Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:08 am

    SOC wrote: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!

    I would say thats a bad decision made by Medvedev but perhaps made under western pressure and to regain some shim or shine and approval/pat for his presidency from Western allies , the whole reset thing Smile

    Frankly speaking a Nuclear Weapon with Iran is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon with Israel , the only problem is Iran is no darling of West. But thats another story for another thread.


    Which would also explain why the PAC-3 ERINT is a singularly unimpressive weapon, even though it's relatively effective all things considered.

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

    I know many missile who spec sounds great on paper russian and US system but PAC-3 and Patriot for all its flaws is combat proven system. And as they say the proof of the pudding is in its eating.

    I read of an upgrade of PAC-3 dont remember off head but its impressive.

    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!

    Ability to intercept a small target like Smerch is impressive ,any idea which scud it intercepted ?


    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 7:05 am

    Austin wrote:PAC-3 is one of the singular most impressive weapon in history of SAM , in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM

    Well, it did and it didn't take out 30 SRBMs. It hit something, but most if not all of the time (at least in 1991, meaning before the PAC-3) it failed to actually stop the warhead.

    Austin wrote:Ability to intercept a small target like Smerch is impressive ,any idea which scud it intercepted ?

    Don't know. Being an exercise, I don't know if they were augmented targets, or actual stock Smerch rounds, either.

    Austin wrote: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 ?

    They can shoot at an old 5V55 round, they're retiring old ones and converting some to augmented targets for SAMs to fire at. Probably not too hard to program one to fly the right profile (it has the Mach 6 speed) and see if you can hit it. I have no idea if they've actually tried it or not, but an S-300P's 5V55 or 48N6 missile is about the only viable Mach 6 object they could fire at as far as I know.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:19 am

    SOC , I had a question for you , this is for S-300PMU2
    http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/s300pmu2.htm

    As you know its advertised at range of 200 km and capable of engaging targets with speed of Mach 9 ( 10,000 km/h ).

    Are you aware of the average speed and top speed of S-300PMU2 ?
    How challenging or what kind of countermeasure can one use to defeat this beast ? ( I ask this becuase China has these systems in good numbers ) and I already see MMRCA contenders like Rafale or EF talking about beating it via its jamming and stealth.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:27 am

    SOC wrote:Well, it did and it didn't take out 30 SRBMs. It hit something, but most if not all of the time (at least in 1991, meaning before the PAC-3) it failed to actually stop the warhead.


    I mean 32 SRBM during GW-2 ( was it Al-Samoud with 200 km range i think ) , in the first GW it managed to knock few MRBM off course and the rest was not a problem becuase the Iraq scud never had the accuracy to do any significant damage from what i heard it mostly fell in desert.

    Considering Patriot in its initial role had zero ABM capability it was not bad , well atleast there was this hope for people in Saudi and Israel that we had patriot and that would save us ( so it gave hope as false it may be )

    SOC the reality is War is Complex , all the great brochure specs and simulated test just comes to a stand still or not work as advertised in actual combat , the good thing about patriot is that it got better via actual combat not many missile and least of all any ABM could claim that.

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

    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 8:07 am

    Austin wrote:SOC , I had a question for you , this is for S-300PMU2
    http://www.enemyforces.net/missiles/s300pmu2.htm

    As you know its advertised at range of 200 km and capable of engaging targets with speed of Mach 9 ( 10,000 km/h ).

    Are you aware of the average speed and top speed of S-300PMU2 ?
    How challenging or what kind of countermeasure can one use to defeat this beast ? ( I ask this becuase China has these systems in good numbers ) and I already see MMRCA contenders like Rafale or EF talking about beating it via its jamming and stealth.

    Two sources I have list 2100 m/s as the top speed of the 48N6D/48N6E2, with 2800 m/s as the top speed of the target. The missile reaches peak velocity of between 1900 and 2100 m/s, depending on the flight profile, no more than 12 seconds after motor ignition. Roughly, that's an average acceleration of 175 m/s^2, but that's a very rough figure and does not take the impulse of the motor into account or overcoming gravity, etc.

    One of them gives the minimum velocity of the target as 0 m/s. That's pretty damn significant, because it means they can track targets straight through the doppler notch. That makes it harder to confuse the radar, because a beam maneuver to reduce radial velocity down into the notch will no longer work as a counter-tactic. The maneuvering ability of the missile and the huge warhead make it almost impossible to avoid if it reaches endgame as well. All things considered, the radar systems and the missile guidance method (SAGG, not TVM as many places like to report) make it a hard target even in an ECM-heavy environment.

