-40TDs without over stressing.

    The bomber version of the Mig-31 is supposed to be able to carry 9 tons, which was supposed to consist of two 1,500kg bombs under the belly and four more 1,500kg bombs under the four wing pylons.

    If that is true, I don't think the domestic version of the RVV_BD will be a problem in terms of weight.

    Regarding flight range, to double the range of the R-33 they will need a missile with a flight range of at least 240km, and from the reports and articles I have read on the subject (many provided by Austin) it seems the domestic RVV-BD has a range of 280km.

    The top folding fins are for conformal carriage on the Mig-31, but that does not limit its use to the Mig-31.

    The R-77 has forward folding grid fins for internal carriage, but can be carried externally on all sorts of Russian fighter aircraft.

    I have looked carefully at the few photos I have of the Mig-31M and it seems to me that the upper fins had to fold on the original R-37, but the bottom fins didn't need to fold to fit three abrest under the belly of the Mig-31M.

    This makes me wonder if 6 missiles could be carried under the aircrafts belly and four more under the wing pylons.

    This would not make sense for the older Mig-31s as the R-33 was largely an anti bomber weapon only and could only take lighter strike aircraft by surprise, but the ability to kill 8g targets makes the R-37M much more capable in that regard... assuming the domestic version is only as good as the export model in that regard.
    (I would think for a domestic version that 9 g would make a good target to design for...)

    I rather suspect there is a model of the RVV-BD for domestic use with fully folding tail surfaces for internal carriage in the PAK FA.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:[Sorry what?

    Overstress the outer wing pylons?

    I meant the pylons. As in the pylons might not be rated for a weapon that size. Although, they can carry drop tanks, so who knows.

    GarryB wrote:I have looked carefully at the few photos I have of the Mig-31M and it seems to me that the upper fins had to fold on the original R-37, but the bottom fins didn't need to fold to fit three abrest under the belly of the Mig-31M.

    This makes me wonder if 6 missiles could be carried under the aircrafts belly and four more under the wing pylons.

    You can't get six underneath a MiG-31B/BS/BM without redesigning the conformal carriage points. There isn't enough clearance between the R-33 pairs to add two more weapons down the middle. As for the MiG-31M, I've got a crapload of detail shots of the MiG-31Ms at MAKS from various years fully loaded. Sometimes the rear R-37 fins were folded, sometimes not. And sometimes the upper ones weren't folded, but the lower ones were. And sometimes, the port pair had folded tails but the starboard pair did not. The one constant was that the forward missiles always seemed to have folded upper tails. The rear fuselage contours and the fact that the rear missiles weren't as submerged meant that the outer rear missiles could dispense with the folded upper fins. Amusingly, the time that they stuck two wingless R-33S rounds down the center (the ones Yefim Gordon called "wingless R-37s" in the Russian Aircraft Armament volume) seemed to indicate that they were unlaunchable unless the outer R-37s went first, due to the increased span fins and the fact that the upper fins folded outward when carried down the centerline.

    I think in practice they'd all be folded to permit clearance if you get a hung missile that won't eject.

    TR1 wrote:Range comes into question though, as BD also seems to be intended for internal application and hence has reduced range compared to R-37 ( they stated 200km for BD, while the missile family clearly has potential for more).

    I doubt the native missile will be larger. It's already pretty damn close to the dimensions of the 300km range R-37. A shorter range can be achieved using either 1) trajectory shaping, 2) a lower-impulse motor, or 3) a motor with a slightly shorter burn time in either boost or sustain modes or both.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:03 pm

    I meant the pylons. As in the pylons might not be rated for a weapon that size. Although, they can carry drop tanks, so who knows.

    It was my understanding that the Mig-31BM was a multirole upgrade that allowed the aircraft to carry a range of weapon options including anti radiation missiles, and guided bombs.

    The two main normal payloads of the original Mig-31 were two R-40TD missiles on the two wing pylons and 4 R-33s under the belly and the gun, or 4 R-60Ms on twin launchers on two wing pylons and 4 R-33s under the belly and the gun.

    If the outer wing pylons are not normally carried on the early models, but were included in the Mig-31M and Mig-31BM upgrades you'd think that would be so they could be used.

    You admit yourself that the outer pylons can carry fuel tanks, though they are rarely seen because they don't extend range by a significant amount but do limit speed while fitted.

