Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:57 am

    Mindstorm wrote: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.

    Can you tell me how supermanoeuvrability helps here becuase all supermanouverable is done at when the aircraft is at low speed , a bvr missile would still beat that because the missile can pull substantial more G then aircraft for eg RVV-SD is capable of intercepting 12 g targets.

    BTW i always wondered why dont they develop a IIR or 2 color IR version of RVV-SD for BVR engagements like they used to do with R-27 ? You can fire both missile simultanously at the target for improved Pk

    largely outdated/downgraded aircraft ,firing often at very reduced rangeand from the most favourable geometry a PK of 0,46 ..... at least acceptable ).

    Yes i read that in Kosovo conflict AIM-120A/B was fired at a distance of no more than 30 km and multiple in tens of BVR was fired at single target.

    So in real sense the true potential of BVR is still to be exploited , in a complex war scneario even with AWACS support i suppose IFF is a BIG problem.


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


    I really do not know if ramjet makes a very big difference but it does make a difference compared to other boys in the block.

    BTW dual pulse propulsion seems to be very promising field for solid motor rocket both to have end game energy and the way it manages energy.


    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

    I thought so he was refering to average RCS versus frontal RCS that LM was touting.

    At 0.3-0.4 m2 average RCS even a decent X band radar like that of IRBIS will be able to see it far enough not to mention high power ground based radars.

    I guess aircraft like F-22 , F-35 and PAK-FA will have to rely on good old tactics of low flying , avoiding known Radars sites and using Jammers if required like conventional aircraft besides relying on stealth to do its job , there is no immunity by flying high and fast since they would be seen by modern radars specially those with VHF and L-band.

    Tell me what do you think about B-2 stealth since Dr Carlo told me it can even avoid getting detected by VHF radars due to its size , that was designed to fly high and slow and penetrate deep in to Soviet Airspace and hunt mobile topol launchers ?



    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 ?

    Yes clear , yes no one lied but they didnt speak the full truth Laughing


    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:18 am

    From Mindstorm link something to chew on F-22

    Winslow T. Wheeler and Pierre M. Sprey on F-22

    Study after study show that pilot skill dominates all other factors in winning or
    losing air battles. The F-22's maintenance costs have the Air Force to
    slash in-air pilot training. In the 1970s, fighter pilots were getting
    20 to 30 hours a month of air combat training. Today, F-22 pilots get
    10 to 12 hours. High tech theorists claim flying can be replaced by
    ground simulators. Experience teaches that simulators can be used for
    cockpit procedures training but, by misrepresenting in-air reality,
    they reinforce tactics that could get pilots killed in real combat.

    The Air Force, Lockheed, and their congressional boosters tout the
    F-22 as the silver bullet of air combat. The F-22's so-called stealth
    may hurt more than it helps. In truth, against short wavelength
    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. Believers in stealth's invisibility should
    ask the pilots of the two - not one, as commonly believed - stealthy
    F-117 bombers taken out of action by old Russian radar-directed
    defense systems in the 1999 Kosovo air war. Moreover, a new
    whistleblower scandal is presenting evidence that the F-22's stealth
    skin has failed to meet its stealth requirements because it has been
    badly fabricated and dishonestly tested.


    The vaunted invincibility of the F-22 founders on two incurable flaws:
    First, the plane's so-called "low probability of intercept" radar may
    now be easily detected, thanks to the proliferation of spread spectrum
    technology in cell phones and laptops.
    That creates an environment
    where, if the F-22 pilot turns on his radar, he announces his presence
    over hundreds of miles. Even better for the enemy, the radar makes an
    unmistakable beacon for opposing missiles.

    Second, when combat forces F-22 pilots to turn off radars, they'll
    find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight. Compromised
    by stealth and heavy radar electronics, the plane's agility, short
    range missiles, and guns are nothing special - as one of us observed
    at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 "shot down" an F-22 in
    exercises.


    As for the plane's advertised ability to cruise supersonically the
    F-22's low fuel capacity (27% of takeoff weight, only two thirds of
    what's needed for combat-useful supersonic endurance in enemy
    airspace) reduces this to an air show trick.
    Why the big fuel
    shortfall? To make room for stealth technologies and radar
    electronics.

