+58

Kiko

zepia

JohninMK

Mir

Atmosphere

marcellogo

Big_Gazza

TMA1

Rasisuki Nebia

ALAMO

thegopnik

limb

Dima

-89dbsm

Hole

LMFS

Arrow

George1

GarryB

dino00

nemrod

Fulcrum-35

Isos

miketheterrible

kopyo-21

Batajnica

Flanky

max steel

marat

Berkut

artjomh

magnumcromagnon

jhelb

sepheronx

nastle77

d_taddei2

Morpheus Eberhardt

Anas Ali

flamming_python

Werewolf

RTN

Mike E

mack8

indochina

Sujoy

eridan

Shadåw

KomissarBojanchev

Admin

medo

Viktor

Tunguska india

TR1

Stealthflanker

SOC

Austin

Cyberspec

Mindstorm

62 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 18

Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°1

Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:01 am

I see that they are going to reveal the RVV-BD at Maks2011.

RVV-BD is the export version of the R-37 long range AAM.

I remember that it has been repeatedly said by the makers that the R-37 will be compatible with the Su-27M, Mig-29M, and PAK FA. (well they actually said MFI and also included the Yak-141 at the time too).

There is little point in offering this missile for export if it is not compatible with the Su-30MKI and Su-35 and upgraded Migs.

The R-37 was tested to a flight range of 300km and there is believed to be a two stage version called R-37M designed to meet the required flight range of 400km for an anti AWACS weapon a while back.

If the target is an AWACS aircraft emitting enormous amounts of radar energy then detection should not be a problem for even small aircraft like Mig-29s... it is like trying to shoot a light seeking missile at a lighthouse.

This is an interesting move by the Russians and would be very useful in their battle with Europe with regards to Meteor. Meteor threatened to out range Russian export missiles, but with new powerful AESA radars those 4+ generation Eurocanards should be detectable from significant ranges.

Of course one could claim that the R-37 is for use against bombers, but I would challenge anyone who thinks dodging modern missiles would be easy to try dodging bullets.

An R-37 would come in at something like mach 6 so by the time you saw it it would probably be too late.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°2

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Mindstorm Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:46 pm

RVV-BD is the export version of the R-37 long range AAM.

I remember that it has been repeatedly said by the makers that the R-37 will be compatible with the Su-27M, Mig-29M, and PAK FA. (well they actually said MFI and also included the Yak-141 at the time too).

There is little point in offering this missile for export if it is not compatible with the Su-30MKI and Su-35 and upgraded Migs.

For precision RVV-BD is a new missile,in its export incarnation,of the export version of R-33 missile (R-33E),very likely it will be offered ,like already RVV-SD and RVV-MD,on the international market for buyers of SU-30MK series (except maybe Indian SU-30MKI and "Super-30 MKI" at which very likely will be offered,with theirs FGFA, the not-exportable version of the long range missile) SU-35BM, MIG-35 and,in future, export versions of PAK-FA as the long range missile "promised" for those platforms.
In any istance RVV-BD show 200 km engagement range,15 -25000 m of altitude limits and capability to engage at maximum range an 8G manoeuvring target, which is truly ,truly impressive for a long range missile !!! (pratically it will be more than capable to engage any air target,except the top end worldwide in term of manoeuvrability, including air superiority fighter aircraft and high speed precision guided missiles),difinitely impressive parameters for a weapon enough compact to be mountable internally in export PAK-FA and ,above all,offered on the international market.
That is an excerpt from Tactical Missile Corporation's article on MAKS-2011:

"RVV-BD long-range guided missile is presented at MAKS-2011 for the first time. In comparison with its predecessor R-33E long-range guided missile the new one has improved technical performance. High aerodynamic quality of RVV-BD missile and use of dual-mode solid – fuelled motor taking into consideration its all-up weight up to 510 caliber, permit launch – range up to 200 km (R – 33E has launch range only 120 km) and ability to destroy targets with overload up to 8 g (R – 33E able to destroy only with 4 g overload) at the altitude from 15 m to 25 km."

This is an interesting move by the Russians and would be very useful in their battle with Europe with regards to Meteor. Meteor threatened to out range Russian export missiles, but with new powerful AESA radars those 4+ generation Eurocanards should be detectable from significant ranges.

GarryB the question of AAM engagement is where is possible to ear majority of comical technical idiocies.
The better are those on the range of AIM-120 series with real engagement range very often even doubled for the effect of childish ,creative, attitude of ignorant fan-boys (constructing on data coming from very low level sources ,like the by now infamous designation-systems "article" Laughing

,ridiculous thesis).
In this serious article,at example, is contained a prospect with real engagement range (from publiations of the the most authorative names in the sectors) for majority of modern close and medium range AA missile.

www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp

Meteor will have an engagement range in the 100 km area
[url=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/meteor-missile-will-make-changes-to-accommodate-f35-0599/ ]www.defenseindustrydaily.com/meteor-missile-will-make-changes-to-accommodate-f35-0599/ [/url]

but of course, thanks to its ram-jet propulsion ,will have a significantly higher end game PK against high manoeuvrable target aircraft equiped with modern MAWS

About R-37/M it has been already integrated since 3-4 years in the MIG-31BM stationed at 6959th Olenya Air Base and, if the G-limit of the exportable RVV-BD dual-mode solid – fuelled motor can be a guide, we can say that R-37M shouldn't have any problem to engage also fighter aircraft .

GarryB i want to point out this brief video of SU-35S preparing itself for MAKS-2011,being that a topic on SU-35,it show a truly impressive manoeuvrability and capability to regain speed significantly higher than that of SU-30MKI,it is clear also at naked eyes. Enjoy the show ...included the wonderful journalist presenting the piece!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCQQU6qc7oc

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°3

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:14 pm

For precision RVV-BD is a new missile,in its export incarnation,of the export version of R-33 missile (R-33E),very likely it will be offered ,like already RVV-SD and RVV-MD,on the international market for buyers of SU-30MK series (except maybe Indian SU-30MKI and "Super-30 MKI" at which very likely will be offered,with theirs FGFA, the not-exportable version of the long range missile) SU-35BM, MIG-35 and,in future, export versions of PAK-FA as the long range missile "promised" for those platforms.

I have seen a photo and it is clearly not an export version of the R-33, it is the R-37.

"RVV-BD long-range guided missile is presented at MAKS-2011 for the first time. In comparison with its predecessor R-33E long-range guided missile the new one has improved technical performance.

