Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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    largely outdated/downgraded aircraft ,firing often at very reduced rangeand from the most favourable geometry a PK of 0,46 .....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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:43 am

    Mindstrom As we talk of RCS figures I wonder how Kh-101 with an RCS of 0.01 m2 and Kh-555 with RCS of 0.1-0.2 m2 will be effective in penetrating NATO/US layered air defence ?

    Here is what yefim gordon mentioned in his book Russian Strategic Aviation.

    The flight testing of the Kh-101 has already been completed. This missile weighs some 2,200 - 2,400 kg , the weight of warhead is 400 kg. According to press reports, the Kh-101 has a maximum range of 5,000-5,500 Km a variable flight profile at altitudes ranging from 30 - 70m to 6000m , a cruising speed of 190-200 m/s and a maximum speed of 250-270m/s. It can well be classed as a low-observable flying vehicle because the radar cross section of the Kh-101 is 0.01 m2. The missile is equipped with an electro-optical system for correcting the flight trajectory and with a TV guidance system for terminal guidance. This ensures the hitting precision with a deviation of some 12- 20m.

    The upgraded Tu-95MS can carry eight Kh-101 missiles on four wing pylons. The same missile will also equip the upgraded Tu-160 which will be able to carry six missiles in each of its two weapons bays total of 12 Kh-101 or 102 missile. The highly accurate guidance system of the Kh-101 and its combined HE/fragmentation/penetrating warhead will enable one modernised Tu-160 to fulfil tasks previously achievable with an entire regiment of bombers. The upgraded version of Tu-22M3 is capable of carrying four Kh-101 missiles or six to eight Kh-SD

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:40 am

    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.

    Why do you have stuck in your head that a target pulling 8 gs is not manouverable?

    Even a fully fuelled Flanker can't pull 8gs, let alone one equipped with a full weapons load.

    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.

    Think of the operational use of the missiles.

    The RVV-BD will not be carried around by Yak-130s or even Mig-29s unless there is a really good reason for that. (ie a mass attack by supersonic cruise missiles might warrant every plane able to carry them to actually carry them... but most of the time R-77 type missiles would be more normal loads.)

    Likely the only aircraft that might regularly carry the BD would be Mig-31s on bomber intercept missions and also therefore Flankers or PAK FAs also on bomber intercept missions. If there is a real conflict and potential the enemy might be using AWACS aircraft they will be more commonly carried but hardly on every weapon pylon.

    The Meteor is rather unlikely to be carried with AMRAAMs... it is more likely to be carried instead of AMRAAMs.

    Here lies its advantage because if on plane has Meteors and the other has AMRAAM or R-77 type weapons the Meteor equipped aircraft can fire first and leave the area, while even if the enemy plane does fire the Meteor will hit first and because of the long range, with a climb and acceleration and minor distance retreat the AMRAAM or R-77 should fall short.

    Firing at targets at 150km distance sounds rather nice on paper, but in reality are you sure the target is a valid target at that range?
    Or is it some learner pilot in a Cessna... or an Airbus?

    Even in all out war, is it an enemy plane or a friendly plane returning from a mission or even a friendly UAV?

    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.

    But that is the point.

    In a small weapon like an AAM there is not a huge difference in real performance for a minor increase in weight.

    Look at the Brahmos for instance... a solid fuelled rocket that carries the same payload the same distance would be much bigger and heavier with a Hi Hi Low trajectory. With a Low Low Low trajectory it would be so big as to be not even worth considering, yet the Moskit in its latest version has a range of 250km which is pretty close.

    If it was air launched however and flew a very high trajectory it would be much better able to match the ramjet powered missile.

    That is what the BD does.

    Still heavier than the Meteor, but its engine will not stall during manouvering... making it a two stage weapon would have made it more efficient too.

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

    Which does not mean an alternative method will not work just as effectively.

    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.

    There is no right tool for the job. There are design choices, which have implications on performance.

    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 ,

    Missiles intercepting targets are not chasers, they are predictors. A missile falling from a great height will not fly directly at a target and "chase it". It will predict its future position based on distance and time and it will fly to that position. A target flying at 400km/h might not actually be able to pull 9gs, yet if it has thrust vectoring it could do a cobra and all of a sudden rapidly decelerate so the missile was aiming in front of the aircraft 100m or so that it would have travelled in the few fractions of a second it would take the missile at mach 5 and the plane at 350km/h to get there, but suddenly the plane has stopped and is now flying backwards at 50km/h so the intercept point has shifted 120m in a fraction of a second... the plane might have pulled 5gs in the manouver but because of the timing the missile can't turn fast enough and blasts past.

    The point is that any missile evading manouver requires prior warning and absolutely split second reflexes... to early and the missile will manouver and hit you anyway... too late... well obvious.

    There will be an element of luck too.

    The point is that even in the best aircraft with the best RHAW suite it is still Russian Roulette with five rounds in the chambers... and one empty.... for either missile.

    but a Meteor will never intercept a AWACS at 180 km because its not a true LRAAM.

    If the Meteor can reach 180km there is no reason why it would not be able to shoot down a large slow unmanouvering aircraft like an E-3 or A-50.
    Especially if launched from high altitude at supersonic speed.

    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.

    You are not paying attention.