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Meteor missile

    Post  Austin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:33 pm


    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:41 pm


    matrix seeker is a FPA (focal plane array), or Imaging IR... in other words it is like a CCD chip in a digital camera that is basically a grid of light (or in this case IR) sensitive elements that when light (IR) energy is focused on it creates a 2D image that can be further processed.


    Yes GarryB, this K-74M2 is no other than the operational denomination of izdelie-300 of which we have talked no more than a pair of weeks ago ,do yuou remember ?
    All features correspond perfectly (except capability to intercept incoming AAM ,maybe an effect of its greatly improved aerodynamic qualities).

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:39 am

    1) need to kill the target exoatmospherically, and hope the bits burn up on reentry,

    A lot of effort for little practical gain... any radio active material will remain radioactive after being vapourised, so "burning up" just means converting into a more ingestible form and spreading over a wider area.


    Although it's less capable Saudi makes more sense as a PAC-3 buyer, given that they've already got all of the Patriot infrastructure in place.

    Any Saudi purchase would likely be as a political reward for turning away from Iran, while at the same time diversifying from the west, though the latter makes little sense as the west pays for Saudi purchases by buying oil.

    It's not actually all that difficult to move outside of an active-radar seeker's field of view. At any rate AAMs have never and will never be 100% effective.

    Close in missiles are becoming hittiles, but BVR missiles will lag behind because it is a much more difficult task.


    Now that I think about it, this is what makes sense: the S-300VM, or Antey-2500, dropped the dual designators. Make that the in-service S-300V3. Then you've got the S-300VMD/Antey-2500D, becoming the in-service S-300V4. At least that seems logical at the moment.

    Our friend Carlos has this on the Auspower website:
    Known variants and subtypes include the:

    S-300V1: early production configuration;
    S-300V2: block upgrade with improved ABM acquisition capability using paired optical cable networked 9S19M2 High Screen radars instead of the 9S15M Bill Board;
    S-300V3: block upgrade with extended engagement range missiles, with a claimed doubling of range performance against aerial targets;
    S-300V4: “deep modernisation” with improvements over the S-300V3, providing “1.5 - 2.3 times the capability of earlier variants”, and intended for deployment with Russian Army units in 2011.

    At this time virtually nothing of substance has been disclosed on the configuration of the S-300V4 block upgrade, with many sources simply claiming it to be “classified”.

    The cited doubling of aerodynamic target engagement range would suggest the use of the kinematically improved 9M82M and 9M83M missiles, developed for the S-300VM, and possibly the much improved 9S32M Grill Screen engagement radar, also developed for the S-300VM. It remains to be seen what other portions of the S-300VM/VMK designs will migrate into the S-300V4. The term “deep modernisation” in Russian literature can often mean almost complete replacement of most of a legacy design. It is likely that the S-300V4 upgrade will be designated by NATO as an SA-23 system.

    source:http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html

    [quote]
    The known maximum range in which a hit is achieved in a test for R-37 is 300 km , I really do not know how R-37 differs from the newer R-37M.-/quote]

    Probably smaller lighter more capable electronics and more powerful rocket motor.

    But in one of his book on Mig-31 Yefim Gordon mentions that the 300 km range is for AWACS/JSTARS of target when it comes to intercepting manouvering targets like fighters its range will be practically reduced to 150 km.

    Sounds like opinion rather than actual figures.
    AWACS/JSTARS and B-52 bomber types would be the normal targets for the Mig-31s so that makes the numbers fairly reasonable.

    That simply shows the current BVR (and not restricted to American BVR ) can be avioded by manouvering based on pilots pure instinct or eye ball as his Situational Awarness was not good due to lack of sensors

    The last few seconds of the intercept would result in even the most basic self defence suite telling the pilot that the missile has a lock... and a slow moving target can change direction much more easily than a fast moving target... that is basic physics.

