Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Share

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:36 am

    I recall reading R-27 had a limited number of take off/landing service life- I would guess this applies to most missiles to. Would need to be checked after certified number of cycles were completed, even if actual service life was not exhausted.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:19 am

    Don't know about the newer missiles but the R-73 and R-27 had pylon hours of something like 22 from memory. The speed and vibration meant they needed checks and disassembly to make sure they were still OK and for any coolant to be replaced for cooling the electronics in high speed flight.

    Shelf life was something like 10-15 years, but taking them on an aircraft where temperatures could change in minute from plus 40 degrees C to minus 60 degrees or colder, while launching the weapon could friction heat it to 300 degrees for short periods... it is a difficult thing to make sure it works. In comparison your lap top or desk top computer has a much easier life. rain snow hail too.


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

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

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:48 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:I would guess about the same or near same shelf life of modern IIR/CCD ATGM's which have a shelf life of around 15-20 years.

    The worst thing for electronics and seeker is if they would be constantly fed by the internal batterie because the life of it would decrease to less than few hours at least of some internals.
    Hmm... What do you think would be the first to go?

    My guess would be the battery as you mentioned, but those are probably the easiest parts to replace.

    Just like mentioned by TR1 and GarryB, and to add something the operators of aircrafts try to avoid flying exercises with such missiles, because they are always "on" and contected to powersupply which over time reduces the quality of the seeker of the missile, which was already designed for "one-way-use" since it is a missile and usually to get the necessary electric power the batteries are different and have a very short life, which is again good for cost factor since it will epxlode anyway, the batterie with its short lifespan can produce more than necessary elecrtic power and that can damage some fine internal parts especially the hotter batteries get the more power they can sometimes produce.

    The shelf-life relative long around 15-20 years but during use for excercises they reduce the service life drastically or increase the maintenance cost, but they can not be maintained for years, they were not designed to last long once in active operations anyway.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:43 pm

    For exercises you can just use the same overly-abused missiles again and again; not to mention old ones.
    If they don't fire.. well, then they don't fire - chalk it up as a hit anyway for the purpose of the exercise, and then check that missile over once the aircraft is back on the ground, and fit it on again for the next exercise.

    The main thing is that your new, shiny, combat-rated missiles are kept well preserved and only equipped when they're needed to be.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:12 am

    Indeed, for practise, quite often dummies will be used... because of the limited pylon life of the real weapons a range of dummies are available.

    They range from just dumb masses that mimic the mass and drag of the real weapon but with no functioning components, through to captive missiles with working seekers so lock ons can be practised through to test missiles with real seekers and real motors but dummy warheads that might have telemetry equipment to measure miss distance from the target drone.

    Old stock missiles are used for live fire tests.

    For operational missiles they will only be loaded onto aircraft that are likely to actually use them, in other cases dummies of various types are used.


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

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

    Kyo
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 514
    Points : 563
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 67
    Location : Brasilia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Kyo on Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:42 pm

    The development of hypersonic missiles in Russia and the US stands at the same level

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    R-74 and R-27ET maneuvers

    Post  Anas Ali on Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:31 pm

    is it true that R-74 and R-27ET can pull 90gs ?!

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:46 pm

    R-74 maybe yes... R-73 is supposedly able to pull 60 G's

    R-27 however, might not so much considering it's heavier and have no Thrust vector control. 40G's are more likely.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:16 am

    The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

    The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

    Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

    Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...


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

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

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Anas Ali on Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

    The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

    Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

    Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
    where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:40 am

    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?

    I am simplifying this quite a bit but a good rule of thumb is the size of a control surface will matter in that the larger the surface for a given speed will have more turning force applied and give better manouver capability.

    An exception of course is when the control surface stalls... the front control surfaces of the R-27 where is starts out narrow and gets wider is designed to reduce drag and delay stall to give better turn performance than a standard triangular fin.

    The potatoe masher type rear fins on the R-77 are also designed to give max turning force with a compact shape and high angles of attack before stalling.

    the thrust vector engine gives excellent manouver capability, but only while the rocket motor is burning... just like aircraft a TVC missile has excellent turning ability.

    the R-73 is smaller and lighter and has TVC so it can turn harder than the R-27.

    The R-27ET has much longer range and a wider field of view because the missile body is wider.

    If you were chasing down a target at low level the R-27 would have a better chance of running it down... otherwise the R-73 would be the preferred weapon... both don't just tail chase... they track the target and fly an intercept course to meet the target at a location ahead of where the target is at that time.

    Makes them quite hard to evade.