    The aircraft is optimised for high speed so far that its subsonic radius is not that much bigger than its supersonic radius, and speed is what this aircraft is all about hense the rarity of external fuel tanks.

    Having large AAMs on the outer pylons would not reduce max speed at all because max speed is engine limited.

    You can't get six underneath a MiG-31B/BS/BM without redesigning the conformal carriage points.

    Once the R-33s are used up from stocks do you think they will make more?

    Do you think it would be worth changing the conformal carriage points on the inservice Mig-31s to use their new standard missile?

    I think in practice they'd all be folded to permit clearance if you get a hung missile that won't eject.

    Sounds like they have folding top fins like the R-77 has folding rear fins... in case the aircraft position you are trying to fit them to requires it...

    I doubt the native missile will be larger.

    I think a Military official mentioned the domestic version was slightly heavier than the export model in addition to being longer ranged.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:Once the R-33s are used up from stocks do you think they will make more?

    Do you think it would be worth changing the conformal carriage points on the inservice Mig-31s to use their new standard missile?

    Depends on how much it'd cost. You're also looking at potential clearance issues with the airbrakes, MLG doors, and such. The underside of the MiG-31M wasn't quite exactly the same as that of the MiG-31B/BS at any rate so what worked for the later model might not work for in-service jets. Looking at an underside view of a MiG-31B you might get it to work, but again, you're going to need to put in some work to reconfigure everything. At that point you'd have to ask if the extra time and money is worth carrying two more missiles under there, or if you're better off adding R-73s/-77s to the outer wing stations and configuring the inner wing stations to accept RVV-BDs.

    GarryB wrote:I think a Military official mentioned the domestic version was slightly heavier than the export model in addition to being longer ranged.

    That suggests more propellant. A bit more in the boost stage will give you a kE kick to get a bit more range out of a lofted profile for a long-range shot, for example.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:40 pm

    Depends on how much it'd cost. You're also looking at potential clearance issues with the airbrakes, MLG doors, and such.

    Not to mention the extra weapon points and wiring, but the point is that this is the new standard main weapon for the Mig, and if the US is developing new hypersonic threats to Russia then two extra missile on belly positions might be useful.

    They could take advantage of the fact that they are making this change and remove the gun at the same time.

    It is not like the RVV-BD domestic model is temporary... this will be its standard and Primary weapon.

    The R-33 uses a catapult to throw the missile down and clear of the aircraft before its motor starts, even the R-77 uses a similar pneumatic arm to assure clearance. I rather suspect the R-37 will use the same or similar launch mechanism.

    At that point you'd have to ask if the extra time and money is worth carrying two more missiles under there, or if you're better off adding R-73s/-77s to the outer wing stations and configuring the inner wing stations to accept RVV-BDs.

    Most of the photos I have seen of the BM shows four pylons with 4 R-77s as normal payload.

    Except for noninterception missions the standard payload would be belly mounted heavy long range missiles and wing mounted medium range missiles and no gun.


    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:The R-33 uses a catapult to throw the missile down and clear of the aircraft before its motor starts, even the R-77 uses a similar pneumatic arm to assure clearance. I rather suspect the R-37 will use the same or similar launch mechanism.

    So does the Kh-31. It's launch rail incorporates two such ejector arms to push the weapon clear. You could do something for the RVV-BD easily, and fit it to the inner wing pylons at much less cost than reprofiling and rewiring the bottom of the fuselage.

    Like this:

    http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Su-30MKI_KH-31_AS-17_Krypton.jpg

    GarryB wrote:Most of the photos I have seen of the BM shows four pylons with 4 R-77s as normal payload.

    Except for noninterception missions the standard payload would be belly mounted heavy long range missiles and wing mounted medium range missiles and no gun.

    The images also don't show any changes to the underfuselage arrangement, either. Besides, with the domestic RVV-BD likely to arm the Su-35 and potentially the PAK-FA as well, you'll have a lot more shooters if they're really needed.

    Or, hell, they could just go and redo the lower surfaces to accomodate six weapons. I just have yet to see anything remotely suggesting the possibility, and because the BM modernization program is ongoing I don't currently rate it as all that likely as the extant BMs (not the demonstrator, the real ones) show no changes to their undersides. I think it's safe to say that the RVV-BD's domestic weapon has been coming for a while now, and such a change would've shown up if it was going to happen as part of the current upgrade program. Doesn't preclude a modified program or a second upgrade in the future, obviously.