    DAS/MAWS for 360 * coverage to cover passive missile like IR guided/R-73 types or Singer types

    DAS uses IR sensors that detect the heat plume of a missile and would detect the heated nose of a high speed missile no matter what its guidance method.

    then you add to the equation like SP EW suite , Jammers specially modern DRFM types and then finally Chaffs and Flares and finally towed decoys

    And also DIRCMs too.

    Obviously DRDO is some how selling that ABM would do something great and nullify pakistan advantage etc etc .

    Much easier to attack than defend... putting SA-12 or SA-23 near the target to be defended should be pretty effective at defending that target.

    Saudi is a strong US buyer , I really do not know what hopes Rosoboronexport is keeping that saudi will buy S-400/S-300V Very Happy , I think US would simply offer them THAAD if they never did till yet.

    Personally I hope they don't sell either to Saudi Arabia or for that matter Turkey, because I suspect such a sale would result in US intel getting their sticky fingers on them soon after and considering the Russian military are buying both systems they already have enough on their plate.

    If they get lots of export orders to traditional clients then that is OK but expansion of production to meet all the needs of current clients just means potential over capacity in the future...

    Ramjet is preferred choice because for equal range it offers much better NEZ compared to solid fuel missile because of its burn all the way propulsion.

    It offers low weight and low volume. Ramjet is worth having it for BVR missile.

    its a pity that russia having a lead in ramjet propulsion didnt follow through it for what ever reasons.

    You have seen the figures for AMRAAM... and it is not a bad missile.
    The figures for Sparrow and R-27 are much much worse.

    Despite the size of the BVR missiles most of the time (ie peacetime) the fighter has to visually ID the target before getting clearance to fire so really BVR missiles are mainly useful for the extra HE content for larger targets.

    At the end of the day the RVV-SD will never be fired at a target that is 110km away except in desperation... the main advantage of Meteor is that you can fire at targets slightly further away than you can with AMRAAM and still have a reasonable chance for a kill. A kill probability of 0.46 is amazing compared with maybe 0.03 for Sparrow or R-27, of course Sparrow has an enormously long combat record compared with R-27, but they were pretty similar... though R-27T models are a largely unknown quantity in combat.

    Russia could take back the lead if the R-77PD is a scramjet missile.


    Solid fuel offer higher interception altitude beyond much were ramjet is effective , SA-11/SA-17 one of the goal was to intercept Lance type BM , so solid fuel was better due to higher interception altitude.

    SA-11 has no capacity to intercept Lance-2 type ballistic targets, and the ceiling of the SA-17 against a Lance-2 type target is 16km, which is well within ramjet altitudes.

    Typically makes sense , they should follow it up with BVR misile with ramjet propulsion , its good choice for intercepting air breathing targets at medium and low altitude with effective NEZ/Energy management in the end game.

    Agreed, the ramjet would be far superior to any solid fuelled motor at medium to low levels so low altitude launches to chase down a receeding target, or medium range shot where the missile only climbs a little for flight efficiency to the target.

    The important thing however is that the tiny control fins of missiles are efficient at high speed, but much more limited at lower speeds.

    Russia is just playing catch up game here.

    It is a bit like the Hurricane or the Polikarpov I-16. When they first came out they were the new generation and they were mass produced but by the time it came to use them they had been superceeded by planes like the Spitfire and Yak-1 respectively.
    The Russians had the R-73 and it has been good enough.
    The motivation is the PAK FA because the R-73 can't be used from inside a weapons bay... it needs to see its target before it can be launched.

    The K-74 was the replacement from the 1980s, but it was being developed in the Ukraine... the changes of the 1990s with the split up of the SU and of course no money to spend on anything let alone weapons created a gap... ASRAAM was supposed to enter service with AMRAAM, but most of those short range weapons developed in reaction to the R-73 didn't enter proper service till 2000 anyway.

    And R-77-PD makes sense , to have the same missile with ARH/SARH and FPA seeker , they used that with R-27 too , not sure why they didnt follow up with R-77.

    No funding. The Russian AF had a few Mig-29S aircraft that could carry and use R-77s so they bought very few. Most R-77s were exported to China and India.

    Now that newer planes are entering Russian AF service it is very likely they might expand the seeker options of the R-77 and other missiles.

