Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:14 am

    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.

    I would think the R-37M would mainly be carried by Mig-31s, but certainly if the target warrants it the Su-35s have the radar and pylons to carry the weapon if needed.

    Of course it would need to be likely that an engagement with an AWACS or JSTARs like target was possible to justify the 600kg R-37M under a wing pylon.

    For the PAK FA however it really depends on the size of the new ramjet powered R-77PD because if they can carry only 4 PDs or 4 R-37Ms then most of the time it would probably make more sense to go with the extra reach... there is no extra drag and only minor increase in weight. (well 4 x 600kgs = 2.4 tons while a ramjet powered R-77M will likely be 350-450kg so 1.4 tons to 1.8 tons)

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

    I seem to remember a 25-30km lock on range for the active radar component and a 200km range for the passive radar component.

    So it becomes a combined AAM and ARM and potentially anti ARH missile missile.

    All features correspond perfectly (except capability to intercept incoming AAM ,maybe an effect of its greatly improved aerodynamic qualities).

    Which means the naval version of it could be used as a CIWS missile like Sea Ram.

    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.

    Is Antei-2500D a system designation or a missile designation?

    If it is a missile designation then surely it is Antei-2500C/D, with Antei-2500A/B being the original.

    Plus doesn't this make me right in the first place... the original two missile system could be called S-300V1, and the Antei-2500 is S-300V2, and this D model upgrade of the Antei-2500 becomes the S-300V3 and the new model for Russian service is S-300V3.

    The Antei-2500 was always an export designation to avoid confusion with the S-300 system... the fact that the US indirectly paid for it is not important as it was a domestic and export product. The further development (D) and the current model (V4) are simply further incremental improvements of what is basically the same system.

    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.

    I think the problem is distinguishing the major upgrades from the minor upgrades.




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:52 am

    What Yefim Gordon confirms is that the RVV-PD and R-77M program is alive.

    I think it would be waste of resources to shut off a ramjet program after having done the groundwork and displayed in early 90's , probably the newer one will take advantage of more modern solid fuel and seeker.

    The K-74M program is very interesting , its agile and sensitive enough to hit a AAM would mean to me that it would be used as a primary weapon against BVR missile , for WVR weapon depending on the engagement zone it would have too short a time to intercept it but BVR missile most likely.

    If K-74M even ends up having a range of R-73 i.e. ~30 km then the anti-missile missile is possible , with two way datalink a LOAL is on the cards as well.

    I wonder what kind of AAM are under development we will have to wait and see.

    Mindstorm the new book Russian Airpower New Edition is a much better book then the older one and has good details on every major program and upgrade with excellent photograph , certainly its worth having it.

    The new book does not mention more information on PAK-DA , perhaps the agency would have told him to not revel more , he has given good details on PAK-DA in his book Russian Strategic Aviation as too what are the requirements.

    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 3:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:Is Antei-2500D a system designation or a missile designation?

    System designation. The D likely indicates increased range, like the D in 48N6D. But that's just an educated guess.

    GarryB wrote:If it is a missile designation then surely it is Antei-2500C/D, with Antei-2500A/B being the original.

    Antey-2500 is the export variant of the S-300VM.

    GarryB wrote:Plus doesn't this make me right in the first place... the original two missile system could be called S-300V1, and the Antei-2500 is S-300V2, and this D model upgrade of the Antei-2500 becomes the S-300V3 and the new model for Russian service is S-300V3.

    It would, but S-300V1 and S-300V2 are known and verified designators corresponding to what the West refers to as the SA-12A and SA-12B.

    GarryB wrote:The Antei-2500 was always an export designation to avoid confusion with the S-300 system... the fact that the US indirectly paid for it is not important as it was a domestic and export product. The further development (D) and the current model (V4) are simply further incremental improvements of what is basically the same system.

    I think the problem is distinguishing the major upgrades from the minor upgrades. [/quote]

    The major upgrade at this point appears to be the S-300VM/Antey-2500. That introduced a new engagement radar array and a much larger engagement range across the board.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:54 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    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 )

    The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.

    The K-37 ( R-37 ) uses inertial midcourse guidance with radio command correction switching to semi-active or active guidance homing during terminal phase.

    The R-33S now has active radar homing with a kill range of 160 km , and kill probability against target pulling 4G is described as 60-80 %.