The replacement for the R-33E is the R-37.

Main change is ARH.

High aerodynamic quality of RVV-BD missile and use of dual-mode solid – fuelled motor taking into consideration its all-up weight up to 510 caliber, permit launch – range up to 200 km (R – 33E has launch range only 120 km) and ability to destroy targets with overload up to 8 g (R – 33E able to destroy only with 4 g overload) at the altitude from 15 m to 25 km."

The R-77 is also described with two flight ranges... one being against fighters (ie 12g targets) and a much longer range against low manouver targets (4g) like troop transports and JSTARS.

but of course, thanks to its ram-jet propulsion ,will have a significantly higher end game PK against high manoeuvrable target aircraft equiped with modern MAWS

a good intercept algorithm can be just as important as physical controls on a missile.

The grid fins on the R-77 have a minor increase in drag, a significant increase in RCS but in terminal manouver performance they allow the missile to turn harder and faster and much more likely to hit the target.

I don't know but would suspect that the R-37 would have side thruster rockets mounted along the missiles centre of gravity after the fuel is all consumed to aid in getting the warhead closer to the target during an intercept. Even Igla-S has this feature.

About R-37/M it has been already integrated since 3-4 years in the MIG-31BM stationed at 6959th Olenya Air Base and, if the G-limit of the exportable RVV-BD dual-mode solid – fuelled motor can be a guide, we can say that R-37M shouldn't have any problem to engage also fighter aircraft .

As mentioned above I would suspect that the 200km range give is no where near the actual max range of the weapon against large low manouvering targets and it is because of this that it can engage fighter type targets.

Thanks for the vid.

Here is a pic of the RVV-BD from Andy_wiz....

Russian Air-to-Air missiles Rvvbd10

As you can see it is R-37 rather than R-33.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°4

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:27 pm

I notice in that article you posted a link to it mentioned the ramjet powered R-77 version... considering their extensive experience with combined rocket ramjet powered missiles that they would probably not have bothered trying for a ramjet powered missile, but rather spent a bit more and gone for scramjet powered missile.

The difference is potentially much higher flight speed and more efficient long range use of fuel.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°5

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Mindstorm Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:23 pm

The grid fins on the R-77 have a minor increase in drag, a significant increase in RCS but in terminal manouver performance they allow the missile to turn harder and faster and much more likely to hit the target.

I don't know but would suspect that the R-37 would have side thruster rockets mounted along the missiles centre of gravity after the fuel is all consumed to aid in getting the warhead closer to the target during an intercept. Even Igla-S has this feature.

I,instead, have the usual feeling which caught me any time a "new" weapon is publicly showed by Russian developers : we are obviously in front of the umpteenth inferiorexport version of a missile with capabilities very ,very, very different from the internal version with which Russian Armed Forces arm themselves.
For some strange reason ,any time Russian companies put on the international market a "new" weapon giving its specifics ,almost anyone ,caught from the excitement and the wish to "use" those parameters to do some comparison, completely forget that Russia is not USA or UK or Germany and that the weapons it export are almost ever enormously inferior to those with which it arm itself (and all of us well remeber as ,in the past, this habit has conducted our experts to very horrible surprises , like with the tests of Manfred Held,before, and Leland Ness,after, on original Soviet T-72A/B after Germany reunification or the disastrous DACT exercices against old ,but original, Soviet version of Mig-29 equiped with original N019 (which demonstred to be capable to jam APG-63 of F-15 up to the WVR transition !!) IRTS,R-27, HMS and R-73....
Returning to the subject in question i think that is not a fortuity that Tactical Missile Corporation refere to the increase in performances of RVV-BD against R-33E ,the previous downgraded "long range missile"offered by actical Missile Corporation for export for the equally downgraded interceptor (MIG-31E); at the end of the day the differences with the internal version will no be lower than that between the actual R-33E offered for export and the internal R-33S or R-37/37M operative with RuAF, exactly like a TMC Yakhont is very,very different from a Russian Navy Oniks ,or a KH-35E is very different from Kh-35, or a Shkval-E torpedo is very different from a Shkval/II, a Moskit-E is very different from a Moskit etc..etc..etc...

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°6

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:48 am

The Yakhont is downgraded from the Oniks because of international treaties on precision guided missiles with a flight range of 300km or more or a capacity to deliver WMD payloads.

The RVV-SD, RVV-MD, and now RVV-BD are new weapons in that they are new for export weapons, and a quick look at the figures given clearly show that the RVV-SD is no mere downgraded export version of the R-77, but an upgraded version of RVV-AE with improved flight range and digital electronics.
(One would assume that the missiles offered to the Russian military are incrementally better again).
The Soviets had a policy that exported products had to be 10% or 15% inferior to their domestic equivalents, though I rather doubt they made an effort to get that precise.

In some cases like Tender-M/Iskander-E and Oniks/Yakhont the difference is because of the MTCR, while in others like the Kornet-E and Kornet the difference is likely less specific.

Sometimes like with the Pantsir-S1 where UAE paid for the final development the customer likely got as good as the Russian Military got because the UAE paid for development while the Russian military was happy with a lower performance level (less expensive but less capable).

The R-33E is given performance specs of 120km flight range to target, which is comparable to the performance of the original R-33. After Donald revealed its secrets and the Mig got an upgrade the improved R-33S was reportedly capable of flying 150km to targets with improved electronics. So the difference between the domestic and export R-33 was at least 30km in flight range and probably other difference in ECCM performance and electronics.

In the twenty odd years since the R-33 was upgraded electronics have moved on, and the so called new missiles for export, ie the RVV-SD, RVV-MD, and now RVV-BD represent completely updated old missiles with new more powerful rocket motors and improved sensors and better electronics. I would expect that in Russian service the equivalent missiles would be the R-77M, R-73M2, and the R-37B. (Note I didn't call the improved R-37 the R-37M because the R-37M has a solid rocket booster and is intended for longer range intercepts of aircraft like AWACS aircraft and JSTARS... therefore an upgraded R-37M should be called R-37MB.)

Of course a more consistent terminology would have the R-37 and R-37E, with the R-37E having the booster motor, so the improved and updated models of each would be R-37M and R-37EM with the export designations being RVV-BD and RVV-BM for the standard and fitted with booster versions respectively.