    The fact that the ramjet burns fuel all the way to the target means it is an IR target all the way to the target.
    The ramjet will can throttle up to allow manouvering without a loss of speed at any point, but idling all the way is just a method to overcome drag and maintain speed and dual propellent rockets already do that.

    You don't think the RVV-BD is accelerated to mach 6 in 10-15 seconds and then coasts 200km do you?

    Hence Ramjet missile tend to be effecient in energy management through out the entire flight envelop hence better NEZ

    You make it sound like the missile is on a summer holiday and the rocket just goes directly from point a to point b as fast as it can, while a ramjet allows it to stop off for coffee and pies.

    The trip is a rendezvous with a fast mover and there are no stopoffs or detours... there is the occasional course correction but most of the time that might be a turn or 1 to 5 degrees to compensate for the movement of the target while the missile is in flight.
    Having the engine running all the way is no great advantage in terms of energy, except in overcoming drag to maintain speed... as I said... something the Rocket with that sort of range already does too.

    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.

    The C model Phoenix flew to shorter ranges than the RVV-BD and it flew at mach 6, so the RVV-BD probably flys at at least that speed, and perhaps faster. At very high altitude it would maintain that speed relatively efficiently because of the very low air density and the low energy fuel it burns... the advantage is that it covers the distance to the target much faster at such speeds. Most of the excess energy it burns to climb it gets back when it descends, but it would be travelling at mach 4 for high altitude targets and probably about mach 2 by the time it gets to lower altitudes at 200km range because of the air density and the fact that its low energy fuel will have been used up.

    Both Ramjet and Solid fuel are effecient for certain task.

    In this case both methods do get the job done.

    It is a bit like the first jet engines... they were loud and dirty and not very long lasting or particularly powerful... but with work and development they met and exceeded the performance of the piston and other engine types.

    Right now the Meteor exceeds its solid rocket equivalents like the AMRAAM and R-77, but a scramjet powered model will challenge the LRAAMs.

    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.

    Making a solid fuelled rocket is like baking a cake... this cake has two layers that are fixed when they are created.
    This means that no matter the distance to the target or the situation the fast fuel will burn for x amount of time and the slow fuel will burn for y amount of time.

    At high altitude and high speed you will get the max range they talk about... 200km.

    Launch it at 600km/h at 3,000m however and it will not make anywhere near 200km... the Meteor on the other hand will not use all its fuel flying all the way at 3,000m it too will climb to 12,000m or higher and then cruise to the target with its range less reduced than a rockets would... because the high energy fuel burns out fast and if the long range rocket is at low altitude then instead of accelerating it is using this high thrust fuel to climb... it is still more efficient to climb because it increases speed and when it dives it gets most of that energy back.
    The thing is that a rocket has a fixed throttle so it can't keep a high throttle for a little longer to accelerate a bit faster because it was launched from lower, whereas a ramjet can.

    Obviously however that would be an enormous advantage for an AMRAAM or R-77 BVR missile that might be used against targets from 20km and further, and because Meteor is the BVR missile it is an advantage for it.

    For the RVV-BD it is no big deal as it will be used against long range targets only, which means climbing and accelerating to fire will be standard launch procedure.
    For a Meteor however it doesn't have to be and a low level shot would be more common for it and its advantages over an Amraam or R-77 equipped opponent are clear... if the target is at the same height and fires back... it will be well out of range, whereas the Meteor can climb and fly further and faster.

    Both will still climb but will not reach the height or speed of the same missile type launched from higher and faster.

    For the Meteor it can use a high throttle setting for longer so it will burn up more fuel but the higher speed... well think of a car... it is more efficient to push down the accelerator pedal to accelerate to 100km/h on flat road and then lift your foot and let it idle along in a high gear at that speed, than to idle along at 10km/h but not burn that fuel to accelerate to the high speed.

    I think I have mentioned before that the AS-11 or Kh-58 ARM has a range of 120km from a medium altitude launch... the exact same weapon fired from a Mig-25RB at mach 2.5 at 15,000m is more than 250km.

    Keep that in mind when talking about missile ranges... they are idealised for a specific launch situation.

    On a bomber intercept mission the Mig-31 carrying the R-37 will decide on the launch parameters based on the target information... a B-52 that is 100km away could be attacked without climbing and accelerating to top speed... a B-52 180km away would make climbing and accelerating before launch worth while to increase the missiles energy when it gets to the target area.

    No guarantees, but more speed means it reaches the target with a higher average speed (and earlier).

    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.

    Its warhead is something like 90kgs, which is significantly heavier than the warhead of the R-27 which is something like 41-42kgs. The R-27s warhead is rated as lethal to an F-4 sized target from 40m... and it is not directional so the fragments are scattered in an even pattern in all directions.
    Obviously a directed warhead would be even more efficient.

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

    But without being able to see the incoming missile which way do you turn? And more importantly even pulling 12gs are you able to shift your flight path far enough so that the missile can't get anywhere near you?
    Also gs in terms of turning is an interesting definition because an aircraft travelling at 150km/h probably wouldn't be able to pull more than 2-3gs anyway. The faster you travel the less useful pulling a high g turn becomes.
    More importantly without ditching all your weapons and fuel many aircraft can't pull max g.

    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

    The original seeker designer for the R-77 was a Ukrainian company, so for most of the last 20 years that fact plus the fact that very few Russian AF aircraft actually in service could even fire the missile meant they didn't buy very many at all.