    Another interesting thing described for modernised Mig-31BM is that it allows support of exotic combat scenario , like attack targets with other fighter missile , i.e take over guidance of AAM launched by other fighters without switching on their radars.

    The Mig-31BM can track 24 targets and can attack 6 priority targets with long range R-37M missile . the maximum target detection range of radar is 240Km , has pictures of cockpit of modernised Mig-31BM

    The R-37 missile is designed to be dynamically unstable and boast of enhanced agility

    It seems in April 1994 the K-37 achieved a "world first" by destroying an aerial target at more than 300 km during a test launch Shocked

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:21 pm

    SOC wrote:Antey-2500 is the export variant of the S-300VM.

    SOC , exactly how the export Antey-2500 model differ from local S-300VM are they downgraded or something ?

    I remember Antey-2500 was demonstrated to India for its ABM program but the Indians were not impressed with the low altitude of BM interception i.e. 30 km , the DRDO chief said that even if the interception occured at that altitude the debris would fall on Indian land mass.

    Regarding Antey-2500 export ,it was not Venezuela my mistake , according to Almay-Antey 2009 report the Anetey-2500 along with S-400 is being proposed/advertised to be exported to Saudi , though i doubt Saudi will ever buy either.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:00 pm

    Makes an interesting read

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

    pg 83

    Note: In addition to kills listed above, on 24 March 1999 an F-16AM of the Dutch Air Force damaged a Serb MiG-29 with a single AIM-120A. Also on 24 March another Serb MiG-29 was engaged by 2 or more US fighters and successfully evaded 3 AIM-120Cs.

    U.S. has recorded ten AIM-120 kills

    Four not Beyond Visual Range

    Fired 13 missiles to achieve 6 BVR kills Pk = 0.46*

    Iraqi MiGs were fleeing and non-maneuvering

    Serb J-21 had no radar or Electronic Countermeasures (ECM)

    US Army UH-60 not expecting attack; no radar or ECM

    Serb MiG-29 FULCRUMS had inoperative radars

    No reports of ECM use by any victim

    No victim had comparable BVR weapon

    Fights involved numerical parity or US numerical superiority

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:08 am

    The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.


    It refer probably to the maximum range at which, in tests, it achieved an hit ; that has nothing to do with the maximum engagement range of the same missile.




    Makes an interesting read

    Yes this was one of the two studies at which i had made reference.

    Note: The way in which it is expressed can be misleading, the total number of Aim-120 shooted has been 17 (it is specified very well at pag 20 (17 shoot for 10 kills for a Pk of 0,59 , if instead we subtract the 4 missiles employed well WVR , we obtain a Pk of 0,46 - 6 downing for 13 missiles employed - at BVR).

    Even more interesting is that this publication don't take into account the two Mig-25 avoiding 2 AIM-120A in 6 January 1999 over the Souther "no fly zone" (the two 2 MIG-25s in question always the 6 January 1999 avoided also 3 Sparrows from 2 F-15C and 2 Phoenix from 2 F-14s !!! )

    Is important to note that NONE of the aircraft ever downed by AMRAAM - all very old specimen ,often also horribly export downgraded versions ,with radar out of work for embargo or for jamming and outnubered 17:1 by enemies equiped with theirs most advanced fighters and with AWACS- have ever manoeuvered to avoid the incoming missiles except the normal manoeuvres during flight pact ,neither was even only aware to be under missile attack Very Happy Very Happy , (is important to note that ,to the contrary ,anytime a similar aircraft was aware of an attack and attempted any type of avoiding measures BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically , all of that without any involvement of any ECM system !!


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:38 am

    What Yefim Gordon confirms is that the RVV-PD and R-77M program is alive.

    Well they cancelled the T-95 because of what they described publicly "obsolete" technology.

    The question becomes is ramjet state of the art because Meteor uses it, or will they decide that it is worth the effort and money to go for a scramjet design?

    A scramjet design, while more complex and needing greater precision in the hot section has the same drawbacks as a ramjet (ie requires volume and solid rocket booster), and also its advantages (lighter and the ability to restart the motor), but it would also have a speed advantage over any rocket... and high speed reduces engagement times which is critical in BVR combat.

    I think it would be waste of resources to shut off a ramjet program after having done the groundwork and displayed in early 90's , probably the newer one will take advantage of more modern solid fuel and seeker.