    Interestingly as an aside, one image of a service BM shows four underwing R-73 rails. All the BM images I've got show them fitted with four shallower underwing pylons, doing away with (or at least not carrying in the photo) the huge inner wing pylon.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:48 pm

    The Mig-31BM upgrade has been going rather slowly... perhaps part of it is waiting for its new primary weapon?

    I doubt the R-33 would fit on the new re-profiled 6 position setup, so until the R-37M had been tested there would be little reason to do anything till it had cleared its tests. Look at the Su-34... the design changes slightly as new things are added like APUs in the tail etc etc.

    The Mig-31M was an upgrade too, so if the new belly can be applied to it, then it should be applicable to the in service aircraft too.

    Regarding stress on pylons the new Kh-31s are in the 700kg weight range with flight ranges to 250km or so, so if the BM can carry those it should have no problems with the RVV-BD, which I understand to be in the 500kg range for the export model and 600kg for the domestic. (Flight range is given as 280km).

    The whole idea of putting the R-33s on the belly is to reduce drag, so fitting 6 missiles on the belly and at the same time remove the gun should be worth while.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:47 am

    GarryB wrote:The Mig-31Bm has been going rather slowly... perhaps part of it is waiting for its new primary weapon?

    I doubt the R-33 would fit on the new re-profiled 6 position setup, so until the R-37M had been tested there would be little reason to do anything till it had cleared its tests. Look at the Su-34... the design changes slightly as new things are added like APUs in the tail etc etc.

    The R-33S might've fit on the MiG-31M, as it had the R-37s mid-body wings (smaller span than those on the R-33). The center pair were slightly behind the outer pairs so you might've been able to get the rear fins to stagger enough with the center missiles to allow them to be fired. The center ones (judging by a close-up underside shot of a MiG-31M with two R-33S and four R-37) did appear to lack clearance with the outer missiles though, meaning they'd need to go off last.

    The lack of progress for a while on the MiG-31BM might've had something to do with being a lower funding priority at the time as well.

    GarryB wrote:The Mig-31M was an upgrade too, so if the new belly can be applied to it, then it should be applicable to the in service aircraft too.

    Noooo...the MiG-31M, Izdeliye 05, was always meant to be a new-build airframe. They modified an old test bird to test a few things as 051 Blue, but the real prototypes (052-057 Blue) were purpose built. There were numerous internal and external structural changes, and actually the forward fuselage got an increase in diameter due to the larger radar antenna. I wonder if that's part of what led to the 6 missile configuration being possible?

    GarryB wrote:The whole idea of putting the R-33s on the belly is to reduce drag, so fitting 6 missiles on the belly and at the same time remove the gun should be worth while.

    May as well retain the gun. Never know when it'll come in handy (warning shots across the nose, oh crap the FCS just blew a fuse, etc.).

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:06 am

    The lack of progress for a while on the MiG-31BM might've had something to do with being a lower funding priority at the time as well.

    I rather think the change to PVO now under Aerospace and Space Defence Force commmand would result in clarity regarding the position of the Mig-31s and Flankers of the PVO.

    It seems that they are still on VVS airbases and on 24/7 alert but under the command of the VKO.

    I would think the changes to the conformal positions would be trivial... a bit like the changes for the F-15 from Sparrow to Amraam in conformal fuselage positions.

    [quote]Noooo...the MiG-31M, Izdeliye 05, was always meant to be a new-build airframe. [/qote]

    And after that was rejected on cost grounds the features of the Mig-31M became an upgrade for the Mig-31s already in service.

    I wonder if that's part of what led to the 6 missile configuration being possible?

    I don't think they made the entire aircraft wider to accomodate a larger radar antenna...

    May as well retain the gun. Never know when it'll come in handy (warning shots across the nose, oh crap the FCS just blew a fuse, etc.).

    The problem is that changing to a different gun would be tricky unless they went for the GSh-23L as it uses the same ammo. Rate of fire is much lower, but I suspect 3,500rpm would still be effective.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:47 am

    Gary, I have yet to see a single Russian source indicating the MiG-31s are anyone but the VVS's, and trust me, I looked around. They still fly in VVS colors Wink .

    AFAIK no changes to BM fuselage is planned, so IMo 4 missle positions under belly will stay.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:37 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:37 am