    New seekers are now made in Russia and upgraded aircraft are entering service with the ability to carry the R-77, but as they are working on an R-77M they might do to the R-77 family what they did to the R-27 family.

    The R-27 IR guided models had the same IR seeker of the R-73, so with the new I-300 or Morfei missile not yet ready for service, and there being the RVV-SD and the new longer ranged R-77M with a more powerful rocket motor we might have the same setup with the R-27... ie

    R-27T = RVV-SD with Morfei IIR seeker
    R-27R = RVV-SD
    R-27ET = R-77M with Morfei IIR seeker
    R-27ER = R-77M
    R-27P and R-27EP could simply be RVV-SD and R-77M in passive homing mode.
    Obviously R-27AE and R-27EAE would be redundant, as would the special models for use over water by Su-33s and Mig-29Ks, and also the models for older aircraft like the Mig-21-98 and Mig-23-98.

    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.

    In many cases the AMRAAM is used as a heavy Sidewinder that will out range any enemies WVR missiles.

    Even with AWACS support targets dont just pop up and say Hi... I am an enemy. A new target that is squawking the wrong IFF code for the airspace it is in might be lost or might be using the wrong IFF code list... or it could be a bad guy... firing a missile off is an option that can have tragic consequences.
    Normal procedure is to send fighters in for a closer look... not rattle off some long range AAMs.
    In combat you have to be sure the target is what you think it is or the risk to friendly aircraft is enormous.

    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.

    Think of it as the answer to MRAAMs like AMRAAM and R-77/RVV-SD, and it is certainly that.

    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.

    It is a more efficient use of fuel space, but it is not flexible.
    Very simply a rocket of x power at a specific altitude will reach y speed... whether it burns for 5 seconds or 50 seconds.
    The problem is that the high energy fuel burns so fast that you might get 15 seconds worth of high thrust from a full load of high thrust fuel, but low thrust fuel you might get 3 minutes burning. Low thrust fuel on its own is no good, and high thrust fuel on its own is inefficient. In combination you get good acceleration, and a low thrust to maintain the speed achieved for a minute or two... remember a minute or two at Mach 6 covers a lot more ground than twice as long but only travelling at the speed of the launch aircraft.

    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 ?

    Hahahaha... yeah, I remember them saying that just before Desert Storm... then in that conflict they found out how elusive a missile on the back of a truck can be in a country the size of Iraq with no interference from enemy aircraft and no attacks on satellites and other elint assets and while saddam was firing dozens of Scuds a week they didn't hit a single launcher.

    They stopped talking about B-2s swanning around in Soviet airspace picking off topol launchers after that.

    The fact that they can track paint chips thousands of kms up in space suggests to me that B-2s will not be flying high and slow.

    As we talk of RCS figures I wonder how Kh-101 with an RCS of 0.01 m2 and Kh-555 with RCS of 0.1-0.2 m2 will be effective in penetrating NATO/US layered air defence ?

    Surprise is the key... if they don't expect them they will be very effective. If the enemy are alert and ready then a few might get through but some wont.

    The upgraded Tu-95MS can carry eight Kh-101 missiles on four wing pylons. The same missile will also equip the upgraded Tu-160 which will be able to carry six missiles in each of its two weapons bays total of 12 Kh-101 or 102 missile. The highly accurate guidance system of the Kh-101 and its combined HE/fragmentation/penetrating warhead will enable one modernised Tu-160 to fulfil tasks previously achievable with an entire regiment of bombers. The upgraded version of Tu-22M3 is capable of carrying four Kh-101 missiles or six to eight Kh-SD

    Interesting figures.

    The Tu-95MS used to carry 16 Kh-55s, with 10 under the wings on 4 pylons (one triple and one twin under each wing) and 6 in an internal rotary launcher.
    The Kh-101 and Kh-102 are much larger and can only be carried externally... but the 8 it could carry could be in addition to 6 older Kh-55 or Kh-SD missiles internally.
    The huge weapon bays of the Tu-160 mean the Kh-101/2 can be carried internally so that is normal.
    The Backfires numbers are interesting... All these cruise missiles are too big for the Backfire as its internal weapon bay is designed for the Kh-15 (which can be carried in loads of 24 internally in the Tu-160 so it is half the size of the Kh-55), so the Kh-101 and Kh-SD would have to be external loads.

    The Backfire has four external hard points so one Kh-101 on each pylon makes sense. With the Kh-SD the 6-8 missile capacity suggests two missiles under each of the wing pylons and one or two under each of the engine positions where they often carry multiple ejector racks for large numbers of bombs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:08 pm

    Surprise is the key... if they don't expect them they will be very effective. If the enemy are alert and ready then a few might get through but some wont.

    Note I am referring to a conventional attack.

    In WWIII with Tu-160s launching missiles at the US by the time they fly to their launch positions and fire their missiles, and those subsonic missiles make it to the target areas both sides' ICBMs and SLBMs will have wiped out all the main air defences and population centres... no one will notice the cruise missiles till they go pop.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

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

    Some data on Meteor

    http://www.bayern-chemie.com/meteor.htm

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:28 am

    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
    .

    30 km (16 nm is Gulf War ) has been in absolute the most long range BVR ever; wast majority of kill ,in fact,has been executed at ranges inferior to 14 km (pratically almost all those AIM-7 and AIM-120 engagements has been conducted well within engagement of what Soviet considered the engagement envelop of missiles like R-73, a missile at those ranges with much,much greater Pk...).