    I would think the improvements in technology and materials, and the transfer of "ramjet" design efforts to "scramjet" design efforts... if we look at the ramjet designs in Russia... the SA-6 was replaced by the SA-11, then the SA-17 and now a vertical launch model based on the naval VLS variant... they are all solid fuelled rockets.
    The two remaining fields where ramjet missiles are used are the ARM in the form of the Kh-31 and the Anti ship missile in the form of the Kh-31 and Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos.

    The future directions for the Kh-31 is enlargement to increase range, and in the Oniks/Y/B is scramjet propulsion to increase speed.

    Now if the R-77PD is for internal carriage in a PAK FA then increasing its bulk to add fuel to extend range will be difficult.
    To change from a ramjet to a scramjet will be difficult and expensive, but the result will be a far better BVR missile.

    The K-74M program is very interesting , its agile and sensitive enough to hit a AAM would mean to me that it would be used as a primary weapon against BVR missile , for WVR weapon depending on the engagement zone it would have too short a time to intercept it but BVR missile most likely.

    Keep in mind they are talking about the K-74M2, which is no where near service.
    The K-74M will likely be revealed in the next 2-3 years as the base model Morfei.
    If it can be used as an anti AMRAAM/AIM-9X missile then you would want it to be as small as possible so you could carry more than the enemy currently carries AAMs.

    If you have 8 R-74M2s in your weapon bay and the target F-35 has 4 AMRAAMs, then he will be down to guns and you will be a missile armed fighter... also with guns.

    More important it means that an Su-35S could operate in the vicinity of stealth aircraft as being a thrust vector capable missile with a datalink it should have 360 degree interception capability and of course the Su-35S should be able to carry plenty while its wing mounted array scans for datalink signals from the launch aircraft to the missiles they fire.

    If K-74M even ends up having a range of R-73 i.e. ~30 km then the anti-missile missile is possible , with two way datalink a LOAL is on the cards as well.

    Note it says twice the lock on range of the R-73... it is talking about seeker performance, not flight range.

    To extend flight range simply put the seeker on an R-77M...

    I wonder what kind of AAM are under development we will have to wait and see.

    They have pretty much outlined them as the K-74 to replace the R-73 at short range, R-77M with a more powerful rocket motor to replace the R-77, and R-77PD as a new missile between the R-77 and R-33 class weapons, and of course the R-37M to replace the R-33.

    The next missiles are likely to be fully optimised for internal carriage and will likely not be revealed till the PAK FA is ready for service.

    Antey-2500 is the export variant of the S-300VM.

    So the domestic and export missiles could be distinguished as S-300VMA and S-300VMB, and Antei-2500A and Antei-2500B respectively?

    It would, but S-300V1 and S-300V2 are known and verified designators corresponding to what the West refers to as the SA-12A and SA-12B.

    Known and verified Russian designators?
    Perhaps the problem therefore is that export models are not included in their designation system?
    They have stated they are introducing S-300V4 into service, now I doubt they mean they are just introducing one missile type.

    Equally if they were then it doesn't make sense to introduce the V4 as because there are two it would be logical for a new system to either be V3(and 4) or V5 (and 6).

    The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.

    That is likely based on that test in the 1990s where the missile flew 300km to hit a target. Clearly they have taken 280km as a conservative figure based on that test result.

    the DRDO chief said that even if the interception occured at that altitude the debris would fall on Indian land mass.

    Unless it hits something in orbit (that therefore stays in orbit) it doesn't matter what height the target is hit... it will always land debris around the target area... the higher the hit the more widely scattered the debris will be.

    neither was even only aware to be under missile attack Very Happy Very Happy , (is important to note that ,to the contrary ,anytime a similar aircraft was aware of an attack and attempted any type of avoiding measures BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically , all of that without any involvement of any ECM system !!

    Air combat 101... it is the attack you don't see coming that is the most likely to kill you.

    Imagine it to be a sniper attack... the further away the target the more likely you are to miss if the target is moving... except for most sniper attacks the bullet flight in in the order of 3-5 seconds, whereas BVR missiles can spend minutes getting to their distant targets.

    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 Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:29 am

    Austin wrote:SOC , exactly how the export Antey-2500 model differ from local S-300VM are they downgraded or something ?