    I think you are speculating on Morfei , I can bet it will be a new missile with much wider role.

    When I said it would replace the R-73, obviously it will also be used in land and ship platforms as a cross service missile.
    It will likely be the replacement for the SA-13 on land, it will likely be mounted on an air droppable vehicle for the VDV, but perhaps the units of the army might make do with Igla-S and later Verba.



    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:07 pm

    Actually beyond the S-300V4 another system whose capability remains unknown is BUK-M3 and it was reported that M3 would be entering service this year or next.

    BTW what is the possibility of a R-37M and modernised Mig-31 intercepting a Mach 3 Brahmos/Yakhont ? The R-37/Mig-31 is described as capable of intercepting target with a maximum speed of Mach 6.

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:A lot of effort for little practical gain... any radio active material will remain radioactive after being vapourised, so "burning up" just means converting into a more ingestible form and spreading over a wider area.

    Well it can be useful for conventional warhead , Gulf war has shown that the interceptor can some time deflect he missile or break it up and the warhead keeps falling down , having a higher interceptor altitude gives it a second chance at it

    Probably smaller lighter more capable electronics and more powerful rocket motor.

    Probably ,right now its any bodys guess.

    Sounds like opinion rather than actual figures.
    AWACS/JSTARS and B-52 bomber types would be the normal targets for the Mig-31s so that makes the numbers fairly reasonable.

    May be but could be an informed opinion , The Mig-31/R-37M can deal with AWACS/JSTARS at its maximum kill range of 280 km , for slow and low flying cruise missile it would be slightly lower ( ~ 250 km ) for supersonic manouvering aircraft it would be around 130 - 140 Km around 40 % of its range.

    The last few seconds of the intercept would result in even the most basic self defence suite telling the pilot that the missile has a lock... and a slow moving target can change direction much more easily than a fast moving target... that is basic physics.

    A fast target can still pull less G and can make the missile bleed energy , i bet the last few seconds would still have to deal with Jamming , Towed Decoys and Chaff at the least.

    DAS uses IR sensors that detect the heat plume of a missile and would detect the heated nose of a high speed missile no matter what its guidance method.

    Agreed my point was a RF seeker would still be detected by ESM besides DAS.

    Much easier to attack than defend... putting SA-12 or SA-23 near the target to be defended should be pretty effective at defending that target.

    Cant keep such things close to the border.


    Despite the size of the BVR missiles most of the time (ie peacetime) the fighter has to visually ID the target before getting clearance to fire so really BVR missiles are mainly useful for the extra HE content for larger targets.

    Long Range IFF is a major problem

    A kill probability of 0.46 is amazing compared with maybe 0.03 for Sparrow or R-27, of course Sparrow has an enormously long combat record compared with R-27, but they were pretty similar... though R-27T models are a largely unknown quantity in combat.

    I wont call 0.46 Pk as amazing because they did not encountered any jamming or manouvering from target basicly the target was not aware in most cases it was under attack.

    Russia could take back the lead if the R-77PD is a scramjet missile.

    If scramjet was that easy it would have been flying by now , it wont be a scramjet for sure but a effecient ramjet.

    SA-11 has no capacity to intercept Lance-2 type ballistic targets, and the ceiling of the SA-17 against a Lance-2 type target is 16km, which is well within ramjet altitudes.

    It can intercept tactical ballistic missile of Lance class , thats one of the goal of SA-11 BTW.

    As to why it intercepts lower when its maximum intercept altitude is 25 Km , the problem is its dealing with a high speed ballistic target flying at Mach 3 and the computation needed to have an effective kill box and the limitation of its radar to do so means it intercepts at lower altitude.

    A lance type target is still a top dog of its interception capability a far more challenging one too.

    When I said it would replace the R-73, obviously it will also be used in land and ship platforms as a cross service missile.
    It will likely be the replacement for the SA-13 on land, it will likely be mounted on


    Lets see Garry no point in speculating right now.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:48 pm

    Regarding scramjet technology they closed down a department working on scramjets in on company. But AFAIK that was to move it and combine it with another company to focus resources and achievements on that technology.