Just looking at the photo of the RVV-BD its top fins that fold should allow it to be carried more easily in the PAK FA.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°7

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Mindstorm Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:35 pm

The RVV-SD, RVV-MD, and now RVV-BD are new weapons in that they are new for export weapons, and a quick look at the figures given clearly show that the RVV-SD is no mere downgraded export version of the R-77, but an upgraded version of RVV-AE with improved flight range and digital electronics.
(One would assume that the missiles offered to the Russian military are incrementally better again).

Of course RVV-SD is an upgraded version of RVV-AE, but for no other reason that the former is the export version of Izdeliye 170-1 and the latter was the export version of Izdeliye 170.

Sometimes like with the Pantsir-S1 where UAE paid for the final development the customer likely got as good as the Russian Military got because the UAE paid for development while the Russian military was happy with a lower performance level (less expensive but less capable).

Also the specifics for Pantsyr-S1 are a clear example of what i have previously said; if you follow ,in fact, the "history" of Pantsyr-S1's specifics you will realize that KBP Instrument Design Bureau attempted, at first, to sell a version with slower time of reaction, higher time of transition from movement to fire, lower radar and EO tracking footprint, 10 Km of maximum altitude engagement range and capability to engage two targets (one with radar and the other with EO/IR channel ); also in this version Pantsyr-S1 would have been by far the best SHORAD system available on the international market , but UAE asked for more to continue to fund the program.
So in less than one year and half Pantsyr-S1, passed to : less than 2/3 of the time of reaction,half the previous time of transition from movement to fire,significantly increased radar and EO/IR tracking footprint, one time and half (15 Km) of maximum altitude limit , and double of targets enageable contemporaneously by any launcher(4 targets).
Magic ? Of course not !!! Simply Russian military authorities gived the permission to KBP Instrument Design Bureau for this important international purchaser, to downgrade .....the downgradation Laughing

And even this "incarnation" of Pantsyr is very likely still different from that with which Russian armed forces arm itself

"Zhukov cited specifications for an export version of Pantsyr-M as the data on the system for the Russian Navy is still classified.
The export Pantsyr-ME version has a response time of 3-5 seconds and can track and destroy simultaneously up to four targets.
Its missiles have a range of 20 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes from 2 meters to 15 kilometers, while its guns have a range of four kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes up to 3 kilometers."

At the end of the day the strategical purpose for similar old habit is exactly the same pursued by Soviets some dozen of years ago: thanks to the downgraded models selled to Middle Eastern and no Warsaw Pact nations,at example,Soviets assured that pratically all NATO's analysis models and projection -form which derive of course the strategical positioning of forces, force composition,structure of the command line, the planned times of redeployement and transition against a specific menaces up to the specific CONOPS of a particular weapon at a tactical level- was totally and horribly wronged.
In an hypothetical URSS conventional offensive in Europe, a NATO commander of a mechanized armoured cavalry regiment or an armoured division, veteran of Desert Storm ,even leaving out the question of the enormous numerical overmatch and all the other corollary assets at disposition of the enemy Soviet forces, would have discovered against original soviet T-72A/B (and naturally also T-64B and T-80U) and directly on the battlefield what M. Held and L. Ness discovered in live tests after German reunification : the original Soviet vesrsion of T-72A7B ,with theirs composite armor and ERA, was pratically impenetrable for virtually all anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal at the time (read "Russian tanks immune to attack says German expert" JIDR vol 29 n. 7 July 1996 and "Impenetrable Russian Tank Armor Stands Up To Examination" Vol. 30 No. 7 July 1997 )or what mean observe salvo after salvo of AT-8 and AT-11s shooted from 4-5 km of distance ,well outside your possibilities of counterfire or the difference between the 3BM17 APFSDS (export version of the 3BM15,a round not used in URSS since 1971 not even only as training round !)shooted by an Iraqi Lion of Babylon and a 3BM42 APFSDS or 3BK25 HEAT used widely at the time by the Soviet armoured divisions stationed in East Germany ,or the difference in theirs mobility and off road speed , or the immense differences in theirs FCS, obviously all of that in an highly mobile manoeuvring offensive and defensive operation,instead of MBT used litterally like pillboxs.
The same could be said for the few,vastly downgraded, export "Mig-29" confronted in Gulf War and Kosovo War,devoid of pratically all,and the originals not up to date MiG-29-9.12 (image that,at 1991,only in East Germany was operative about 250 MiG-29-9.12 and MiG-29-9.13/9.13S with GSVG and 63 Mig-29-9.12 with the LSK/LV !!) equiped with original N019 radar,R-27E series, R-73 IRTS and HMS which have systematically beated western counterparts in DACT exercices after Germany reunification too.
Also in this istance NATO pilots and analysts would have discovered the efficiency of R-27E ,of the combo R-73 - HMS or the ECCM capabilities of original N019 radar directly in the airspace fight arena .

For all the reasons and elements up exposed i think that the RVV-BV, now presented for the international market,show capabilities totally differentsfrom those of the long range missile which Russians adn Indians will mount in the internal bays of theirs PAKFA / FGFA

Last edited by Mindstorm on Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:39 pm; edited 2 times in total

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°8

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:50 am

Also the specifics for Pantsyr-S1 are a clear example of what i have previously said; if you follow ,in fact, the "history" of Pantsyr-S1's specifics you will realize that KBP Instrument Design Bureau attempted, at first, to sell a version with slower time of reaction, higher time of transition from movement to fire, lower radar and EO tracking footprint, 10 Km of maximum altitude engagement range and capability to engage two targets (one with radar and the other with EO/IR channel ); also in this version Pantsyr-S1 would have been by far the best SHORAD system available on the international market , but UAE asked for more to continue to fund the program.
So in less than one year and half Pantsyr-S1, passed to : less than 2/3 of the time of reaction,half the previous time of transition from movement to fire,significantly increased radar and EO/IR tracking footprint, one time and half (15 Km) of maximum altitude limit , and double of targets enageable contemporaneously by any launcher(4 targets).
Magic ? Of course not !!! Simply Russian military authorities gived the permission to KBP Instrument Design Bureau for this important international purchaser, to downgrade .....the downgradation Laughing Laughing
And even this "incarnation" of Pantsyr is very likely still different from that with which Russian armed forces arm itself

I disagree with this.

What you seem to be trying to say is that the Pantsir system was given an upgrade which UAE paid for and they were offered a reduced performance export version of the system which they rejected and when they spent more money the company let them have the better system for domestic use.