    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


    1 ) Where you have heard that, on F-16 . net ? Laughing Laughing

    On the net you will read a lot of low level mantra,completely out of line, on those subjects ; at example the usual platitudes you hear on TVC (as the same F-22's pilots well know ,read down) seen as useful only for manoeuvrability in WVR at low speed regime is a TOTAL IDIOCY !!!

    This is an extract from an interview to a famous F-22's pilot : Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz and this in the interested statement :

    www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html


    The F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring.

    Advanced TVC sysyems (and even more 2,5 - 3D TVC) are not only useful for gain a positional energy advantage WVR ,but are are very important for transonic/supersonic regimes of flight's manoeuvrability.
    Moreover supermanoeuvrability, or "hypermanoeuvrability" ,like that in work for PAKFA ,(the latter obviously linked also to implementation of other innovative engineering solutions like all asimmetric mobile aerodynamic surfaces) is foundamental in achieving in a greatly reduced time window the maxiumum structural G limit in high speed turns a feature crucial in missile's avoiding manoeuvres .
    What is ,in fact, almost unknow in public accesible media is that on a strict physical, kinematical point of view (and not taking into account missiles with high hypersonic speed, very big warhead with enormous kill radius and/or almost ballistic fligth trajectories...nothing of which obviously pertain to category of aircraft-equipable AAMs ) pratically no medium range BVR missiles (RVV-AE series included) operative at now worldwide would be capable to intercept a modern very manoeuvrable target (likely even at very reduced ranges ) if this target become AWARE of the vector of inception of the incoming missisle and with the exception of enaggements characterized by some critical geometrical elements.

    Wanting to put the thing in the simpler of the manners i try to explain it so : image a missile who do a turn (starting at a speed equal to its platform,-likely from 360 to 578 knots-) all the area comprised about above and below 5 m from this arc,the degree of wich is inversely proportional to mass and to the square of speed,(this is the motivation for the limited mass and the lower speed of close range missiles) is OUT of this missile engagement envelop.
    In a modern engagement a missile must produce about from 5 to 20 times the G-load of its target to achieve a high probability( 94,6-96,3 %,not counting other involved parameters, cfr: Sterensen or Nordeen books on that )and this load is directely proportional to the energetic state of the flyng object [speed] ; now using only elementary Newtonians models we have who, in order to overtake inertia, a turning flyng object need another component -the centripetal force-, product of the aircraft mass and the acceleration required (V²/r m/s²); this centripetal force required to produce a specific turn is M × V²/r newtons (where r is the turn radius in metres and M is the objects mass in kilograms ).
    From what just now said derive that a missile need to pull a number of G load who are multiple times (square of the ratio of the reciprocal speed)that of the target aircraft (at example if a aircraft go at 0,6 mach and a missile go at 2,5 mach -typical of a WVR missile- this must produce 18,7 times the G load produced by the aircraft in order to follow it for a successful intercept), naturally some naive confront linearly G-limit of a missile and that of a possible "target" aircraft with the resultant of truly comical inferences Laughing Laughing

    With that you will now easily realize as also the element of time window required for reaching,by part of an aircraft,its corner speed or very quickly the required G-charge in a turn, -or the manoeuvrability of this aircraft if you want- become a true game changing capability in missile-avoiding manoeuvres.


    Another interesting point in the interview to Chief Test Pilot Paul Metz is that, (it let deduce very well what is the REAL advantage offered by stealth and that pilots need to know the angle of incidence of opponent's radar to attempt to remain not visible ,exactly as explained by Sprey and Wheeler in theirs articles and ,naturally, as compatible with Physical reality).


    We looked at the cockpit problem from the outside in when we sat down with the avionics engineers. For example, we asked what did the pilot really want to know and at what time did he need to know it. We broke the airspace surrounding the Raptor into spheres or 'globes' where the pilot wanted to know specific things about the enemy and tactics. For example the pilot would like to know when he is flying undetected by the enemy. This area of 'cloaked' operation or the 'engage-avoid' globe allows him to move with impunity in the battle arena. I-see-you-but-you-can't-see-me affords the fighter pilot a certain degree of aggressiveness and tactical positioning prior to using his weapons. It allows him to not only position himself to maximum advantage but he can also vector friendly forces and his own flight members into positions of advantage: something akin to the perfect ambush. Five globes were subsequently defined to give the pilot knowledge about his surroundings, ranging from the engage-avoid globe where the F-22 is invisible to the defensive zone where the enemy can see and hit you with his weapons.

    Stealth ,at least if we talk of the real average figures of RCS for low observable aircraft capitalizable in realistic 3D engagements (0,3-0,5 Sqm of average diffraction area) has mainly an heavy TACTICAL VALUE.
    In particular capability to attack without being seen by your enemy,so often used in low level discussions on the net, is obviously NOT refered to capability to flight directly toward your enemy head on up to missile delivery range and evade without being detected (an instance possible only against aircraft equiped with largely outdated radars and/or OLS-IRTS), but to capability to place yourself,at a tactical level,outside the enemy aircraft radar field of view attacking therefore it from a vector not covered , effectively "blind" .