    Not that I know of. The Antey-2500 appears to have the same specifications and systems as the S-300VM.

    Austin wrote:I remember Antey-2500 was demonstrated to India for its ABM program but the Indians were not impressed with the low altitude of BM interception i.e. 30 km , the DRDO chief said that even if the interception occured at that altitude the debris would fall on Indian land mass.

    That's because it's still a relatively short-ranged ATBM system. To reduce the debris falling on you you're going to either 1) need to kill the target exoatmospherically, and hope the bits burn up on reentry, or 2) use either a very long-range or forward-deployed system to kill Pakistani missiles shortly after launch.

    Austin wrote:Regarding Antey-2500 export ,it was not Venezuela my mistake , according to Almay-Antey 2009 report the Anetey-2500 along with S-400 is being proposed/advertised to be exported to Saudi , though i doubt Saudi will ever buy either.

    I've heard Venezuela before, it's not a mistake. 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.

    Mindstorm wrote:BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically

    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.

    GarryB wrote:Known and verified Russian designators?
    Perhaps the problem therefore is that export models are not included in their designation system?
    They have stated they are introducing S-300V4 into service, now I doubt they mean they are just introducing one missile type.

    Equally if they were then it doesn't make sense to introduce the V4 as because there are two it would be logical for a new system to either be V3(and 4) or V5 (and 6).

    Those are the native designators for the system, yes. Export models have often been completely retarded with regard to their designations. Look at the S-300PMU: it's an export model S-300PS (SA-10B), but the designator makes you think that it's an S-300PM (SA-20A) variant. The S-300V4 could very well just be one missile type, if they've modified one or the other (9M82/3) to perform all of the required roles. That'd eliminate the need for a separate TELAR as well. In fact, even introducing just an ATBM S-300V4 would make sense as a stopgap until the ABM S-500 appears. Treat the S-300VM as the upgraded S-300V1/2, and then the S-300V4 as a separate dedicated system. Who knows. Maybe there is a V3/V4 combination, and just the ATBM V4 (following from the ATBM V2) is getting the silent treatment and therefore all of the attention. Although now that I dig a bit more, it seems that I do have an S-300VM1 and S-300VM2 designator listed; they're both referred to as the Antey-2500 for export, though. This, of course, still makes the S-300V4 a weird abberation. The V4 is likely one of the S-300VMD subvariants, the S-300VMD being the domestic equivalent to the further improved Antey-2500D. The S-300VM uses the 9M82M/9M83M, while the S-300VMD uses the 9M82M1/9M83M1.

    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:50 am

    Mindstorm wrote:It refer probably to the maximum range at which, in tests, it achieved an hit ; that has nothing to do with the maximum engagement range of the same missile.

    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.

    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.

    Even more interesting is that this publication don't take into account the two Mig-25 avoiding 2 AIM-120A in 6 January 1999 over the Souther "no fly zone" (the two 2 MIG-25s in question always the 6 January 1999 avoided also 3 Sparrows from 2 F-15C and 2 Phoenix from 2 F-14s !!! )

    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

    neither was even only aware to be under missile attack Very Happy Very Happy [/b], (is important to note that ,to the contrary ,anytime a similar aircraft was aware of an attack and attempted any type of avoiding measures BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically , all of that without any involvement of any ECM system !!

    Awareness being under attack in today fighter comes from the following

    360 * ESM coverage to know he is under attack by RF source like BVR missile ARH/SARH types
    DAS/MAWS for 360 * coverage to cover passive missile like IR guided/R-73 types or Singer types

    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

    A typicaly BVR or WVR missile will have to get through all this plus the target will be manouvering to actually hit the aircraft.

    I would say tough ask Smile

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:03 am

    SOC wrote:That's because it's still a relatively short-ranged ATBM system. To reduce the debris falling on you you're going to either 1) need to kill the target exoatmospherically, and hope the bits burn up on reentry, or 2) use either a very long-range or forward-deployed system to kill Pakistani missiles shortly after launch.

    You are right , even the current missile that has been tested which is PAD achived a kill at maximum 80 km altitude better then 30 km but to hit in orbit you need more than 100 km isnt it ?

    Just wanted to know your views on Indian ABM development , although there is so many media reports hyping it , I have a very different views on it.