What actually happened was the Russian military couldn't afford to pay for the system upgrade so when the UAE offered to pay for the new upgrade the system they offered the UAE was the only upgrade available... just like the Indian Talwar ships that the Russian Navy has decided to buy are basically the ships developed for the Indian Navy but with Russian systems substituted for the Indian and Israeli and other equipment fitted.
The difference is that the UAE didn't add foreign equipment so it was all Russian.
When the UAE rejected the upgrade and opted to spend more money they actually replaced the radars and some electronics and developed a more thorough upgrade that increased performance with new booster rockets and new radar etc etc extending range and simultaneous engagement capability.

If the UAE hadn't spent the extra money the Pantsir-S1 system for the Russians would not have been anywhere near as good as it is now.

I am not saying the system the UAE is getting is the same as the Russian system, but the differences will be very minor.

The performance figures released for the Navy version with an altitude ceiling of 2m suggests the proximity fuse activates at 2m as opposed to the previous 5m, which suggests an improvement in guidance accuracy, an ability to track very low flying targets.

Regarding a comparison with Klintok, or naval TOR, the new system has a huge range advantage, while the vertical launch capacity of the Klintok system is probably balanced by the fact that Pantsir will likely be deployed in several turrets on each ship, and the fact that each turret has its own guidance sensors, while the Klintok radar tower has rotation and acquisition speed issues too. An array of four fixed radar ESA arrays together with the advantage of vertical launch in terms of stealth and getting missiles on targets from different directions quickly would shift the benefit back to Klintok along with the new missiles with longer range (though I think it still only reaches 16kms).

I have seen the new auto loading naval Grad system with two pods of 20 x 122mm rockets and something similar could be useful for self defence if loaded with Pantsir-S1 missiles in large pods too.

or the immense differences in theirs FCS, obviously all of that in an highly mobile manoeuvring offensive and defensive operation,instead of MBT used litterally like pillboxs.

I agree, they also kept a defensive posture and let the Americans fight on their terms... ie at night, and they waited the 6 months it took to transport armour and equipment into the theatre when a quick attack would see them fighting US airborne forces in Sheridans...

For all the reasons and elements up exposed i think that the RVV-BV, now presented for the international market,show capabilities totally differentsfrom those of the long range missile which Russians adn Indians will mount in the internal bays of theirs PAKFA / FGFA

Now that Russian companies are getting funding and domestic orders I would expect the return to the practise of monkey model export items that are not joint venture developments.
If the RVV-BD has a range of 200km vs an 8g manouvering target, I would expect that would translate into a 300km range against a non manouvering target (ie 2-3g like a strategic bomber or AWACS aircraft or JSTARS or large troop transport).
The mid 1990s test had a missile flight range of 300km so 15 years of improvements in electronics and solid rocket motor design the Russian/Indian model might allow them to discard the two stage version of the rocket and attain the 400km goal without the complication. The R-37M was too long to fit 4 weapons on the belly of the Mig-31 so they were Pylon mounted only. I is the main reason they returned to four pylons on the Mig-31M so that potentially 6 R-37s could be mounted on the belly and 4 R-37Ms under the wings represented a very potent long range weapons payload.

BTW interesting post Kratos, looks like in that top poster that those boxes for the Russian equivelant of DAS has been ported from the Mig-35D to the Su-35.

Regarding the seeker heads poster the intriguing seeker is surely the middle seeker described as an active radar mmw radar homing seeker with a calibre of 150mm and a weight of 8kgs.
From a quick google search I have found that according to an official at AGAT that makes the seekers that this new seeker is designed to upgrade older short range IR guided missiles to allow all weather capability. It says SAM and AAM so lets look at what they might be referring to:

The R-3, AA-2 Atoll has a calibre of 127mm so it is clearly not for that.
The R-60 has a calibre of 120mm so it can't be used in this either.
The R-73 has a calibre of 170mm so it could be used in this missile as a mini R-77.
Regarding SAMs the main obsolete short range SAMs could be SA-9 and SA-13 IR guided SAMs plus perhaps SA-8 and perhaps even an upgrade for SA-15.
All weather fire and forget capability would be quite useful... if not cheap.
The SA-9 and SA-13 are too small in calibre, while the SA-8 and SA-15 are probably about just right as they have larger than 150mm calibre bodies, but their bodies taper significantly near their noses.

Interesting that the Hermes has a nose calibre of 130mm as such a mmw radar seeker head would be quite useful for it.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°9

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Mindstorm Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:02 pm

When the UAE rejected the upgrade and opted to spend more money they actually replaced the radars and some electronics and developed a more thorough upgrade that increased performance with new booster rockets and new radar etc etc extending range and simultaneous engagement capability.

If the UAE hadn't spent the extra money the Pantsir-S1 system for the Russians would not have been anywhere near as good as it is now.

GarryB i consider you a very intelligent person (i have very often read your comments at Defunct Humanity and found them always smooths, rationally centred and brights), and just for this reason i am certain that even yourself cannot belive at this hypothesis.
Following this line of reasonment,in fact, we should belive also that UAE, providing other funds for the program, could obtain....in few months....a further similar increase of +50% in kinematical performance and engagement envelop, threefold increase of engaging radar self screening range, halving of time of reaction and doubling of the number of engaged target for both radar and optronic/IR channel !!!
You know perfectly that even a tiny fraction of similar increases in even only one of those parameters require several years of R&D efforts by parts of developers operating in very different fields and several others for integration and validation process.
For me it is clear like the sun that those "magical" increases simply come from an immense research and development effort ,long 9-10 years, done for the internal product,a program with ,obviously, technical requirements even greater than the actual product offered on the international market.

Regarding a comparison with Klintok, or naval TOR, the new system has a huge range advantage, while the vertical launch capacity of the Klintok system is probably balanced by the fact that Pantsir will likely be deployed in several turrets on each ship, and the fact that each turret has its own guidance sensors, while the Klintok radar tower has rotation and acquisition speed issues too. An array of four fixed radar ESA arrays together with the advantage of vertical launch in terms of stealth and getting missiles on targets from different directions quickly would shift the benefit back to Klintok along with the new missiles with longer range (though I think it still only reaches 16kms).