    Naturally that tactical advantage offered by "stealth" is greatly eroded or even absent in many vs many engagements against data sharing opponents ,even worse if equiped with modern AWACS (even worse if those AWACS operate in L band ...) .
    That is the motivation for which EADS claimed ,last year, that from extended simulation resulted that an OCA group of four EFA-2000 dfending an AWACS, placed in mutually covering geometrical disposition , was capable to defeat 85% of times a group of eight attacking F-35 in air to air configuration

    www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-boasts-typhoon-reign-over-f-35-345265/



    Mindstrom As we talk of RCS figures I wonder how Kh-101 with an RCS of 0.01 m2 and Kh-555 with RCS of 0.1-0.2 m2 will be effective in penetrating NATO/US layered air defence ?

    Here is what yefim gordon mentioned in his book Russian Strategic Aviation.


    Finally you have reached the central point Austin !!

    As even only simple logic suggest (you don't need to read the whole Eugene F. Knott's Cap 14 of Radar handbook ,to realize that Very Happy ) we can say that among all the reradiating surfaces present at world of any shape and with any degree of electromagnetic superficial conductivity, the most low observable ,or "stealth" if you prefere,one is obviously .......a not existent surface !!
    Just for this reason no stealth aircraft will ever be capable to reach ,even by far, the overall level of low X band radar visibility of later cruise missiles, constructed with stealth features; for the simple reason that where in an aircraft are present : aerodynamic surfaces,cockpit, wings, air ducts, landing gears etc..etc...in a "stealth" cruise missile is present.......nothing.
    ...Do you know nothing is very "stealth " Razz Razz

    Is just for this motivation that russians ,talking of the capabilities of the Irbis radar, define its capability to detect at 90 km of range targets with an effective area of diffraction of 0,01 square meters -equal to the most low observable cruise missiles now operative worldwide - as a capability to detect super-low-observable targets and not simply very-low-observable targets ; those missiles in fact show an average area of diffraction more than an order of magnitude lower than the most low observable fighter aircraft (average RCS of 0,01 Square meters against 0,3 - 0,4 square meters).


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:04 am

    Thanks Mindstorm for replying in great details and explaining , appreciate it.

    Couple of related questions and you views on this.

    1 ) So 0.1-0.2 m2 RCS of Kh-555 and 0.01 m2 for Kh-101 is the average RCS of these cruise missile ?

    Since Shape impacts the way RCS is affected by different band ( X,L,S etc ) , I see Kh-55 ,555 has more or less cylindrical ( Kh-555 has jetisable fuel extension ) and Kh-101 has some shaping , but it is fair to say RCS for cruise missile is only X band specific ?

    2 ) Is it true the Sheez Size and Shape of B-2 makes its very low RCS across All Bands including VHF and More or Less B-2 remains undetectable by all known radars ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:05 am

    2 ) Is it true the Sheez Size and Shape of B-2 makes its very low RCS across All Bands including VHF and More or Less B-2 remains undetectable by all known radars ?

    Nothing is undetectable.
    In visible wavelengths it is easily detectible, and in IR it is apparently quite detectable too.

    Very simply one of the problems of detecting a B-2 with the RCS of an insect disappears if it flys high and fast... flying low there would be many real insects so looking for insects amongst them would be hard... of course I doubt there would be many in the north pole there are plenty of sandflys and mosquitos in summer in Siberia.

    The point is that the B-2 will be flying at medium heights at high subsonic speeds that no insect could even come close to.

    This means if you spot an insect approaching Russian territory at 800km/h at 13,000m then it is probably a B-2.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:58 pm

    1 ) So 0.1-0.2 m2 RCS of Kh-555 and 0.01 m2 for Kh-101 is the average RCS of these cruise missile ?


    Yes, average RCS ,in the X band, for airborne long range look down radars, naturally ; for a simple question of inception ,for a ground based optimized low altitude radar those missiles would show a significantly higher RCS , but is also true that the tracking range of those type of low altitude AD radars is generally limited to some dozen of Km.



    Since Shape impacts the way RCS is affected by different band ( X,L,S etc ) , I see Kh-55 ,555 has more or less cylindrical ( Kh-555 has jetisable fuel extension ) and Kh-101 has some shaping , but it is fair to say RCS for cruise missile is only X band specific ?

    Yes absolutely ,in other radar bands (even only L band) theirs effective RCS would be more than an order of magnitude greater.


    2 ) Is it true the Sheez Size and Shape of B-2 makes its very low RCS across All Bands including VHF and More or Less B-2 remains undetectable by all known radars ?

    Is true that size of B2 contribute to degrade, up to a point, the degradation of shaping/RAM stealth features experienced by smaller LO/VLO aircraft against VHF radars ,but its "low observability" would be still extremely compromised ,in particualr against the last generation of russian high end VHF AESA radars and even more against AESA integrated multispectral ones with enormous tracking range ,like the new, monstrous ,55Zh6ME radar .

    Russians believe to have "resolved" the problem of low observable intruders long time ago ; it is not a case that, talking of the strategical level of airspace defence problem , procurement plans foresee a very robiust mass production of S-400 and S-300V4 , while all the R&D efforts are already all concentrated and projected (with S-500 and the S-1000 project ...designation still uncertain) for assure to neutralization of the new generation of offensive menaces : platforms/weapons attacking from low level orbital pacts at high hypersonic speed.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:15 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Yes, average RCS ,in the X band, for airborne long range look down radars, naturally ; for a simple question of inception ,for a ground based optimized low altitude radar those missiles would show a significantly higher RCS , but is also true that the tracking range of those type of low altitude AD radars is generally limited to some dozen of Km.