    Typically India and Pakistan is a border state and the distance between them is not too great , most of the times once pakistan fires a IRBM/MRBM against india within minutes it will be travelling on the indian land mass so any sucessful interception will most likely happen on Indian land mass and debris would fall there.

    Considering there is so little early warning system in place and short distance I have my own doubt if even 10 % missile would ever get intercepted , the test done so far i think are staged managed , much like American ABM test which i too believe are stage managed but with more complexity involved.

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

    What do you think ? we can take this in another thread if so required.


    I've heard Venezuela before, it's not a mistake. 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.

    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:25 am

    GarryB wrote:The question becomes is ramjet state of the art because Meteor uses it, or will they decide that it is worth the effort and money to go for a scramjet design?

    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.

    designs in Russia... the SA-6 was replaced by the SA-11, then the SA-17 and now a vertical launch model based on the naval VLS variant... they are all solid fuelled rockets.

    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.

    The two remaining fields where ramjet missiles are used are the ARM in the form of the Kh-31 and the Anti ship missile in the form of the Kh-31 and Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos.

    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.


    Keep in mind they are talking about the K-74M2, which is no where near service.
    The K-74M will likely be revealed in the next 2-3 years as the base model Morfei.
    If it can be used as an anti AMRAAM/AIM-9X missile then you would want it to be as small as possible so you could carry more than the enemy currently carries AAMs.

    actually the current western missile with similar concept is ASRAAM , it has FPA seeker and uses Thrust Vectoring see no reason why it cant intercept AAM , I think it was advertised as capable of doing so , even the German IRST-T WVR missile.

    Russia is just playing catch up game here.

    Note it says twice the lock on range of the R-73... it is talking about seeker performance, not flight range.

    Yes i am aware of what they are talking about

    To extend flight range simply put the seeker on an R-77M...

    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.

    Hopefully we are not far from a dual mode seeker made from IIR/ARH.

    They have pretty much outlined them as the K-74 to replace the R-73 at short range, R-77M with a more powerful rocket motor to replace the R-77, and R-77PD as a new missile between the R-77 and R-33 class weapons, and of course the R-37M to replace the R-33.

    To add to that they are working on new LRAAM for PAK-FA as was reveled but that would be the last missile to come , I hope the Ramjet missile news is true.

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


    Air combat 101... it is the attack you don't see coming that is the most likely to kill you.

    Very true , unfortunately that would happen in most scenearios where SA is close to zero for being under attack.

    For IAF ( Indian Air Force ) I can say all aircraft including the old Mig-21Bison has ESM so they wont be surprised by BVR shots involving RF seeker ,but most aircraft lacks MAWS and MKI or the MMRCA would be the first to get it.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:37 am

    actually the current western missile with similar concept is ASRAAM , it has FPA seeker and uses Thrust Vectoring see no reason why it cant intercept AAM , I think it was advertised as capable of doing so , even the German IRST-T WVR missile.

    Russia is just playing catch up game here.


    Austin ,someone lately has designed and produced an outstanding revolutionary missile ,named it ASRAAM, and replaced with it that true abomination having previosly the same denomination name ?


    ASRAAM was initiated in the 1980's by Germany and the United Kingdom, but the two countries were unable to agree on the details of the joint-venture. Germany left the ASRAAM project in the early 1990s, and in the spring of 1995 initiated an improved version of the Sidewinder, the IRIS-T (Infra Red Imagery Sidewinder-Tail controlled) built by Bodensee Geraetetechnik GmBH (BGT). This decision was largely motivated by new insights into the performance of the Russian AA- 11 Archer missile carried by the MiG-29s which Germany inherited during reunification. The Luftwaffe concluded that the AA-11's performance had been seriously underestimated -- the AA-11 turned out to be superior to the Sidewinder AIM-9L in all respects: homing head field of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of designation, and target lock-on. The Germans concluded that the ASRAAM demonstrated a serious lack of agility compared to the Russian Archer.

    In January 1995 British Aerospace Dynamics, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England, was awarded a letter contract with a ceiling amount of $10,933,154 for foreign comparative testing [FCT] of the ASRAAM Missile. After several modifications to the scope of the FCT, the program assessed four ground-to-air sorties, 19 air-to-air captive carry sorties, four programmed missile launches, eight static warhead tests, and four rocket motor case tests. The resulting assessment was that the ASRAAM (as is) could not meet the AIM-9X operational requirements in high off-boresight angle performance, infrared counter-countermeasures robustness, lethality, and interoperability.