The greater advantage of Pantsyr-M ,even only using the figures provided for the export version (20 km / 15 km of engagement range, with missile capable of speed of about 1 Km/sec and 4 simultaneous target for turret) will be its capability to effectively greatly dilute saturation attacks .
In fact even only a pair of Pr 22350 frigates , not taking even into account any other missile or ECM element of the ship's integrated AD system, could engage the first 16 targets (4 for each of the 2 turrets present on each ship coordinated by the new Poliment-enabled fleet integrated target designation and assignation system) at an interception of 19-20 km ,but not in the order of arrival but at serilaized ,time and menace related order.
That capability will effectively enormously "dilute" the time of arrival of the inbound missiles/bombs and render ,eventually,the remaining menaces very trivial targets for the most internal elements of the ship's AD (the 9M100 "Morfey-like" and the 4 bined cannons present on the two frigate) which could get the chance to re-engage more times the missiles eventually missed ; the very high speed of the Pantsyr-M missile,which will allow to effectuate much more intercepting salvo in the same time window, its greatly improved envelop range and the very high number of simultaneous engagements for element ,will effectively multiply several times the capability to neutralize even the most intense saturation attacks.

I agree, they also kept a defensive posture and let the Americans fight on their terms... ie at night, and they waited the 6 months it took to transport armour and equipment into the theatre when a quick attack would see them fighting US airborne forces in Sheridans...

If can interest you, this is a famous and lucid analysis just of the tactical mistakes maked by Iraqi ground divisions in Desert Storm by one of the most authorative name in the sector, Stephen Biddle, which highlight very well the enormous impact of the lowermost level of training among Iraqi troops on the outcome of the ground war

www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

Good reading .

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°10

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:59 am

GarryB i consider you a very intelligent person (i have very often read your comments at Defunct Humanity and found them always smooths, rationally centred and brights), and just for this reason i am certain that even yourself cannot belive at this hypothesis.

Thank you... you seem quite rational and intelligent yourself (and not just because of the above opinion of me... Smile

)

Following this line of reasonment,in fact, we should belive also that UAE, providing other funds for the program, could obtain....in few months....a further similar increase of +50% in kinematical performance and engagement envelop, threefold increase of engaging radar self screening range, halving of time of reaction and doubling of the number of engaged target for both radar and optronic/IR channel !!!
You know perfectly that even a tiny fraction of similar increases in even only one of those parameters require several years of R&D efforts by parts of developers operating in very different fields and several others for integration and validation process.
For me it is clear like the sun that those "magical" increases simply come from an immense research and development effort ,long 9-10 years, done for the internal product,a program with ,obviously, technical requirements even greater than the actual product offered on the international market.

You are quite correct and mistaken all at the same time.

The extra money that the UAE spent when the upgrade was not to their requirements did not go into the existing components to further improve performance.
The extra funding was used to pay for newer and better hardware, so the curved search radar was replaced by a box shaped radar, while the tracking radar was also replaced with a new and improved model and the electronics were upgraded too.

It is like being offered a 486 personal computer as a computer for someone who just wants to do email and type out a few letters, they didn't spend a few million dollars to improve an old system, they replaced it with a modern laptop with an Atom CPU and all new hardware... that is where the performance increase came from.
The makers were trying to simply upgrade the old hardware, which didn't cut it with UAE and so they went with what one presumes are ESA based radars (PESA or AESA I don't know... probably the former considering the performance quoted for the search radar but perhaps AESA for the tracking and engagement radar.)
If the tracking radar is AESA then it is perfectly possible that the Domestic system can engage more targets at once plus the EO channel.

The greater advantage of Pantsyr-M ,even only using the figures provided for the export version (20 km / 15 km of engagement range, with missile capable of speed of about 1 Km/sec and 4 simultaneous target for turret) will be its capability to effectively greatly dilute saturation attacks .

The TOR missiles are very simple and cheap and being vertically launched are actually very stealthy.
The point being that its engagement capacity and rate is improved in later models AFAIK and with vertical launch capacity all of its missiles are ready to launch with no reloading delay.

ctuate much more intercepting salvo in the same time window, its greatly improved envelop range and the very high number of simultaneous engagements for element ,will effectively multiply several times the capability to neutralize even the most intense saturation attacks.

Indeed the combination of missile range and targeting channels makes it a very capable system against saturation attacks (which are the greatest threat to the modern warship from aircraft).

Good reading .

Thanks will take a look.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°11

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Mindstorm Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:24 am

If another proof that the specifics of RVV-BD was refered and designed for the export market (like those of RVV-SD and RVV-MD) was necessary, on Aviation Week & Space Technology of this month is present an interesting article on the subject.

http://ita.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416185355&e=true

"The related part is the following (from pag. 26) : "In the meantime, the export business is not being ignored. Tactical Missile Corp.'s Vympel unit,for example,used the Moscow Air Show (MAKS) to unveil its latest air-to-air export missile offering,the RVV-BD. It is intended mainly on use on MIG-31 (personal note : it likely a typo for MIG-35, read after) and SU-35,at least initially, and is designed to operate with the AKU-410-1 and AKU-620 launchers used on the respective fighters.
The missile's key feature is its extended range,which company officials note is 200 km using a two-stage motor, or significantly above the 120 km for the R-33E. Although Russian industry ha been working on longer-range versions, the defense ministry has set 200 km as the range for the export threshold. The missile is similar to the long-range air-to-air missile being built for the Russian Air Forces"

Other interesting features cited are the 60 kg of blast/fragmentation warhead (against the 47 kg unitary blast of R-33 series) with radar proximity fuse and the folded fins for a recessed carriage on MIG-35.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°12

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:08 pm

Actually I thing the typo goes the other way and the Mig-35 was supposed to be Mig-31.

It is the belly launch position on the Mig-31 that requires top folding rear fins, the Mig-35 uses conventional pylons that would not require the top rear fins to fold.

With a 200km range I would expect the radar of the Mig-35... when it is ready should be able to use such a missile effectively.

Regarding the part in the article about ramjet I actually suspect work has shifted to scramjets.
Both types of propulsion have the same potential problems of real jet engines in that they can stall and/or flameout etc during extreme manoeuvres, which can effect their performance.

60kgs is a whopper of a warhead... it is probably directional as well.

Edit:

BTW the short range IR AAM that the 150mm calibre active radar seeker has been designed for can only be one weapon... the R-73. So expect an active radar homing mini missile based on the R-73/74 for all weather short range fire and forget engagements. A mix of IR and ARH R-73Ms would be a very potent load for a small light fighter or for example for the Su-25 or attack helos. At about 110kgs pretty much even light UAVs will be able to carry it and it would be a quite potent AAM.