    One way to deal with the system is to saturate it. It can handle six simultaneous engagements. So if there are seven targets, one is getting through initially. But the speed of the missiel and the 10 second response time means that seventh guy is probably going to get shot at as well. You'll need a lot of targets, or a smaller number of really damn fast targets, to try and really kill it in a SEAD mission. LO or VLO targets may or may not work well either, depending on the target RCS and the power output mode of the engagement radar. Those factors will influence how close they'll get before they get shot at, and then again, you have to deal with a ridiculously fast missile and a system with a very short response time to re-engage any leakers.

    The ECM effectiveness against it and the corresponding ECCM characteristics of the system...that falls under the heading of stuff I can't post onto the internet!

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:59 am

    SOC wrote:
    All things considered, the radar systems and the missile guidance method (SAGG, not TVM as many places like to report) make it a hard target even in an ECM-heavy environment.

    Wow.. what makes SAGG different with TVM ? ... i think they're same.

    and from this Almaz video about S-300PMU-1 it uses TVM guidance .





    The ECM effectiveness against it and the corresponding ECCM characteristics of the system...that falls under the heading of stuff I can't post onto the internet!

    aaw.. you know i really wonder whether already established techniques like Velocity and Range Gate Stealing (RGPO and VGPO) will still work

    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 Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:10 am

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

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

    Business is business after all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 9:19 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Wow.. what makes SAGG different with TVM ? ... i think they're same.

    and from this Almaz video about S-300PMU-1 it uses TVM guidance .

    OK, first off, SAGG is basically an evolved form of TVM. A lot of Russian source material I have refers to "through-the-missile" guidance, which is then often translated as TVM, even though that isn't technically correct. Plus, when you read the description of the guidance systems in some of the sources that go into more detail, they are describing SAGG and not TVM.

    SAGG is Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance. Here's the short version. In TVM, which is sort of a cross-breed between Command and SARH guidance, the missile seeker antenna acts as a receiver, picking up reflected energy from the target. Position data is then datalinked to the engagement radar, which crunches the numbers and decides where to point the missile to keep chasing the target. Guidance commands then get datalinked back to the missile, and off it goes. SAGG is a bit more complicated, and potentially more accurate as a result. In SAGG, the engagement radar paints the target, and both the missile and the radar receive target returns. The missile actually computes a guidance command, and datalinks this to the radar. The radar, having a different POV, computes its own guidance command. Then the computers crunch the numbers, comparing the two sets of commands, and decides the best course to the target. This final guidance command is then sent back to the missile. In SAGG, you basically have smarter missiles. This is also a sort of ECCM, in a way. If a jamming pod is pointed at the engagement radar, confusing its perception of the engagement, the option exists to ignore that return, and rely solely on the missile seeker head's return to calculate the guidance command. Why can this work? If the jammer is obscured by the body of the aircraft, as podded systems usually are, then a missile like the 5V55R or 48N6 which approaches from above can still get a clear picture of the target in some cases. Ergo, you think you're jamming it, but in reality you're still going to be dead.

    SAGG isn't really all that different from TVM, but it's sufficiently different enough that when I was in the USAF, we always differentiated it from pure TVM. SAGG, GAS/GAI (ground-aided seeker/inertial, this is employed in midcourse by the S-300V) and TVM were all considered to be forms of what we referred to as combined guidance, as they combine elements of command and SARH guidance methods. A further advantage of SAGG is that if you can get a 64N6 or 36D6 to paint the target using a waveform recognizeable by the missile seeker, you might be able to still blow stuff up if you lose your engagement radar.

    GarryB wrote:it couldn't possibly be an independent development furthering work on the Mig-25 layout with LERX added.

    Such comments are usually an indicator of ignorance of the influence of TsAGI in airframe design.

    GarryB wrote:Based on 2004 advertising the SA-11 is not sold as being able to defeat ballistic targets in the LANCE 2 category.


    What variant? Rosoboronexport claimed an ATBM capability for the Buk-M1-2 in a 2003 catalog.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:56 am

    Thanks SOC , What would it take to potentially Jam the S-300PMU2 engagement radar or its datalink or even using Hard Kill stuff like HARM ?