    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-132.htm


    Now i have not time for elaborate , at return from work i will continue...



    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:14 am

    Very Interesting Mindstorm Thanks.

    In some arms magazine that i read it was mentioned ASRAAM was very agile missile but with a short range , since it lacked control surface to generate lift like Python or R-73

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:48 pm

    Lets say hypthetically a PAK-FA meets Su-35S in a one to one combat armed with similar A2A weapon.What advantage would stealth give to PAK-FA ?

    If we consider the average RCS of 0.3-0.4m2 for PAK-FA and 3-5 m2 for Su-35 with weapons then it gives an advantage of early detection for PAK-FA and first launch of BVR missile , ofcourse the ESM of Su-35 will warn of such BVR launch and it would take evasive measure.

    When it comes to Knife Fight WVR combat then all the stealth advantage is negated , so the aircraft with better flying qualities like accleration , turn rate , T/W ratio etc and pilot with better tactics will win the day. In that there is nothing to choose between PAK-FA and Su-35S when it comes to close combat.

    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 Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:Our friend Carlos has this on the Auspower website:

    I've seen those and they don't completely jive with some of the Russian documentation I've got my hands on. Carlo and I go back and forth on some of the Russian (and even Western) designators for a lot of these systems quite a bit!

    GarryB wrote:Any Saudi purchase would likely be as a political reward for turning away from Iran

    It'll seem like that but I doubt it. Sunni Saudi isn't too happy with Shia Iran to begin with.

    GarryB wrote: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


    Hasn't Jane's reported that Russia sold the US the S-300V system already, a while back? We've got an S-300PS battery sitting atop Tolicha Peak nicely visible in Google Earth as well for that matter. Besides, what you really need in order to counter one of these are the electronic waveforms and signals being transmitted. Don't need the physical system to get ahold of those.

    Austin wrote:Lets say hypthetically a PAK-FA meets Su-35S in a one to one combat armed with similar A2A weapon.What advantage would stealth give to PAK-FA ?

    The PAK-FA can fire an R-77 or somethign similar before it's detected. As it closes in on the target, the target has to go on the defensive. That makes a follow-up WVR IR AAM engagement significantly more favorable to the PAK-FA, if the BVR AAM is avoided.

    Or, you use your LO airframe to stay out of Su-35S sensor range, and maneuver behind it. Then fire a BVR IR-guided AAM straight up it's ass. Something like an R-27ET will never "go active" and betray its position by emitting. Your DAS or DIRCM may get a hit from the motor, but it's still a very sneaky and potentially successful way to go about things.

    Austin wrote:In some arms magazine that i read it was mentioned ASRAAM was very agile missile but with a short range , since it lacked control surface to generate lift like Python or R-73

    ASRAAM has decent range, as well as LOAL capability. One quoted max range is 18 kilometers. Sure, not what you might get from an R-73, but still a solid figure. Besides, a decent motor can overcome lack of lift from control fins to a degree.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 736
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:20 pm

    Lets say hypthetically a PAK-FA meets Su-35S in a one to one combat armed with similar A2A weapon.What advantage would stealth give to PAK-FA ?


    Absolutely none.



    If we consider the average RCS of 0.3-0.4m2 for PAK-FA and 3-5 m2 for Su-35 with weapons then it gives an advantage of early detection for PAK-FA and first launch of BVR missile , ofcourse the ESM of Su-35 will warn of such BVR launch and it would take evasive measure


    Yes ,surely Su-35S would have a wide chances to avoid potential BVR shoots from PAKFA/FGFA (at least taking in consideration the medium range AAM now operatives worldwide ), but naturally PAKFA/FGFA having a far lower RCS could capitalize the significant stand-off advantage in detection ranges to move around the radar field coverage of SU-35S's squadron ,at supercruising flight regimes ,for attack it at high supersonic speed from a "blind" vector and evade immediatily for repeat the process some dozen of seconds later ( that is the typical tactic with LO/VLO aircraft and that at which anyone refer when allude at theirs capability to attack without that its opponents even realize the shooter's position of the incoming missiles) or ,in offensive missions, a PAKFA/FGFA could even simply avoid completely the engagement to complete its mission wiuthotu even begin the engagement .
    Those are the advantages offered by "stealth" in real world.