Cyberspec

Cyberspec: Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis

Post n°13

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Cyberspec Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:00 am

Mindstorm wrote:The missile's key feature is its extended range,which company officials note is 200 km using a two-stage motor, or significantly above the 120 km for the R-33E. Although Russian industry ha been working on longer-range versions, the defense ministry has set 200 km as the range for the export threshold. The missile is similar to the long-range air-to-air missile being built for the Russian Air Forces"

Other interesting features cited are the 60 kg of blast/fragmentation warhead (against the 47 kg unitary blast of R-33 series) with radar proximity fuse and the folded fins for a recessed carriage on MIG-35.

Sounds very promising..

I think the RVV-BD is a development of the R-37 (originally for the Mig-31M) which had a max range of 280km. The domestic version probably has that range. The most likely candidate to be armed with it currently is the Mig-31. The company rep has stated that it will also arm the Pak Fa and most likely the Su-35.

Possibly related from a couple of years ago....

Russian Air-to-Air missiles Th_24397_3235_122_551lo

Russian Air-to-Air missiles Th_24397_3235_122_551lo

among the armament of the Mig-31BM is mentioned 4 x K-37M and 4 x K-77-1. I'm betting that the K-37M and K-77-1 are the domestic designations for the RVV-BD and RVV-SD

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°14

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:37 am

That is interesting because it was my understanding that the R-37M had a solid rocket booster attached to its rear which prevented 4 from being carried on the belly of the Mig-31.

It is a shame that the three abreast layout didn't work as used on the Mig-31M that would have allowed 6 R-37s to be belly mounted with four free weapons pylons.

The max payload for the Mig-31 AFAIK is 9 tons which actually exceeds the Su-34 and reportedly could consist of two belly mounted KAB-1500 1,500kg guided bombs plus four more 1,500kg bombs under the four wing pylons. That is quite a payload.

At one stage they were talking about R-37 being used on all new generation Russian fighters including Su-27M and Mig-29M, which pretty much now means Su-35 and Mig-35.

I think they will end up buying Mig-35s simply to use Migs production capacity to get airframes built and to fund AESA development further. Also they need a numbers aircraft so they might take a few Mi-29s in good condition from storage and give them an SMT upgrade to match those they got from the Algerian order.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°15

Russian air-to-air missiles

GarryB Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:09 am

Try this:

http://3d.aviasalon.com/2d/release/

You might need to download a plugin to use this but it is a 3D view of the airfield at MAKS-2011 that you can zoom in and look at the aircraft lined up on the airfield...

I just started playing with it... looks like fun. Smile

Austin

Austin: Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India

Post n°16

R-73E and RVV-MD LOAL

Austin Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 pm

I would want to know if R-73E or the latest RVV-MD WVR missile has Lock on After Launch Capability ?

Considering both the WVR have long range 30 and 40 km respectively LOAL capability will be useful.

SOC

SOC: Posts : 565
Points : 608
Join date : 2011-09-13
Age : 46
Location : Indianapolis

Post n°17

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

SOC Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:16 am

Doesn't mention such a capability here:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/566/

That doesn't mean that it won't have the ability, but a 40km range in the rear hemisphere could be solely due to the capability of the seeker head.

Austin

Austin: Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India

Post n°18

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Austin Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:00 am

SOC wrote:Doesn't mention such a capability here:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/566/

That doesn't mean that it won't have the ability, but a 40km range in the rear hemisphere could be solely due to the capability of the seeker head.

Its an important capability and no manufacturer will miss mentioning it , yes indeed i saw their website and it doesnt mention it so i was more inclined to think it perhaps doesnt have it.

For LOAL capability you would need a way to get inertial updates from launching aircraft , till such time you main sensor of missile locks the target.

Not having that means you have a LOBL capability which limits to missile seeker looking at the target and it wont go beyond couple of Km.

Its a pity since RVV-MD has a tremendous range over any known WVR missile but due to lack of LOAL capability it cannot use it.

Well it will have ample of energy for short range engagements for sure and can afford to use it.

SOC did you get a email from me ?

SOC

SOC: Posts : 565
Points : 608
Join date : 2011-09-13
Age : 46
Location : Indianapolis

Post n°19

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

SOC Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:13 am

I did get your email, that was good stuff.

The tail-chase range of 40km is likely a factor of the kinetic energy of the missile and the sensitivity of the seeker head. Will you pick out a B-2 at 40km? Probably not. Will you pick out an F-15 in afterburner? Far more likely. The two-color seeker may give you a longer reach against an F-22 as well, but with the skin treatments and lack of afterburner use you may not get the full 40km.

A lack of LOAL capability is no real suprise. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they've never cared before, having other BVR IR-guided weapons. In fact, a lack of LOAL capability is probably a good indicator that an IR-guided R-77 is still being considered. You also have to figure that this is the export variant as well, there is the possibility that a LOAL capability is being incorporated into production weapons for the RusAF, but left out of export weapons to 1) make them cheaper, and 2) get you to buy the R-27TE/ETE.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°20

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:13 am

I would want to know if R-73E or the latest RVV-MD WVR missile has Lock on After Launch Capability ?

No it does not... and to all intents and purposes the R-73E and RVV-MD are the same thing now.

Both require lock on before launch.

They are designing a new short range missile believed to be called 9M100, or Morfei in the ground and sea launched models with a lock on after launch IIR seeker all unified between ground, air and sea launched versions.

Considering both the WVR have long range 30 and 40 km respectively LOAL capability will be useful.

That is high altitude kinematic range... the target would have to be something like an SR-71 to get a lock on at that range.

Not having that means you have a LOBL capability which limits to missile seeker looking at the target and it wont go beyond couple of Km.

To get a lock the missile needs to detect the target... whether it is lock on before launch or lock on after launch. Seeker lock on range depends on the target, a tail view of a jet engine is much easier to get a lock on than the nose, but the R-73 is an all aspect heat seeker... in other words you can get a lock on to a target that is not over 500 degrees and the missile doesn't just lock on to the hottest thing in its field of view.

Its a pity since RVV-MD has a tremendous range over any known WVR missile but due to lack of LOAL capability it cannot use it.

Range is important in an AAM, especially in a tail chase scenario where your missile needs range and speed to chase down a receding target.

The two-color seeker may give you a longer reach against an F-22 as well, but with the skin treatments and lack of afterburner use you may not get the full 40km.

Then again a super cruising F-22 might not have an AB target at the rear, but it will have friction heated skin at the front and it will be operating at an altitude where ground clutter wont be a factor.