    Now you don't centralise your resources like that for one program, you centralise to make more progress faster so that knowledge gained can be applied to multiple programmes so that the technology doesn't need to be re invented for each application.

    For the same reason they set up an aerodynamics organisation called TSAGI many decades ago to centralise that development.

    They didn't have the only wind tunnels but they did have some of the best and design bureaus could submit models for testing and refinement despite most aircraft design bureaus having their own wind tunnels.

    Scramjets will only become more and more important as technology improves to deal with various problems like cooling components and very high speed flight etc.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:42 am

    GarryB wrote:That is what I mean. The Saudis might have said they will buy the Antei-2500 if you find a reason NOT to sell S-300s to Iran.

    Russia already made excuses for not going through with that. Saudi Antey-2500s would make for good defensive systems around their ballistic missile complexes, though!

    GarryB wrote:He seemed to think a lot of the ABM technology in the S-300V helped in the design of the PAC-3 from memory.

    Sitting here knowing how PAC-3 functions, and paging through a PDF copy of the Russian technical manual for the 9M82 (have the 9M83 as well, this stuff is true Missile Porn!), I don't buy that one. Different guidance concepts entirely, different radar system architecture, different velocities (the 9M82 is ridiculously fast, particularly in its initial acceleration phase), different intercept dynamics, thoroughyl different structures to the engagement footprints...the only thing I can think of is that LockMart used the 9M82 to decide what not to do just to be different. Which would also explain why the PAC-3 ERINT is a singularly unimpressive weapon, even though it's relatively effective all things considered.

    GarryB wrote:The SA-17 also introduces the capability to engage ground targets including ships.

    The Buk-M1 was actually tested against hovercraft at Emba in the early 1980s. Also, during the Oborona-92 exercise, SA-11 (would've been Buk or Buk-M1) batteries did shoot down SCUD targets. Also killed Smerch MLRS targets in the same exercise. I think a lot of the initial issues with trying to employ the SA-11 in those roles was due to the probelmatic 9S18 (TUBE ARM) acquisition radar system, replaced by the 9S18M1 (SNOW DRIFT) later on in the Buk-M1. The deaprture from 9S18 to 9S18M1 is arguably greater than that between the T-10 and T-10S!

    GarryB wrote:I have advertising that lists the SA-11 side by side with the SA-17. For the 9M38M1 (SA-11) they list performance against aerodynamic targets and cruise missiles, but where it says Lance II ballistic targets they have small -'s. For the 9M317 (SA-17) they list range as 20km, max altitude as 16km and max cross range as 14km because of the shape of the trajectory of the target.
    Further under single shot kill probability the SA-11 has no numbers for ballistic targets or HARM type anti radar targets. The figures for SA-17 are 0.5-0.7 for Lance II and 0.6-0.8 for HARM.

    I'm looking at an offical spec sheet for the Buk-M1-2 system, which uses the radars from the Buk-M1. It gives those numbers you list for the 9M317, with the blanks for the 9M38M1. That implies that a Buk-M1-2 battery with the newer missiles can in fact engage TBMs, without having to employ the newer radar systems of the Buk-M2/SA-17.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:10 am

    Russia already made excuses for not going through with that. Saudi Antey-2500s would make for good defensive systems around their ballistic missile complexes, though!

    It is not just your own government that doesn't always tell the whole truth.
    Perhaps a factor was that Iran hasn't really bought much in the way of military product in the past, while Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Israel and Saudi Arabia might look at their products if they decided not to proceed with S-300 contracts signed with the Persians.

    Business is business after all.

    Sitting here knowing how PAC-3 functions, and paging through a PDF copy of the Russian technical manual for the 9M82 (have the 9M83 as well, this stuff is true Missile Porn!), I don't buy that one.

    Perhaps it was an unfounded claim, but the traffic in this regard is mostly with the current in the reverse direction... the Su-27 and Mig-29 are claimed to be amalgams of various F series fighters that preceded them, but the idea that the F-15 might have taken some ideas from the Mig-25 it was designed specifically to out do are never even mentioned in western publications. The Su-27 is a copy of the F-15 and F-18 combined... it couldn't possibly be an independent development furthering work on the Mig-25 layout with LERX added.