    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    Sorry... bad choice of words... everything has mass and mass does not change under acceleration due to another mass or movement.

    the 47kg warhead weighs 47kgs at one g... ie sitting on a table. At 1 g its weight is 47kgs.

    At 2gs its weight is 96kgs... its weight at 90gs is just 90 x 47kgs = 4,230kgs.

    Its mass does not change... think of weigh as momentum, where speed is measured in gs.


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

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

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:57 am

    Anas Ali wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

    The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

    Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

    Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
    where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

    F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

    So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

    By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

    The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:31 am; edited 3 times in total

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:05 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Anas Ali wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

    The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

    Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

    Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
    where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

    F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

    So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

    By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

    The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.


    By the way, kgs is a unit of force (also weight); the "s" in it comes from the Russian word сила (force). Sometimes it's written as "kgf".

    On the other hand, "kg" is a unit of mass.

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Anas Ali on Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:00 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Anas Ali wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

    The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

    Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

    Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
    where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

    F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

    So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

    By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

    The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.


    By the way, kgs is a unit of force (also weight); the "s" in it comes from the Russian word сила (force). Sometimes it's written as "kgf".

    On the other hand, "kg" is a unit of mass.

    i dont know how to thank you , i really appreciated
    thanks so so much study

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Anas Ali on Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?

    I am simplifying this quite a bit but a good rule of thumb is the size of a control surface will matter in that the larger the surface for a given speed will have more turning force applied and give better manouver capability.

    An exception of course is when the control surface stalls... the front control surfaces of the R-27 where is starts out narrow and gets wider is designed to reduce drag and delay stall to give better turn performance than a standard triangular fin.

    The potatoe masher type rear fins on the R-77 are also designed to give max turning force with a compact shape and high angles of attack before stalling.

    the thrust vector engine gives excellent manouver capability, but only while the rocket motor is burning... just like aircraft a TVC missile has excellent turning ability.

    the R-73 is smaller and lighter and has TVC so it can turn harder than the R-27.

    The R-27ET has much longer range and a wider field of view because the missile body is wider.

    If you were chasing down a target at low level the R-27 would have a better chance of running it down... otherwise the R-73 would be the preferred weapon... both don't just tail chase... they track the target and fly an intercept course to meet the target at a location ahead of where the target is at that time.

    Makes them quite hard to evade.

    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    Sorry... bad choice of words... everything has mass and mass does not change under acceleration due to another mass or movement.

    the 47kg warhead weighs 47kgs at one g... ie sitting on a table. At 1 g its weight is 47kgs.

    At 2gs its weight is 96kgs... its weight at 90gs is just 90 x 47kgs = 4,230kgs.

    Its mass does not change... think of weigh as momentum, where speed is measured in gs.

    thank you so much , that was really helpful i really appreciate your help study study

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:02 pm

    Anas Ali wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    Anas Ali wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

    The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

    Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

    Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

    thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
    where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
    (47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

    thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

    F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

    So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

    By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

    The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.


    By the way, kgs is a unit of force (also weight); the "s" in it comes from the Russian word сила (force). Sometimes it's written as "kgf".

    On the other hand, "kg" is a unit of mass.

    i dont know how to thank you , i really appreciated
    thanks so so much  study

    You're welcome.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:41 am

    Yes, by all means, don't be afraid of asking questions... Very Happy

    I myself have learned a lot more because people have asked about things I have replied to, which led me to think about some things more and realised some of what I thought I knew was wrong... Embarassed

    one obvious example was my mistake in thinking that the D-30 engine in the Il-76 is related to the D-30 engine in the MiG-31...


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

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

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:47 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    … if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

    A more correct way of saying this is that

    "… if a 70 kg pilot is making a horizontal 6 g turn, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration that counteracts the earth's gravitational acceleration".

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:01 pm

    WoW .... enjoy Very Happy













    LINK


    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 pm

    So PAKFA may only able to carry maximum of 2 KH-58U's with 1 in each bay ?


    Last edited by Stealthflanker on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:18 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:So PAKFA may only able to carry maximum of 2 KH-58U's in each bay ?

    That was always the idea- just compare size.