VR IR-guided weapons. In fact, a lack of LOAL capability is probably a good indicator that an IR-guided R-77 is still being considered. You also have to figure that this is the export variant as well, there is the possibility that a LOAL capability is being incorporated into production weapons for the RusAF, but left out of export weapons to 1) make them cheaper, and 2) get you to buy the R-27TE/ETE.

Standard procedure seems to be upgrades and then new product... Su-35/PAKFA, BTR-82/Boomerang, T-90AM/Armata, AK-200/ rifle family x.

The RVV-SD/MD/BD are the digital upgrades of the R-77, R-73, and R-37.

I remember reading that in 2013/2014 we will see the replacements for the R-77 and R-73, and then later a replacement for the R-37.

Austin

Austin: Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India

Post n°21

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Austin Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:07 pm

Thanks SOC , Garry.

What is the difference between a two color seeker and an IIR seeker.

AFAIK Python-5 , ASRAAM ,AIM-9X and Mica-IR carries a IIR seeker while RVV-MD and Python-4 has two colour seeker.

I am probably inclined to believe a IIR is far more advanced and jam proof compared to two colour seeker.Having said that i read even the latest SM-3 uses a two colour seeker so its not that bad.

Stealthflanker

Stealthflanker: Posts : 1410
Points : 1486
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia

Post n°22

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Stealthflanker Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:56 pm

Austin wrote:Thanks SOC , Garry.

What is the difference between a two color seeker and an IIR seeker.

Based on things that "they see"

Imaging Infra Red Seeker (be it Focal Plane Array or Quantum Well Infra Red Photodetector) sees "true" IR image of target, like a video camera. this IR image allows the seeker to distinguish flares based on apparent size ..which will have "smaller" pixel to real aircraft which may look larger.. and this seeker can also used materials that can work in more than 1 IR Wavelength.. so it's pretty much 2 color anyway.

As for the "Two color seeker" ..it sees pretty much same "electric voltage" like older IR Missile (Sidewinder B)
BUT this seeker has a material that allows working in 2 different IR Wavelength (say 3 and 5 micron band) ..allowing the seeker to distinguish between flares which emit shorter IR Wavelength (0,xx-some 3 micron) to aircraft engine which emit longer wavelength.

Based on Design

The Imaging seeker uses an "array" of smaller IR detector to construct image of the target, and "recognize" the signal and sent its data to autopilot..which later generates steering command.

The "two color" seeker is an "extension" of older design.. where a reticle ..which consist of material having different IR transmissivity (say.. 100% and 50%) is used to modulate IR emission originated from the target to seeker, the detection element will receive this modulation and compare it with its "reference" signal from its gyros ..and later generate correction signal which sent to autopilot..which later generate steering command.

[

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38978
Points : 39474
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°23

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

GarryB Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:08 am

What is the difference between a two color seeker and an IIR seeker.

A two colour seeker often uses two different bands of "light" to distinguish an aircraft from a decoy flare. I use quotes for light because it doesn't operate in the visible light range, they often operate in IR and UV.

ROYGBIV is the light spectrum... red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.
Infra red is beyond red and ultra violet is beyond violet in the other direction.
Neither are naturally visible to the human eye, but that is only because certain elements in the human eye block those frequencies.

IR is related to heat, while UV is often related to very high voltage, something burning, or cosmic energy coming from the sky at night. UV and IR energy also come from the sun in addition to all frequencies of visible light.

The point is that an aircraft will have lots of bits emitting heat in different amounts, but it wont have bits emitting UV light.
When an aircraft releases flares those flares will emit UV energy as well as IR energy and visible light energy so by making a missile UV sensitive it can detect whether a heat or IR source is a flare burning or an aircraft.

IIR is like a thermal imager and creates an actual image of the target in the IR spectrum.

Two colour seekers are often good enough for most targets and are much cheaper until the mass production of QWIP sensors makes them cheaper.

A staring focal array does the same job as a QWIP, but the QWIP has much more potential for becoming cheaper, and being more versatile in that a QWIP chip can be sensitive to a wide range of frequencies combined, and with a bit of processing can create the best possible view of the target.

With 3D IR images of the targets you can achieve a lock on after launch capability that wont result in an own goal... except when operating with allies that have the same aircraft as the enemy like NATO will likely be doing.

I am probably inclined to believe a IIR is far more advanced and jam proof compared to two colour seeker.Having said that i read even the latest SM-3 uses a two colour seeker so its not that bad.

Two colour seekers are effective enough so far...

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°24

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Mindstorm Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:36 pm

Not having that means you have a LOBL capability which limits to missile seeker looking at the target and it wont go beyond couple of Km.

Its a pity since RVV-MD has a tremendous range over any known WVR missile but due to lack of LOAL capability it cannot use it.

What is that ? Shocked

Something say to me that a big misunderstanding has played an enormous role even only in the borning of this same thread.

Let start from the basis : Lock On Before Launch mean simply that all the necessary vectorial data for generate an useful intercept point must be present for the sensor suit (and not specifically missile seeker...except,as i will further explained successively down here,for very short range combat employing HMS ) before weapon delivery , without chances to update those data in-flight, change initial point of intercept designated toward a target on which you obtain a lock after missile's delivery or capability of the missile to self classify or designate a "target of opportunity" in an area, etc..etc...

R-73/73M1/M2 in particular are missile with a inertial mid-course proportional guidance up to a preselected point of intercept and terminal IR guidance.
This is an extract from Jane's Air-Launched Weapons n. 38 from Robert Hewson :

The missile has inertial mid-course proportional guidance with a terminal two-colour IR seeker, and it is believed to have an all-aspect engagement capability as well as the ability to discriminate against flare decoys. The 0S Mk-80 seeker assembly is manufactured by CDO Arsenal in theUkraine, and has a range of 15 km in the forward hemisphere with a field of view of ±75º. AA-11 has the capability to be designated and to lock onto a target before launch, with designation from the aircraft radar, IRST or the pilot's helmet-mounted sight……The R-73M2 version has an off-boresight capability improved to 60º, and a maximum range against a typical fighter target of 30km. Both R-73M1 and R-73M2 missiles can track targets in flight with off-boresight angles greater than these designation limits, increasing to 60º and 80º respectively.
It is believed that the missiles can follow targets manoeuvring at up to 12g, with sightline spin rates of up to 60º/s. AA-11 `Archer' can engage targets at altitudes from 20 m up to 20 km. R-73M2 has digital control electronics and IRCCM, which presumably can be reprogrammed as decoy flares change.
The greater range means that this version has a longer burning rocket motor, with suggestions that this missile can turn through 180º after launch.