    Also, during the Oborona-92 exercise, SA-11 (would've been Buk or Buk-M1) batteries did shoot down SCUD targets.

    It might have the ability to hit ballistic targets... hell Patriot actually hit plenty of modified Scuds... they just got the fusing wrong so it shredded engines and left warheads intact.

    Based on 2004 advertising the SA-11 is not sold as being able to defeat ballistic targets in the LANCE 2 category. The Scud has a range of about 300km which likely makes them an easier target.

    I'm looking at an offical spec sheet for the Buk-M1-2 system, which uses the radars from the Buk-M1. It gives those numbers you list for the 9M317, with the blanks for the 9M38M1. That implies that a Buk-M1-2 battery with the newer missiles can in fact engage TBMs, without having to employ the newer radar systems of the Buk-M2/SA-17.

    Which suggests it is a feature of the missile, perhaps the addition of rocket side thrusters to enable better terminal intercept performance, or more accurate guidance and control, or it could be a fusing issue.

    The data I have suggests the older missile can engage targets travelling at 830m/s while the newer missile can handle targets traveling up to 1,200m/s... perhaps that is the crucial difference...

    A bird in hand is worth something something in the bush , PAC-3 is one of the singular most impressive weapon in history of SAM , in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM.

    In the first gulf war despite CNN and BBC they fired an average of 32 Patriots at each modified Scud, and while many hit very few actually stopped the warheads from hitting the ground. The best they did was deflect them from their path... and because they were so inaccurate that was no always a good thing.

    During the invasion of Iraq the Iraqis didn't fire any ballistic missiles. They did fire a few low flying anti ship missiles which the Patriot failed to stop... so really not that impressive... it was expressly designed to take out ballistic missiles, which are only tricky because of their speed and size and it never really faced the sort of targets it was redesigned to engage.

    So in many ways the first test was unfair as it wasn't designed for the missiles they tried to engage, and in the second it never really faced any of the missiles it was redesigned to defeat.

    BTW how do they come to the conclusion that a Mig-31BM with R-37M can intercept a target travelling at Mach 6 , do they actually do such interception to prove it or its just a theory thing based on known facts ?

    It was likely a design requirement to take on potential mach 6 replacements for the SR-71.

    I know many missile who spec sounds great on paper russian and US system but PAC-3 and Patriot for all its flaws is combat proven system.

    The Russian systems have been shown in live tests during foreign military shows where the SAM battery were given no warning of time or direction of attacks and they were successful.

    I am fairly certain S-300/400 , THAAD or Arrow will have its own set of flaws that wont work as advertised when actual combat comes , we will never know those till it encounters it.

    The difference is that the Russian missiles were designed from the outset to defeat ballistic targets including MLRS (simulated by Smerch) and Lance II (simulated with Scud).

    I mean 32 SRBM during GW-2 ( was it Al-Samoud with 200 km range i think )

    With a range of only 200km most long range SAMs should be able to intercept that as it would not get that high or that fast.

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:40 pm

    Mindstorm , Do we have an article or link for it that have done a good analysis on R-73 and R-77 missile covering its strong and weak areas and comparing with its counterpart ?

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:34 am

    In the book "Russian Air Power New Edition" by Yefim Gordon , he mentions that states the overall share of composites in T-50 structure is stated as atleast 40 % according to VIAM and 25 % by Sukhoi.

    What is the actual composite percentage who is right VIAM or Sukhoi ?
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  max steel on Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:29 pm

    How capable is the Meteor in pulling Gs? Does the ramjet enhance maneuverability significantly in the turn factor? For example the AMRAAM can pull 30 Gs max and probably turns tightest at Mach 3 speed. The AIM-9X Sidewinder can pull 60 Gs etc.US tested Have Dash II was capable of 50G maximum maneuver capability
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:41 am

    jet engines offer the advantage of continuous power to compensate for energy bleeding off in hard turns, but there is always the risk of a flame out.

    Ramjet engines are compromises and have their place, but a scramjet design would make the concept much more attractive as the speed increases dramatically, while the negatives do not...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:08 am