    IS it true that Israel has developed some sort of jammer/decoy against S-300 series that is known to be effective as some news reports where claiming.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:08 am

    in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM.


    Austin Patriot's performance against an antediluvian theatre ballistic missile like Iraqi modified Scuds of the first versions was simply disastrous , have you ever read the survey of Joseph Cirincione - Chief US Congress Investigator appointed to execute a scientifical survey on the technical performance of PAC-2 in the conflict- ?

    It provide also a good sample of the outstanding PR mist which US media are capable to produce to sell, to public opinion, a version of the facts that is often even the exact contrary of empyrical evidency coming from theirs same analysis and validation institutions !! (attrition achieved by Air Force on enemy ground forces, inflated often of dozen of times in past wars are others classical examples of that habit)

    www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/60minutes/main601241.shtml


    Those are some related statements of J. Cirincione :

    Cirincione says the Army has known the Patriot had serious problems since at least 1991, when Congress appointed him to lead an investigation of the Patriot's performance in the first Gulf War, a performance that had looked spectacular on network news programs.

    "I saw the pictures. I thought this is amazing. This system is exceeding expectations," says Cirincione. "And all during the war, that's what I thought. This was what all the newscasters said it was -- a Scud buster, a miracle weapon."

    And it wasn't just newscasters who said so. This is what President George Bush had to say when he visited Raytheon headquarters during the First Gulf War: "The Patriot works because of Patriots like you, and I came again to say thank you to each and every one of you!"

    "A lot of money started flowing into the Patriot right after the Gulf War, because everybody thought it was a success," says Cirincione.

    But it turns out, that wasn't true. Almost none of the Patriots had worked. Some of them had failed to hit the incoming Scuds. Some had shot at missiles that didn't even exist. But most of them still exploded in the sky, leading everyone to believe they'd scored a kill, when in fact they hadn't.

    "The best evidence that we found supports between two and four intercepts out of 44," says Cirincione. "About a 10 percent success rate."

    and above all

    Cirincione said the Army responded angrily to his findings: "The Army insisted that they knew they had some problems with the Patriot, BUT IT DIDN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSE TO MAKE THESE PUBLIC. WE WOULD JUST BE AIDING THE ENEMY. And that they would take care of it in the course of normal product improvement."

    Yes surely is not good to inform public opinion that PAC-2 simply exploded in the sky without intercepting anything ,is much better to unshamedly "lie knowing to lie" : " "The Patriot works because of Patriots like you, and I came again to say thank you to each and every one of you!" (declaration of the at the time U.S. President George Bush at Raytheon Headquarters in front of purposely reunited TV and press...)


    From 2 to 4 out of 44 intercept attempts....so much for PR mist capable to obfuscate facts still in 2011 (for chronicle : the emergences of US Congress equip lead by J. Cirincione was vetoed for diffusion for 15 years, them was publied only in 2006 ) .




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:08 pm

    Mindstorm , The Patriot-1 and Patriot-2 never really have any TBM capability per se , it was purely a good anti-aircraft missile and the latter a longer range with better anti-cruise missile capability.

    The only patriot till date that has anti-missile capability built from scratch is the PAC-3 , during the recent Iraqi invasion it (PAC-2/PAC-3 ) reportedly shot down Iraqi Al-Samoud missile and others

    Check http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_05/pac3_may03

    Though the PAC-3 is capable of interception missile corresponding to range of 1000 km , the only disadvantage is its short range of 20 km and altitude of 15 km which means it can defend a small area but there is a PAC-3 MSE program to enhance the range.

    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 Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:55 pm

    Such comments are usually an indicator of ignorance of the influence of TsAGI in airframe design.

    There is a rumour that the Mig-29/Su-27 layout was developed by a Mig employee, but at the time it was rejected as there were no plans to make such a fighter.

    The rumour goes that the Mig employee testing the model at the TsAGI met Sukhoi engineers and they were working on a heavy fighter/interceptor design for the PVO which had traditionally bought Sukhoi interceptors (ie Su-9/-11/-15) and they took the employee on at their design bureau.

    When it came time to formulate a replacement for the Mig-23, it was at a time when the USAF had the F-15/F-16 high low mix, so the military recognised the value of a large capable interceptor fighter and a smaller cheaper fighter interceptor.

    The result was the old plans were dusted off and modified to meet the requirements, with both aircraft using the same basic layout of twin tail twin widely spaced engine aircraft with blended wing/fuselage layout with the LERX generating vortex's for the vertical tail fins.