    When it comes to Knife Fight WVR combat then all the stealth advantage is negated , so the aircraft with better flying qualities like accleration , turn rate , T/W ratio etc and pilot with better tactics will win the day. In that there is nothing to choose between PAK-FA and Su-35S when it comes to close combat.



    In WVR PAKFA/FGFA will litterally eat an SU-35S for breackfast !!! Austin PAKFA's prototype ,under a strict aerodynamics standpoint, is today and by far, the most advanced and complex aircraft at world ,it will literally leave into dust SU-35S in pratically any cardinal parameters (without even taking into account the incomparably more advanced avionic suit ,purposely developed for it and optimized exactly for its structure and its capabilities.
    Even only a comparison would be totally unfair for SU-35S.




    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 Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:10 pm

    Austin wrote: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.

    Depends on if the upgraded Zaslon can find it (which I'm sure it can) and guide a missile accurately enough to get close for intercept. The faster the target is approaching (because you aren't firing at a Mach 3 target in tail-chase), the smaller your margin for error is insofar as putting the missile where the seeker can uncage and acquire the target. Honestly I doubt it would be outside the capability of the system, but it wouldn't be as "easy" as firing at an E-3C or U-2, which are significantly slower.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:19 pm

    If we consider the average RCS of 0.3-0.4m2 for PAK-FA and 3-5 m2 for Su-35 with weapons then it gives an advantage of early detection for PAK-FA and first launch of BVR missile , ofcourse the ESM of Su-35 will warn of such BVR launch and it would take evasive measure.

    It lets the pilot of the PAK FA decide whether to fight or to leave.

    If he is fully fuelled and armed he can manouver to the side or rear of the the Su-35 staying out of sensor range and then creep up behind him and launch a couple of missiles at his rear.

    Alternatively he could hold back and fire an R-37M and then wait 30 seconds and then fire another, and then wait another 30 seconds and fire a third missile. While the Flanker is manouvering and jamming and doing all sorts of things to deal with the first missile the second missile will be lining him up and if they both miss then the last missile will have a good chance for a kill too... and while this is happening the PAK FA could close in to launch an IR missile or leave the area.

    Remember when trading missiles even if the Su-35 can detect the PAK FA at 100km, if they start trading missiles the missile seekers will have reduced range performance against a low RCS target so a BVR missile might blow past a PAK FA without detecting it.

    It'll seem like that but I doubt it. Sunni Saudi isn't too happy with Shia Iran to begin with.

    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.

    Hasn't Jane's reported that Russia sold the US the S-300V system already, a while back?

    Actually I got that from a more reliable source... the designer at Antei said that during the dry period of the 1990s they used a sale of the S-300V to the US to fund the development and upgrade of the system to S-300VM. He seemed to think a lot of the ABM technology in the S-300V helped in the design of the PAC-3 from memory.

    Besides, what you really need in order to counter one of these are the electronic waveforms and signals being transmitted. Don't need the physical system to get ahold of those.

    Quite true, but just because you sold them your old goodies, doesn't mean you should be in a hurry to sell them or give them access to the new goodies.

    Besides, a decent motor can overcome lack of lift from control fins to a degree.

    Lack of aerodynamic surfaces means it will likely rely on hypersonic body lift... as it slows down there will be a dramatic loss in manouver performance because of a lack of control surfaces and of course because when there is no thrust the thrust vectoring is useless too.

    No big deal however as IR WVR missiles are generally not used at ultra long range... 20km range targets are normally engaged with AMRAAM or similar.

    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.

    Depends on what part of flight it intercepts it and from which direction. A manouvering low altitude missile would not be easy, but a cruising high altitude missile should be well within design parameters.

    Of course scramjet Brahmos should exceed the mach 6 limit, but of course by then we will likely have seen the replacement for the R-37.

    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

    Against a conventional warhead its detonation at 25km will mean minor fragments at ground level. Gulf War experience shows us that missile optimised to hit aircraft tend to direct their fragments at the centre of mass but when the target is a modified Scud missile the centre of mass is the inoperative engine of a falling missile. Targeting that is pointless as it is falling anyway... filling it full of holes does nothing to the warhead. Also the higher speed of the modified Scud meant the missile often broke up during its fall to the target and the largest pieces were hit most and again they were the engine and fuel tanks section of the missile. The warhead free to fall to the target.
    The S-300V is a purpose designed system that can engage aerial and ballistic targets and doesn't have such problems.