    When you say ground based low altitude radar you would mean the Ka band types ?

    So tell me one thing the F-22,PAK-FA 0.3-0.2 m2 RCS is band specific like X-band , or do they cover L , S ,C ,E/F and other bands as well ? Both Aircraft do have shape that effective against broad band.

    I am fairly certain the VHF band will have little to no effect with the stealth of F-22 or PAK-FA.

    My understanding is RAM contributes to significant reduction of RCS and the RAM used on current stealth and non-stealth aircraft reduces X band visibility.



    Yes absolutely ,in other radar bands (even only L band) theirs effective RCS would be more than an order of magnitude greater.

    Thats true , but if you see Kh-101 closely what every has been released you will notice they have some sharp shapes , probably this missile is effective beyond X band due to use of Shaping ?

    The Kh-555/55 dont seem to have any shaping , so it gets its low RCS by virtue of its small size and application of RAM.


    2particualr against the last generation of russian high end VHF AESA radars and even more against AESA integrated multispectral ones with enormous tracking range ,like the new, monstrous ,55Zh6ME radar .

    The Nebo-M AESA VHF radar seems to use AESA for only Height Finding.

    Multispectral Radar means exactly what can you please clarify any details on 55Zh6ME ?

    Russians believe to have "resolved" the problem of low observable intruders long time ago ; it is not a case that, talking of the strategical level of airspace defence problem , procurement plans foresee a very robiust mass production of S-400 and S-300V4 , while all the R&D efforts are already all concentrated and projected (with S-500 and the S-1000 project ...designation still uncertain) for assure to neutralization of the new generation of offensive menaces : platforms/weapons attacking from low level orbital pacts at high hypersonic speed.

    Never heard of S-1000 project what it is ? The S-300V4 specs still remains classified and they arnt telling yet ,my bet would be its similar to Anetey-2500.

    Thanks for all your reply its a learning experience Smile

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:37 pm



    My understanding is RAM contributes to significant reduction of RCS and the RAM used on current stealth and non-stealth aircraft reduces X band visibility.


    Sorry Austin but your understanding is not correct ,RAM in a low observable platform represent by far the less influencing factor .
    At example talking of very narrow frontal head-on angle ,we can say that with shaping you can achieve RCS reduction in X band almost equal to about three orders of magnitude instead with RAM at maximum a reduction of a bit more than one order of magnitude , clear the difference of which we talk here ?


    Exist a famous phrase of David Overholser which speak volumes about that :

    " To reduce radar crossing reduction of an aircrfat exist four main laws : the first is surely shaping, the second instead is.... shaping , the third one ,instead ,must be considered ...shaping ,and the fourth radar absorbing materials ."



    So tell me one thing the F-22,PAK-FA 0.3-0.2 m2 RCS is band specific like X-band , or do they cover L , S ,C ,E/F and other bands as well ? Both Aircraft do have shape that effective against broad band.

    I am fairly certain the VHF band will have little to no effect with the stealth of F-22 or PAK-FA.


    Those figures represent the effective AVERAGE tactically exploitable RCS figures for those aircrfat in X/S band (taking into account a "critical", very narrow, head-on angle irradiation also Alexander Davidenko could have declared dramatic (but naturally completely worthless...) figures in the -40 dBSM order ,but you know between the two is not Russia the nation of marketing, Hollywood and wrestling...

    Making assumptions on degree of radar band coverage of PAKFA's low observability at today is not serious , what we know is that the requirement is a level of "stealth" in the region of F-22 (or just slightly lower ) without compromise combat range, hypermanoeuvrability a low /transonic and supersonic speed ,capability to employ a much more powerful and variegated panoply of weapon systems ,and integration of a full spherical very advanced sensor suit and DAS (i image that you is aware that ,at example, the sphere already present behind the cockpit is an experimental DIRCM covering rear emisphere ).

    My idea is that ,except with the integration of some innovative feature the technology of which is still not sufficiently mastered ,the first PAKFA operationalized will shopw a "stealth" mostly optimized for X/S band ,with the usual gradual degradation of its capabilities at the increase of the radar beams wave's lenght.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:21 am

    The S-300V4 specs still remains classified and they arnt telling yet ,my bet would be its similar to Anetey-2500.

    Why do you think that?

    S-300V was the base system and S-300V2 is therefore S-300VM, which is also known as Antei-2500.

    Do you think S-300V3 and S-300V4 had no changes or improvements?

    Is there a difference in performance between Su-300P and S-300PMU2?

    Not suggesting S-300V4 is better than S-500, but it will be better than S-300VM.

    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 Nov 08, 2011 4:55 am

    Austin wrote:[Never heard of S-1000 project what it is ?

    S-1000 was a 1980s project to develop a long-range counter-ISR SAM system. It's design role likely got abosrbed by the S-400 and the S-500.

    GarryB wrote:S-300V was the base system and S-300V2 is therefore S-300VM, which is also known as Antei-2500.