    What variant? Rosoboronexport claimed an ATBM capability for the Buk-M1-2 in a 2003 catalog.

    It is in the "Russias Arms 2004" catalogue. In the Air Defence section the entry for the BUK-M1-2 system it has separate performance listings for the 9M38M1 and the 9M317 missiles.
    The 9M38M1 is listed with -'s for performance in intercepting LANCE-II missiles and also in firing range against ships and ground targets, and HARM missiles.
    Target g load limit is 10g and target max speed is 830m/s, and ranges and probability of interception are also different for the two missile types.

    What would it take to potentially Jam the S-300PMU2 engagement radar

    Strawberry. Smile

    BTW it would likely be co-located with another SAM type to protect it from HARM attack to save its own missiles.

    Mindstorm , The Patriot-1 and Patriot-2 never really have any TBM capability per se , it was purely a good anti-aircraft missile and the latter a longer range with better anti-cruise missile capability.

    The Patriot is the best example of the tenet that armies are generally best equipped to fight the last war they fought.... meaning they are in trouble if the next conflict is radically different to their last conflict.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

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

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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

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

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

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

    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 Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:53 pm

    Austin wrote:Thanks SOC , What would it take to potentially Jam the S-300PMU2 engagement radar or its datalink or even using Hard Kill stuff like HARM ?

    IS it true that Israel has developed some sort of jammer/decoy against S-300 series that is known to be effective as some news reports where claiming.

    I don't put much stock into Israel's claims. If they were so certain they had the system beat, they wouldn't object to Iran buying the system. Then again, they do have a lot of EW experience, so who really knows? A HARM or JDAM shot is possible, but then you have to take into account the fact that there will be SHORAD systems around in wartime like the Tor-M1 that are perfectly capable of intercepting either weapon.

    GarryB wrote:Strawberry.

    No no, it was raspberry Laughing

    GarryB wrote:It is in the "Russias Arms 2004" catalogue. In the Air Defence section the entry for the BUK-M1-2 system it has separate performance listings for the 9M38M1 and the 9M317 missiles.

    OK, I'm looking at the same thing.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:30 pm

    SOC wrote:I don't put much stock into Israel's claims. If they were so certain they had the system beat, they wouldn't object to Iran buying the system. Then again, they do have a lot of EW experience, so who really knows?

    Knowing the Israels and their level of expertise with EW , You can bet S-300 is on top of their radar when it comes to real threat

    BTW why dont the Russian simply go for a ARH seeker for S-300 series rather then developing what looks like complex SAGG mode of engagement , is it due to cost factor of ARH seeker or SAGG mode have benefit over ARH mode of engagement ?

    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 Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:13 pm

    Austin wrote:BTW why dont the Russian simply go for a ARH seeker for S-300 series rather then developing what looks like complex SAGG mode of engagement , is it due to cost factor of ARH seeker or SAGG mode have benefit over ARH mode of engagement ?

    Because using SAGG puts a lot of the focus on the engagement radar, which can be made far more ECM resistant than an ARH seeker head. ARH missiles would probably end up being cheaper in the long run because the guidance package in the missile would be less complicated. With ARH, you have to defeat the missile. With SAGG, GAS/GAI, or TVM, you have to defeat the engagement radar. From a purely EW perspective, i.e. discounting a hard kill using SEAD, dealing with the guidance radar is far more complicated.

    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 Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:35 am

    Also, although ARH means pretty much fire and forget which is good for multiple engagements, in reality the missile seekers have a specific range so they still need the target to be tracked and course corrections sent so you are limited to how many you can engage at one time till their missile seekers go live and the missile can be left to finish the engagement.

    Another aspect is of course cost... missiles are the expendibles in a SAM system... even if things go perfectly the missile will be destroyed and having very expensive missiles means limited stores, whereas a cheap missile means you can make tens of thousands and actually use them during training and exercises.

    Sending 1,000 cheap drones during the course of a war could be dealt with using missiles that don't cost much more, but with expensive multi million dollar missiles against simple drones is silly.