    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.

    If it can manage a kill at 300km in tests then its max kill range is at least that. Its realistic operational range will be less, and the flight manual will likely state an even shorter range to ensure a decent kill probability, but it makes little sense to put hard figures on what are after all guesses.

    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.

    Jamming and decoys (which includes chaff) are seeker issues, not energy issues. And the missile is falling from height so it can perform lots of manouvers during the terminal phase of the attack as it will have plenty of energy. It is during the mid phase of the attack that changes in direction and speed cost the missile the most energy because without course updates it means that when the missile activates its seeker and starts to scan for the target if the target is not where it should be and is at the edge of the radars vision the missile will have to turn just to get near the target... if that target is climbing and accelerating then the intercept point moves further ahead of the target and becomes harder to reach in time.

    Cant keep such things close to the border.

    You put them around things worth defending and then you put Pantsir-S1s and TORs around those to defend them from attack and then you integrate your air force and army as a layered air defence system.

    Long Range IFF is a major problem

    It certainly is, and the introduction of UAVs in large numbers just compounds that as an issue, but perhaps also offers a solution... send a UAV to ID potential intruders... if they shoot them down that is confirmation they are hostile without risking a Su-35 or a Pak Fa.

    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.

    The 0.03 PK record of Sparrow wasn't much different... the enemy is still mostly a small countries air force that has been poorly equipped in terms of EW and suddenly finds itself in a war against a superpower, or Israel. When the enemy starts spending on AWACS and JSTARS like assets and EW suites then kill rates will certainly fall, but home on jam functions might actually balance that fall out with an increase of kills because the jammers were internal or pod based instead of towed...

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

    Who says they are not flying scramjets now?
    They have access to super computers and were flying scramjet motors almost 20 years ago. They are currently working hard on a scramjet model of Brahmos. Why not pool resources and develop a scramjet powered AAM as a scale version of Brahmos II?


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

    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.

    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.

    The max altitude for interception for the SA-11 is 22km. The SA-17 can intercept aerodynamic targets up to 25km... perhaps you are confusing the two?

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

    Lets see Garry no point in speculating right now.

    We know from other threads that the VDV has introduced the SA-13 as a stopgap system to replace the ZU-23.

    We know the SA-13 on its MTLB chassis is not air droppable and therefore is only a temporary solution.

    That means either the new chassis is not ready or the new missile is not ready or both.

    I would suspect the SA-13 was used because it was available, but if the final solution will be MANPADS based then some sort of MANPAD based launcher on an MTLB as an available chassis would have made more sense as the turrets could be transferred to the new chassis when they became available.

    I think the assumption of a new standard chassis and Morfei missiles for the VDV makes sense but you are right, it is only speculation on my part.

    Honestly I doubt it would be outside the capability of the system, but it wouldn't be as "easy" as firing at an E-3C or U-2, which are significantly slower.

    The fact that the Mig-31/R-27 combo are described as being capable of engaging Mach 6 targets suggests a mach 3 missile should be well within engagement parameters.

    Of course having said that a Mig-25 should be a relatively easy target for AAMs as its manouver capability is limited to 5gs, yet they can be difficult targets with a skillful pilot.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    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.

    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 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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:45 am

    SOC wrote:Depends on if the upgraded Zaslon can find it (which I'm sure it can) and guide a missile accurately enough to get close for intercept. The faster the target is approaching (because you aren't firing at a Mach 3 target in tail-chase), the smaller your margin for error is insofar as putting the missile where the seeker can uncage and acquire the target. Honestly I doubt it would be outside the capability of the system, but it wouldn't be as "easy" as firing at an E-3C or U-2, which are significantly slower.

    Yes thats going to be a tough ask , the entire Brahmos engagement of ~ 290 km gets over in 4.5 minutes , so any Mig-31 needs to be in the air at the right place and get the entire firecontrol solution ready for it and most certainly if the missile is travelling a low trajectory against background clutter and a speed of mach 2 at low level for brahmos it going to be difficult.

    I think given adequate time and a volley of 2-3 R-37M per target it would have a better chance.

    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 ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:28 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:28 am