    Ranxerox71
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 18
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2015-04-25
    Age : 46
    Location : Ex YU

    Discussion which is become very frustrating on Serbian My City MILITARY forum

    Post  Ranxerox71 on Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:47 am

    First to say greetings to all Russians and they (thank God) firm and decisive decision to practically become Last Bastion of Main human Freedom and that is freedom of choice...
    We on the MY city Military Forum have one discussion and question on which almost nobody can to give proper answer, which issue is main topic.
    n the last Three years when Russians industry of Airplanes and Helicopters for Russian VVC become to the rate of producing from USSR , by numbers per year of various models of Airplanes, Something is become very obvious for every one of as which whit big antention watch every new delivering of does Su34, Does Su35C, Does Su30CM, Does Ka52 heli Mi28N and etc, we are comes to conclusion that 99% of all pictures from various drills even avia darts in last two years shown only firing of so called unguided propel rockets, How to say that and that not be offensive, Watching as i said SU34 which is presented like state of the Art Machine whit various means of sighting how firing unguided rockets which was exist in WWII, is kind of shame, O.K i can understand that for young pilots(Letčik) is good exercise, because he first must put the whole plain in very precise position (where he learn to fly whit plane under some pressure in narrow time frame of engagement, and then Sturman must firing in to right moment those Old kind of weapon About Su30 or Su35C that is sad to watch, neither video clips from various helicopter drills and firings, we can't see firing of some sophisticated guided Attaka or Vikhr or Igla or what ever again 99,9% is Unguided propelled Rockets together whit machine gun, Ok lets say that for Helicopters it is more natural or should i said more relevant even in real conflict choice of weapon because Helicopters flying low and fast, etc, But for AirPlanes except Su25 which is kind of successor of IL2 Sturmovik like Flying tank, Watching How almost all brand new or modernized Airplanes have on pilion those containers and firing from them is like watching for example future Armata how just firing smoke grenade.and nothing else.
    Again please that really isn't my intention to over estimate potential of Russian Air force, but does somebody can explain why we have not opportunity to watch much more often firing of V-v missiles (their testing especially because there is so much talk about new versions of some famous VV or AA(on english ) missiles) also case is whit Other types of Airplanes missiles, Only what can be found on You tube is several short clips whit firing some V-P Missiles from unpainted Su30(i think that is old recording of testing for purpose of Su30MKI) We have discussion about those obvious "problem" for as like lovers of Russian planes and weapons, somebody said that simply stock piles of those 80mm and 10mm unguided rockets is so wast that they simply wish not to trouw them , because they are still correct training for young pilots in engagement of plane on which he goes thru training, But Again there is opinions that new models of promised new models of missiles for different purpose, and use, simply isnt finished, And that they now hang onto pillon old missiles will be mistake because that would shown that Russian AF isn't yet get missiles especially A-A or V-V in the class of MBDA Meteor or MICA, or AIM9x etc, Except Cryptonit which is missiles against Radars and long range Kh55 for MiG31 which until this day have not Analog in to west, But which is also Old missiles, RF wasnt yet get neither one brand new missile for any type or purpose, until China and India (especially China) every year represent two or three new missiles , which that thing be worst is mainly missiles on base of old USSR Missiles, But whit help of new possibility of electronics and smaller and smaller, whit greater and greater resolution optical heads, more sensitive IR heads, and etc They really have not problem to introduce those new ordinance very fast in they operational squads and etc...For all this reason i really will be extremely greatfull that somebody who have little more knowledge and some insight in industry of mention weapons it self what is happen whit Russian industry of promised new missiles of all type's and purposes, and does those whit out stopping trainings of newest Airplane on so called live munition is stucked whit NRZ because command wish that huge stock piles will be spend at least for some significant percent or problem is of mentioned second nature.
    once more greetings to All People which think that Russia (together whit China) is only countries which can save as all from global slavery .Thanks again to the Russian people because they will not sold it self for McDonalds and other rubbish.
    P.S
    Then Again maybe we are just projected our wishes to watch more practising whit smart bombs, V-P Missiles, V-V and similar

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:32 am

    IMO the answer is to do with the fact that the new PGM's haven't been introduced in service yet in numbers....going by interviews of weapons producers from a couple of years ago, they were suppose to start delivering the new stuff this year...so we will see.

    As for the "aviadarts' competion, it will probably remain with unguided staff as the aim is to test the gunnery and bombing skills of the crews

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 739
    Points : 899
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    bombs and missile costs

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:29 pm

    Hi does anyone know of any of the average costs of bombs, missiles etc and how they compare to there western counterparts, i would expect as normal is the case that the Russian equivalent will be cheaper. any info would be great

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  George1 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:46 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:Hi does anyone know of any of the average costs of bombs, missiles etc and how they compare to there western counterparts, i would expect as normal is the case that the Russian equivalent will be cheaper. any info would be great

    even in the site of tactical missiles corp. there isnt any info for costs, but it has feedback if you ant to try

    http://eng.ktrv.ru/conference_eng/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:05 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:05 pm