    Sure, having a few very capable and expensive missiles is OK, but cheap simple missiles with a sophisticated guidance.... like Pantsir-S1 makes a lot of sense to the bottom line.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:48 am

    SOC wrote:Because using SAGG puts a lot of the focus on the engagement radar, which can be made far more ECM resistant than an ARH seeker head. ARH missiles would probably end up being cheaper in the long run because the guidance package in the missile would be less complicated. With ARH, you have to defeat the missile. With SAGG, GAS/GAI, or TVM, you have to defeat the engagement radar. From a purely EW perspective, i.e. discounting a hard kill using SEAD, dealing with the guidance radar is far more complicated.

    If that was to be the case and jamming/spoofing Engagement Radar is so much difficult then jamming says a missile ARH seeker , then why is modern SAM and ABM systems depends on ARH seeker ? For eg 9M96 , S-400 Big Missile , PAC-3 , THAAD (IIR seeker) ,Aster-15/30/45 etc

    For SAGG all you have to do is to jam the datalink between the Missile and Engagement radar and that solves your problem , so much easier then jamming ARH.

    Not to mention for SAGG or TVM kind of engagement you need to keep you target constantly in your LOS of Engagement radar and that gives you so much less autonomy to your missile and affects your firing rate.( Track/Lock capability )

    So the whole thing which says SAGG is so much better because you have to deal with the big guy called engagement radar is not convincing , TVM or SAGG is much better then says command guidance or SARH stuff but still inferior to ARH or IIR systems.

    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 Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:35 am


    For SAGG all you have to do is to jam the datalink between the Missile and Engagement radar and that solves your problem , so much easier then jamming ARH.

    Jamming data links is incredibly difficult to near impossible... especially with directional data links.

    The level of power would be enormous and not the sort of thing you could put in a fighter sized aircraft... and anything bigger will need to operate very close to the SAM it was jamming... and the problem there is pretty obvious isn't it?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:Jamming data links is incredibly difficult to near impossible... especially with directional data links.

    The level of power would be enormous and not the sort of thing you could put in a fighter sized aircraft... and anything bigger will need to operate very close to the SAM it was jamming... and the problem there is pretty obvious isn't it?

    That argument is hardly convincing , If Directional Data links are hard to jam , so is the argument that modern BVR ARH ( by its extension SAM ARH ) are harder to Jam since its has nifty ECCM and in worst case the seeker has Lock on Jam function.

    Now all the target has to do with TVM and SAGG missile is to fall below the LOS of these big radars and you can tame these but with ARH or IIR it would be difficult specially when the Seeker goes active.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

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

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:34 pm

    Austin wrote:If that was to be the case and jamming/spoofing Engagement Radar is so much difficult then jamming says a missile ARH seeker , then why is modern SAM and ABM systems depends on ARH seeker ? For eg 9M96 , S-400 Big Missile , PAC-3 , THAAD (IIR seeker) ,Aster-15/30/45 etc

    Easy. 9M96: small. PAC-3 ERINT: small. Aster series: small. You won't want to waste a lot of space in a small weapon by fitting the guidance package for a SAGG or TVM system. There's a reason that the missiles using TVM, GAS/GAI, or SAGG are all rather large weapons. THAAD: ATBM, totally different criteria. S-400's 40N6: not expected to deal with non-cooperative targets (a U-2 or RC-135 is not a threat to maneuver outside the range of the seeker head, and it'll likely carry a home-on-jam package as well).

    Austin wrote:For SAGG all you have to do is to jam the datalink between the Missile and Engagement radar and that solves your problem , so much easier then jamming ARH.

    Except that if you jam the datalink, the missile may still be able to default to a SARH guidance mode. The seeker is still receiving returns, and the guidance system onboard the missile is still figuring things out. Cutting the engagement radar out of the loop just turns it into a SARH system, at least on paper. And then you still may have home-on-jam capability anyway. Plus, as Garry correctly states, jamming missile data links is not a simple proposition, or it'd likely be the default method used against both BVR AAMs (denying them midcourse updates) and SAMs (denying them guidance signals).

    Austin wrote:Not to mention for SAGG or TVM kind of engagement you need to keep you target constantly in your LOS of Engagement radar and that gives you so much less autonomy to your missile and affects your firing rate.( Track/Lock capability )

    You need to keep the target within engagement radar LOS for ANY radar-guided SAM system, at least until endgame. Otherwise how in the world do you expect to receive midcourse corrections?

    Austin wrote:That argument is hardly convincing , If Directional Data links are hard to jam , so is the argument that modern BVR ARH ( by its extension SAM ARH ) are harder to Jam since its has nifty ECCM and in worst case the seeker has Lock on Jam function.