    Not exactly. S-300V is a base family designator like S-300P. There is no S-300V system, just like there is no S-300P system. The S-300V1 and S-300V2 are the SA-12A GlADIATOR SAM and SA-12B GIANT ATBM systems. These became the S-300VM1 and S-300VM2 as the S-300VM/Antey-2500, or the S-300VMD as the Antey-2500D. S-300V4 likely represents further enhanced systems produced by incorporating Antey-2500 and other improvements.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:21 am

    Wouldn't that therefore mean that they are adopting the S-300V4 and S-300V5 systems into service?

    The A and B are the two different sized missiles that basically served together.

    S-300V4 likely represents further enhanced systems produced by incorporating Antey-2500 and other improvements.

    But wasn't the Antei-2500 just an upgrade of both the existing S-300V missiles, so wouldn't you base the next upgrade on the Antei-2500 rather than base it on the earlier S-330V1 and 2 and apply the upgrades of the Antei-2500 and new upgrades?

    BTW I knew that the S-300V and S-300P were family names, though I didn't realise they gave different numbers to the two missiles that operate together as one system.

    Regarding the new upgrade, well incremental increases in performance are certainly likely, like extending the range to 250km, and perhaps the ballistic target range beyond 40km.
    Another possibility is that they might try to make the missiles smaller and lighter.

    The S-300V series is aimed at the Army mainly with all tracked vehicles able to move with army units.

    Perhaps S-300V4 is a lighter cheaper version that has been selected over the S-400 for the time being.

    The focus of the S-300Vx is defence from ballistic threats with the ability to deal with a range of other threats like cruise missiles and guided weapons like bombs etc.
    S-400 is able to deal with those and the launch platforms too.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:38 am

    Antey 2500 performance is still quite great even by todays standard and will remain competitive for more than a decade , there are few missile on drawing board or operational that can boast of A-2500 performance.

    So even if S-300V4 reaches what Antey 2500 was suppose to be it wont be a small achievement.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:05 pm

    So even if S-300V4 reaches what Antey 2500 was suppose to be it wont be a small achievement.

    ????

    The original S-300V missiles have been in service for decades and in the 1990s the Russians sold parts of the S-300V system to the Americans... and they used the money to upgrade the system to S-300VM... in other words what we call the Antei-2500.

    Now assuming they have had a bit more funding and further upgraded the system to V4, do you think they would be upgrading the bog standard old system as a base, or would they base their new upgrade on the latest upgrade they had available.

    What I am trying to say is that unless there was a serious flaw in the Antei-2500 wouldn't they base future versions on it rather than the original model?

    And if that is the case that the V4 is an upgraded 2500 then shouldn't it improve on the 2500 in one or two ways?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:10 pm

    No Antey 2500 was an improved variant of S-300VM , it had the ability to intercept a IRBM class missile with a range of 2,500 km.

    It is not certain yet if an actual prototype was built but it was certainly dangled for export but it didnt meet much success yet.

    I read though Venezeula is buying the Antey 2500 system and its currently being built.

    Its a lot of speculation on S-300V4 unless they come up with concrete details.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:33 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:My idea is that ,except with the integration of some innovative feature the technology of which is still not sufficiently mastered ,the first PAKFA operationalized will shopw a "stealth" mostly optimized for X/S band ,with the usual gradual degradation of its capabilities at the increase of the radar beams wave's lenght.

    Yes I am aware of the DIRCM system on top , hopefull they make it to Su-35S.

    If what you say is true and F-22 and PAK-FA is optimised for X/S band stealth , then why is the case that USAF calls F-22 Stealth as All Aspect and F-35 does not seem to be reffered as All Aspect Stealth aircraft ?

    PAK-FA in its current form seem to have stealth on its Frontal and Side but not Rear or under Belly if you have read Carlo Kopp Article on PAK-FA.

    I bet the PAK-FA average stealth is at a lower level compared to F-22 and only when the 2nd Gen Engine Comes and when it gets Flat Nozzle will it come very close to F-22 stealth.

    Why to you refer to export model of RVV-SD and RVV-MD being different that Russian Airforce one , is there any evidence to suggest that Russian Airforce weapons are better or export model is downgraded any way ?

    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 Nov 08, 2011 4:02 pm

    Austin wrote:No Antey 2500 was an improved variant of S-300VM , it had the ability to intercept a IRBM class missile with a range of 2,500 km.

    It is not certain yet if an actual prototype was built but it was certainly dangled for export but it didnt meet much success yet.

    I read though Venezeula is buying the Antey 2500 system and its currently being built.

    Its a lot of speculation on S-300V4 unless they come up with concrete details.

    What. Antey-2500 is the export model of the S-300VM. Antey-2500D is the improved model.

    Yeah, Venezuela bought the system...which is hilarious. Where's their ATBM threat? Given that I think the S-300V is actually more expensive than the S-300P series per battery, Chavez got taken. The S-300PMU-2 or S-400 would have been far more rational purchases given the threat environment.

    GarryB wrote:But wasn't the Antei-2500 just an upgrade of both the existing S-300V missiles

    Not just missiles, the GRILL PAN radar also received a new array modeled after the HIGH SCREEN array to significantly boost performance in azimuth and altitude. S-300VM/Antey-2500 was a relatively serious upgrade, making it all the more interesting that the S-300V4 will likely enjoy further enhanced performance.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:15 pm

    Some update on PAK-FA A2A missile from yefim gordon new book , Russian Airpower New Edition.

    Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

    A shortrange of this weapon designated K-77M derivative of R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.

    For close range engagement T-50 may use K-74M2 short range AAM , the missile has a matrix IR seeker head capable of discerning real targets from decoy and having twice the lock on range of R-73 AAM.

    The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:21 pm

    What. Antey-2500 is the export model of the S-300VM. Antey-2500D is the improved model.

    So the D model is the S-300V4?

    Not just missiles, the GRILL PAN radar also received a new array modeled after the HIGH SCREEN array to significantly boost performance in azimuth and altitude. S-300VM/Antey-2500 was a relatively serious upgrade, making it all the more interesting that the S-300V4 will likely enjoy further enhanced performance.

    So because there are two missile types, each needing a different designation to distinguish them, the original system could be called S-300VA and S-300VB, while the Antei-2500 upgrade of the system would have the export designation of Antei-2500A/B, but likely the domestic designation of S-300VMA and S-300VMB, and this new further upgraded of the system (S-300V4) the missiles would be designated S-300VMC and S-300VMD...

    The trend these days seems to be unification of systems where practical... I wonder if they will adopt a policy of sharing radars and sensors across the S-300VM, S-400, and S-500 batteries... no point in having 3 different unrelated radars and support vehicle designs if they could be made the same in larger numbers.

    For close range engagement T-50 may use K-74M2 short range AAM , the missile has a matrix IR seeker head capable of discerning real targets from decoy and having twice the lock on range of R-73 AAM.

    A 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.

    In fact an onboard database of 3D images of targets can be used and the weapon could be launched towards a group of targets and it can analyse its 2D view of the target and compare it with the 3D images it has to autonomously identify a priority target on its own... for instance if you fired it at an F-22 but on its way it detects an AMRAAM coming the other way it could be set to change targets to the AMRAAM instead as that is the greater threat. A two way datalink with the missile would allow it to send its view to the pilot and he could decide...

    In this case K-74M2 is Morfei.

    Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

    Which suggests their medium range missiles will go from about 40km out to 250km, and will likely include an AMRAAM and Meteor type equivalent. Their LRAAMs will obviously exceed 250km in range. The RVV-BD therefore becomes a medium range weapon by their designation, though it is a LRAAM for its export customers.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:27 pm

    Austin wrote:Some update on PAK-FA A2A missile from yefim gordon new book , Russian Airpower New Edition.

    Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

    A shortrange of this weapon designated K-77M derivative of R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.

    For close range engagement T-50 may use K-74M2 short range AAM , the missile has a matrix IR seeker head capable of discerning real targets from decoy and having twice the lock on range of R-73 AAM.

    The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM





    Gret news Austin, very thanks !!

    I too have ordered the book, but have still not received it (i hope only that it will not arrive within two weeks when work will absorb me completely for a while...).



    The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM

    If that information will reveal itself true and with reasonably good Pk , this weapon will become quickly very,very VERY popular in Russian Air Force Laughing Laughing , it would be one of those game changer capabilities


    Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

    Like GarryB has noted this ramjet propeled weapon,if completed and introduced in service, will almost blend the boundaries between medium range and long range AAMs and with all the advantages now offered by Meteor ....simply fearful !!
    I think that ,likely, the domestic version of RVV-BD ,with ranges ostensibly between 300-350 km (a derivative of the R-37M now operative with Mig-31BM ), will no become a common weapon mounted on SU PAKFA/ HAL FGFA except for extreme missions , infact "izdelie 180-PD" will be capable to carry out almost any operational task of medium-long range missiles but much more efficiently.

    R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.


    The seeker of this missile is very interesting probably ,this seeker from Agat showed last year







    It will likely become a true "must" also for new generation of ground and ,even more, naval based SAM systems .

    Capability to home on seeker source ,moreover, allude propably to capability to intercept enemy AAM when their radar become active ....seem that between this izdelie 180 and K-74M2 has been opened a new front foreseeing active war against enemy AAM !!
    A very, very interesting development.


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    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).


    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 Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:32 am

    GarryB wrote:So the D model is the S-300V4?

    I'm not sure, but I don't think so. The Antey-2500D is an improved export model, and it looks like it pre-dates the S-300V4.

    GarryB wrote:So because there are two missile types, each needing a different designation to distinguish them, the original system could be called S-300VA and S-300VB, while the Antei-2500 upgrade of the system would have the export designation of Antei-2500A/B, but likely the domestic designation of S-300VMA and S-300VMB, and this new further upgraded of the system (S-300V4) the missiles would be designated S-300VMC and S-300VMD...

    The V1 appeared first, followed by the V2 battery with the HIGH SCREEN sector-scanning ATBM radar. Beyond that, I haven't quite figured everything out. Which is irritating, because other than the designators I have enough info to write the same kind of history for the S-300V that I did for the S-300P. I think that the S-300VM (S-300V3?), which is the native Antey-2500, is now treated as an all-in-one system, hence the VM designator rather than simply V3.

    GarryB wrote:The trend these days seems to be unification of systems where practical... I wonder if they will adopt a policy of sharing radars and sensors across the S-300VM, S-400, and S-500 batteries... no point in having 3 different unrelated radars and support vehicle designs if they could be made the same in larger numbers.

    EW sensors, probably. Engagement radars, probably not. It does look like the components for various new systems will exploit the chassis designs from the S-400 system.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:57 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:57 pm