Effectively for longer range engagements the initial "lock" for the "Archer" is obtained using designation and target positional and vectorial data obtained from Radar/IRTS/OLS for achieve a point of intercept ,which R-73M reach through in-flight inertial proportional guidance, from which the chances of the selected target to exit outside the R-73's terminal IR seeker field of view are very slim to absent .
Talking of the last capability named in the Jane's article (capability to perform a 180 degrees turn after launch ) it is mentioned also by Yefim Gordon in its "Soviet-Russian Aircraft Weapons since World War Two" ,pag 33

The missile is capable to do an U –Turn immediately after launch to engage an aircraft pursuing the aircraft; however this requires the aircraft to be equipped with a tail protection system enabling targeting in the rear hemisphere

What has truly puzzled me is discover that the enormous engagement range of R-73/73M (image that Hewson in the shortcut classify R-73M1/M2 as a medium range missile with IR guidance !!!) ,one of its most feared feature ,has been putted in doubt on the basis of a so naive misconception.

This is a pre-fire sequence described in How to Fly and Fight in the Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum” by Jon Lake pag. 40):

Immediately two parallel lines appeared in the HUD indicating the limits of the IRST sensor's lock-on zone(personal note: NOT the seeker lock on zone ) . 'Harry' manoeuvres hard to place the target between these lines and could squeeze the trigger, committing a missile to launch as soon as the enemy is locked-up. Instead, he waits for the enemy aircraft to enter the IRST 'ladder' and as the lock-on tone growls in his headset, hes queezes the trigger. "Pusk" (launch) he calls.
Even in a maximum range head-on shot,the R-73 'Archer' is extremely hard to defeat.
It is extremely agile, very fast, and has a longreach, so is almost impossible to outmanoeuvre.

From the same publication -pag 69- the words of an USAF pilots on the subject (and we all well remember the monstrous exchange ratio achieved by original, even if very old, MiG-29A with IRTS ,HMS and R-73 in pratically all DACT exercices against western corrispectives after German reunification) :

There's a range out there, probably a short (only just) BVR range, where the 'Archer' has its greatest advantage, and where the 'Archer'
is most scary to us.
Inside ten miles they're not thinking 'Alamos' any more and have probably even jettisoned them. But before we can get into a turning engagement ourselves or get close enough to VID (visually identify) or get a Fox Two against the 'Fulcrum', there are 'Archers' on the way, and they're extremely difficult to defeat.
I'm not sure exactly what the reach of the AA-11 is actually, and of course, in any case the Russians have a different version of the 'Archer' than the Germans and there are new sub-variants coming out all the time. But, at the end of the day there's a range out there where we can't see the 'Fulcrum', can't tell that the bandit is a 'Fulcrum' and yet they can shoot 'Archers' at us. That's not a good situation to be in.

This enormous engagement range advantage of R-73M ,with greater burn-out time and far ghreater terminal G limit over all its competitors worldwide is ,moreover, not only considered an immense operative problem for operatives of opposing Air Forces -as well testimonied by the words up-reported- but is ,very often, cited by the the same Russian developers as one of its best selling point
That are few words of Boris Obnosov, chief of Russian Tactical Missiles Weapon Corporation on the difference in engagement range with the competitors :

Our classification of “air-to-air” weapons includes three types of missiles - small, medium and long range. Now the short distance – is considered up to 40 kilometers, and the average – up to 100 kilometers. So the targets, which are now attacked by intermediate range missiles, will be destroyed by the short distance weapon.

(do you remember Hewson's classification of R-73M as a medium range missile ?)

and

For example, the combat range of RVV-MD exceeds AIM-9X almost twice.

Direct lock on by part of the missile seeker in engagements with R-73 and its derivatives is pratically executed exclusively in High G close range dog-fights in conjuction with the HMS (simply because lock-on by part of IRTS /OLS suit would be impossible, for geometrical reasons, for target in this combat envelop)
It is well explained by Yefim gordon in its "Famous Russian Aircraft SU-27" pag 520:

The HMS works solely with IR-Homing missile. Using it the pilot is able to fire a missile quickly at an enemy aircraft within visual range when sorely pressed for time during a dofg fight.
The pilot aims the missile without pointing the aircraft (and hence the missile's axis) towards the target -merely by looking at the target and getting it into the aiming reticle of the HMS.
In so doing he point the seeker of the missile squarely at the target, bypassing the radar and the optoelectronic targeting system ,moreover the HMS can provide target information to the radar and IRTS/LR .

I hope to have contributed to clarify the question one time for all.

Last edited by Mindstorm on Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

SOC

SOC: Posts : 565
Points : 608
Join date : 2011-09-13
Age : 46
Location : Indianapolis

Post n°25

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

SOC Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:47 pm

"Proportional guidance" is an incorrect term. The correct term is proportional navigation, or PRONAV. This has nothing to do with the actual guidance system per se, but rather the flight control system. PRONAV describes the path the missile takes to it's intercept point. In PRONAV, the missile's path is computed based on the target's path, allowing it to avoid simply flying a tail-chase engagement where it has to waste kinetic energy matching each and every maneuver of the target. PRONAV saves KE, giving you 1) longer overall range, and/or 2) more KE to maneuver at endgame for a successful intercept. In PRONAV, the missile has to know where the target is; that's the whole point of using PRONAV as a guidance algorithm. The R-73/RVV-MD know where the target is because they are LOBL weapons, the seeker acquiring the target before launch. A weapon such as the R-77 or AIM-120 uses PRONAV during the midcourse phase as they receive updated target position data from their midcourse guidance datalinks with the launching aircraft, before acquiring the target with their seeker head close to or during endgame. "Inertial mid-course proportional guidance" makes no sense whatsoever, becuase during inertially guided flight the missile just boosts out to a predetermined point before beginning to acquire guidance information from either its own seeker or the launching aircraft. You typically won't bother with PRONAV during inertial guidance for the simple reason that flying in a straight line (or using a lofted trajectory for greater ranges) saves more terminal KE than PRONAV does.

Jane's is a great reference source, I use it a lot myself. I've got a pile of Land-Based Air Defence volumes, one of the Strategic Weapon Systems binders, an Air Launched Weapons volume, and a few others. But like any other source, they aren't 100% accurate.

Russia Defence Forum

Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Russian air-to-air missiles

R-73E and RVV-MD LOAL

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Similar topics

Similar topics