    Who said BVR ARH AAMs aren't necessarily hard to jam? You try and jam the hostile air intercept radar to deny information for accurate midcourse guidance, and you try to maneuver outside the seeker's FOV when it reaches endgame.

    Austin wrote:Now all the target has to do with TVM and SAGG missile is to fall below the LOS of these big radars and you can tame these but with ARH or IIR it would be difficult specially when the Seeker goes active.

    Except how many targets are going to be defended by a single, say, S-300PM battery? Evade one site and you may find yourself right inside the heart of the engagement zone for another. Plus, cross-range engagement capability expands the farther you are from the launcher. You also have to know you've been fired at. If the radar can fool your ESM/RWR into not thinking it's being tracked, or deny a signal using various waveforms, etc., you may not know there is a missile incoming until too late. And since the seeker isn't active, you may not realize anything nefarious is going on until your wing falls off. Also consider that simply turning around and jetting out of there at Mach 2+ is rarely going to be an option in combat, given the warload on the aircraft. And if you do drop your ordnance and evacuate with all possible speed, guess what, the SAM still wins. That's a mission kill, just not a hard kill. The IADS has still done its job of defending the target by making you run off with your tail between your legs. For modern air defense planners this is a perfectly acceptable option.

    Back to evading the LOS of the radar, yes, direct terrain masking can work. But a competent air defense network is arranged with an attempt to alleviate these concerns. A good example: Russia, around Moscow. The 40V6 masts were developed to allow the S-300P series engagement radars to see whatever they wanted without being obscured by the forests around the city. A bad example: China, north of Beijing. Many HQ-2 batteries were sited near smaller towns and resided inside of valleys between various hills and mountains. Far easier to try and fool around with that kind of setup.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:33 pm

    SOC wrote:Easy. 9M96: small. PAC-3 ERINT: small. Aster series: small. You won't want to waste a lot of space in a small weapon by fitting the guidance package for a SAGG or TVM system. There's a reason that the missiles using TVM, GAS/GAI, or SAGG are all rather large weapons. THAAD: ATBM, totally different criteria. S-400's 40N6: not expected to deal with non-cooperative targets (a U-2 or RC-135 is not a threat to maneuver outside the range of the seeker head, and it'll likely carry a home-on-jam package as well).

    Well Small or Big has not been the key factor for choosing guidance for missile else 40N6 or Aster-30 would not have chosen ARH ( or for that matter IIR guidance you see in THAAD , Arrow or SM-2/3 )

    Now if Russian have chosen SAGG i am fairly certain it has the least to do with size of the missile and S-400 has to deal with more than IRBM or U-2 , infact intercepting a MaRV type warhead will be far more challenging to its guidance compared to intercepting the best manouvering fighter. ( so your argument of non-cooperative targets does not hold much ground )

    And Small Weapons with smaller radar aperture does not mean they are easy to jam,else you would have seen all small missile like PAC-3 or AMRAAM or 9M96 being ineffective against larger target or say a R-37M will never bring a AWACS or JSTARS down becuase they can any time support a higher capable jammer because of its sheer size.

    The only reason why i think the Russians are opting for TVM or SAGG guidance is purely cost , Missile Radars and Electronics take around 60 % of the cost of missile and going for a SAGG or TVM guidance ( which by the way requires far less computing power or electronic capability in terms of ECCM etc when compared to ARH seeker ) , and SAGG is just a better TVM.

    Now if you see the latest trend even the newer Russian SAM being developed will have ARH seeker e.g BUK-M3 , 40N6 , Vityaz etc most likely because they would have mass produced the electronics and seeker to make it cheaper compared to what they could do a decade back , S-300PMU2 btw is a baby whose design and electronics belongs to those last decade generation.

    Except that if you jam the datalink, the missile may still be able to default to a SARH guidance mode. The seeker is still receiving returns, and the guidance system onboard the missile is still figuring things out. Cutting the engagement radar out of the loop just turns it into a SARH system, at least on paper.


    Doesnt a SARH mode too needs some kind of radio or data link to provide course correction to the missile ? But if you say on paper then it may just not be the case you are probably thinking more on logical terms which might not necessarily be true.

    And then you still may have home-on-jam capability anyway. Plus, as Garry correctly states, jamming missile data links is not a simple proposition, or it'd likely be the default method used against both BVR AAMs (denying them midcourse updates) and SAMs (denying them guidance signals).

    I have so far heard of HOJ capability for only active seekers for SARH or TVM never came across HOJ feature.

    Jamming datalink may not be easy but neither jamming ARH is an easy affair you might agree. Missiles have their own ECCM capability to deal with jamming environment and with J band or Ka band have burn through capability , in worst case it will just change to HOJ mode.

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


    You need to keep the target within engagement radar LOS for ANY radar-guided SAM system, at least until endgame. Otherwise how in the world do you expect to receive midcourse corrections?

    Partly True , once the missile seeker goes active and acquires the target its completely autonomous so it does not need midcourse corrections or inertial updates in case of BVR.

    BTW the R-37M seeker is advertised as capable of working both in SARH and ARH mode so i would assure they would resort to ARH mode if the source radar like aircraft face intense jamming or vice verse ,which is to say just adding redundancy.


    Who said BVR ARH AAMs aren't necessarily hard to jam? You try and jam the hostile air intercept radar to deny information for accurate midcourse guidance, and you try to maneuver outside the seeker's FOV when it reaches endgame.

    Is there any evidence that in any recent conflict the AMRAAM seeker was effectively jammed , I am just equally curious to know.


    Austin wrote:Now all the target has to do with TVM and SAGG missile is to fall below the LOS of these big radars and you can tame these but with ARH or IIR it would be difficult specially when the Seeker goes active.

    Except how many targets are going to be defended by a single, say, S-300PM battery? Evade one site and you may find yourself right inside the heart of the engagement zone for another. Plus, cross-range engagement capability expands the farther you are from the launcher. You also have to know you've been fired at. If the radar can fool your ESM/RWR into not thinking it's being tracked, or deny a signal using various waveforms, etc., you may not know there is a missile incoming until too late. And since the seeker isn't active, you may not realize anything nefarious is going on until your wing falls off. Also consider that simply turning around and jetting out of there at Mach 2+ is rarely going to be an option in combat, given the warload on the aircraft. And if you do drop your ordnance and evacuate with all possible speed, guess what, the SAM still wins. That's a mission kill, just not a hard kill. The IADS has still done its job of defending the target by making you run off with your tail between your legs. For modern air defense planners this is a perfectly acceptable option.

    Ok thats something nifty that your SARH/TVM/SAGG mode could try , which is to not alert your enemy , ifcourse you can try that trick with ARH seeker and let it go active at last moment or something like IIR seeker which wont alert you at all like what you describe.

    Ofcourse if your fighter has something like DAS or MAWS or if Aircraft Radar detects something closing in at high speed you will find out you are under attack , I would also argue that big missile like S-300PMU will have much bigger IR signature hence a DAS would be able to see early and warn early.

    But what you describe is something i know our Indian Mirage-2000 pilots do with SARH BVR R530 missile. Where the radar mode does not change till the end which gives the target under paint the impression that its just being tracked or scanned but is not aware is already under attack but I think MAWS will change all that.


    Back to evading the LOS of the radar, yes, direct terrain masking can work. But a competent air defense network is arranged with an attempt to alleviate these concerns. A good example: Russia, around Moscow. The 40V6 masts were developed to allow the S-300P series engagement radars to see whatever they wanted without being obscured by the forests around the city. A bad example: China, north of Beijing. Many HQ-2 batteries were sited near smaller towns and resided inside of valleys between various hills and mountains. Far easier to try and fool around with that kind of setup.

    Now a bad planning on placement of SAM can really be blamed for Missile performance. I hope the Chinese might be aware of this shortcoming when dealing with LOS missile.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

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

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  SOC on Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:00 pm

    Austin wrote:Well Small or Big has not been the key factor for choosing guidance for missile else 40N6 or Aster-30 would not have chosen ARH ( or for that matter IIR guidance you see in THAAD , Arrow or SM-2/3 )


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

    Austin wrote:S-400 has to deal with more than IRBM or U-2

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

    Austin wrote:Now if you see the latest trend even the newer Russian SAM being developed will have ARH seeker e.g BUK-M3 , 40N6 , Vityaz etc most likely because they would have mass produced the electronics and seeker to make it cheaper compared to what they could do a decade back

    Buk-M3 is getting rid of the archaic SARH seeker. And it's a smaller weapon. Same with Vityaz, smaller weapon. And 40N6 may well be an ARH weapon simply because they can loft it to a point in space and let the seeker take over, without having to worry about whether or not the datalinks work to that range, or if the missile seeker can acquire enough reflected energy at that range to work. Again, they retained SAGG for the S-400's primary weapon, the 48N6DM, for a reason.

    Austin wrote:Doesnt a SARH mode too needs some kind of radio or data link to provide course correction to the missile ?

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

    Austin wrote:I have so far heard of HOJ capability for only active seekers for SARH or TVM never came across HOJ feature.

    Various SARH SAMs have HOJ capability, like the SA-11.

    Austin wrote:Missiles have their own ECCM capability to deal with jamming environment

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

    Austin wrote:Is there any evidence that in any recent conflict the AMRAAM seeker was effectively jammed , I am just equally curious to know.

    I have no idea.

    Austin wrote:Ofcourse if your fighter has something like DAS or MAWS or if Aircraft Radar detects something closing in at high speed you will find out you are under attack , I would also argue that big missile like S-300PMU will have much bigger IR signature hence a DAS would be able to see early and warn early.

    Depends on where your sensors are located. To detect something like a 48N6 they have to be looking up. The missile boosts to something like 90 or 100,000 feet and then dives towards the target.

    Austin wrote:I hope the Chinese might be aware of this shortcoming when dealing with LOS missile.

    The deployment of modern SAMs like the S-300P series and the HQ-9 seems to indicate that they have gotten far more competent in this regard.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:41 pm

    SOC wrote:
    OK, first off, SAGG is basically an evolved form of TVM. A lot of Russian source material I have refers to "through-the-missile" guidance, which is then often translated as TVM, even though that isn't technically correct. Plus, when you read the description of the guidance systems in some of the sources that go into more detail, they are describing SAGG and not TVM.

    SAGG is Seeker-Aided Ground Guidance. Here's the short version. In TVM, which is sort of a cross-breed between Command and SARH guidance, the missile seeker antenna acts as a receiver, picking up reflected energy from the target. Position data is then datalinked to the engagement radar, which crunches the numbers and decides where to point the missile to keep chasing the target. Guidance commands then get datalinked back to the missile, and off it goes. SAGG is a bit more complicated, and potentially more accurate as a result. In SAGG, the engagement radar paints the target, and both the missile and the radar receive target returns. The missile actually computes a guidance command, and datalinks this to the radar. The radar, having a different POV, computes its own guidance command. Then the computers crunch the numbers, comparing the two sets of commands, and decides the best course to the target. This final guidance command is then sent back to the missile. In SAGG, you basically have smarter missiles. This is also a sort of ECCM, in a way. If a jamming pod is pointed at the engagement radar, confusing its perception of the engagement, the option exists to ignore that return, and rely solely on the missile seeker head's return to calculate the guidance command. Why can this work? If the jammer is obscured by the body of the aircraft, as podded systems usually are, then a missile like the 5V55R or 48N6 which approaches from above can still get a clear picture of the target in some cases. Ergo, you think you're jamming it, but in reality you're still going to be dead.

    SAGG isn't really all that different from TVM, but it's sufficiently different enough that when I was in the USAF, we always differentiated it from pure TVM. SAGG, GAS/GAI (ground-aided seeker/inertial, this is employed in midcourse by the S-300V) and TVM were all considered to be forms of what we referred to as combined guidance, as they combine elements of command and SARH guidance methods. A further advantage of SAGG is that if you can get a 64N6 or 36D6 to paint the target using a waveform recognizeable by the missile seeker, you might be able to still blow stuff up if you lose your engagement radar.

    What variant? Rosoboronexport claimed an ATBM capability for the Buk-M1-2 in a 2003 catalog.

    Ah yeah.. many thanks ,you're right . Hmm my literartures.. like "Missile Guidance and Control System " by George M Siouris .. described SAGG but called it as TVM.



    I have so far heard of HOJ capability for only active seekers for SARH or TVM never came across HOJ feature.

    Mind if i ask why HOJ is only for "active seeker" ?.

    as far as i know as long as the antenna can receive signal and can determine where it come from (either from "Conical Scan" or Monopulse be it Amplitude or Phase comparison) HOJ capability is inherent .

    Even Command Guided S-75 Dvina in 1960's have such modes as well as SARH S-200 ..

    Sponsored content

    Re: Meteor vs RVV-BD Long Range AAM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:58 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:58 am