Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Isos on Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:28 pm

    Their three known missiles... RVV-MD, RVV-SD, and RVV-BD seem to be upgraded versions of the R-73, R-77, and R-37M.

    I rather suspect the only fundamental changes needed will be in their seeker technology... and I fully expect dual seekers with both IIR and passive/active radar homing options as standard.

    I would think as scramjet technology matures that air breathing models will likely be developed too.

    The disign of these missile are different from R-73 and R-77, I don't know for the R-37. The new R-73 is refered as R-74 in some sources.

    RVV SD is export name for the R-77-1, the new missile for pak fa is called izdeliye 180 (K-77M) wich is different than R-77 in disign motorization and guidance; new rear fins, new motor, new seeker.

    wiki R-77 wrote:Vympel, a which had merged to be part of TRV, has been developing a more extensive upgrade of the missile than the R-77-1. Designated the izdeliye 180, or K-77M, this missile is a mid-life upgrade for the weapon and is intended to be the main medium-range missile for the Sukhoi PAK FA. This upgrade aims to provide a further improvement in range, with the design including a dual-pulse motor configuration. The izdeliye 180 will use an Active electronically scanned array seeker and conventional rear fins instead of the R-77's lattice fins. This missile is intended to match the performance of the latest AIM-120 variants.[1][3] Though it uses a similar designation as the earlier R-77M improvement program, it is not known if these two missiles are the same or are related.

    The ramjet version would have huge capacities. Hope we will see it someday, however I've read somewhere Russian are satisfied with rocket motor which are very capable today. Even US don't use ramjet missiles.


    I would say the opposite... the F-35 would require less performance than a late model F-15 or F-16 in terms of Kinematics to shoot down.

    Improved sensors with dual modes would make things easier, but a new missile from scratch would not be needed.

    The R-77 was designed from the outset for internal carriage and the R-73 and R-37s don't have large wing surfaces that would make internal carriage a problem...

    I agree. An R-27T would be very dangerous against F-35 however its capacities decrease with a bad weather or with the sun in the line of the lunch. That's why they need a new better missile with a better IR seeker.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:04 am

    The disign of these missile are different from R-73 and R-77, I don't know for the R-37. The new R-73 is refered as R-74 in some sources.

    They look externally the same... they are clearly upgrades of the older types with likely new rocket motors and digital electronics.

    Note when the R-23R and R-23T missiles of the MiG-23 were upgraded they called them R-24R and R-24T...

    Note the RVV-BD is not on the English version of their website... you have to look on the Russian version to see the RVV-BD. The RVV-BD is not an upgrade of the R-33, it is an upgrade of the R-37 that replaced the R-33.

    RVV SD is export name for the R-77-1, the new missile for pak fa is called izdeliye 180 (K-77M) wich is different than R-77 in disign motorization and guidance; new rear fins, new motor, new seeker.

    So they say but the only photos I have seen of a PAK FA prototype with weapons shows it carrying the old R-77-1 with the grid rear fins externally.

    Those grid fins fold forward for internal carriage and would fit internally as they are now.


    The ramjet version would have huge capacities. Hope we will see it someday, however I've read somewhere Russian are satisfied with rocket motor which are very capable today. Even US don't use ramjet missiles.

    Ramjet powered missiles would not be worth the effort. Scramjet powered missiles can be much much faster and are much more interesting. The Russians have plenty of experience with ramjet powered missiles... the SA-6 KUB, the Kh-31 family of missiles, and several large anti ship missiles also use ramjet propulsion right now.

    I agree. An R-27T would be very dangerous against F-35 however its capacities decrease with a bad weather or with the sun in the line of the lunch. That's why they need a new better missile with a better IR seeker.

    Not strictly true.... current IR technologies would suffice and new sensors can be fitted easily.

    The real thing is that the missile does not have to lock on at launch... it can be fired at a target detected by long wave radar to intercept the invisible enemy fighter... course corrections can be sent via datalink until it gets close enough to use its own seeker to find and kill the target....

    An R-27ET or even a new model scramjet powered version would be interesting....


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Isos on Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:16 pm



    R-77 used as anti radar missile. Nice second role capability. With it's range, it's between Kh-25MPU and kh-58 and can probably be used without electronic pod (with less probability of kill however ?) by any aircraft.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:09 pm

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2010-07-17/t-50-completes-early-flight-and-bench-tests

    Just found this article where it is said that they were thinking about a R-77ME, ramjet version of the R-77M developed for Pak Fa but they chose the "solid-propellant version–roughly equivalent to the AIM-120D AMRAAM–offers greater potential in a shorter time".

    What does that mean ?

    The ramjet is supposed to work all the way to the target so it has better perfermances for intercepting a taget. The rocket version burns some time and then it goes unpowered so its performances are worse than those of the ramjet version.

    Why are they chosing the "normal" version then ?

    BTW, for how many Km's does the rocket burns for a missile like R-77 ? Half of the max range ?

    eridan

    Posts : 147
    Points : 153
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  eridan on Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:22 pm

    Isos wrote:
    BTW, for how many Km's does the rocket burns for a missile like R-77 ? Half of the max range ?

    More like first 10-12 km, depending on velocity of the plane that launched it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:54 am

    Just found this article where it is said that they were thinking about a R-77ME, ramjet version of the R-77M developed for Pak Fa but they chose the "solid-propellant version–roughly equivalent to the AIM-120D AMRAAM–offers greater potential in a shorter time".

    What does that mean ?

    What they mean is that the missile is already rocket propelled so giving it longer range with a rocket engine just means making the missile slightly wider and or longer and using more powerful solid rocket propellent to give it better range. This can be done fairly quickly and easily on existing production lines.

    To convert the missile to ramjet powered means scabbing air intakes on the outside and rearranging the internal bits and pieces to fit a motor and fuel and air intakes. It would require a much greater change in design that would take longer and perhaps offer higher average flight range and speed but at the cost of other problems like manouver performance induced flame outs etc.

    I would suggest that a future scramjet powered model offers much better prospects as a ramjet powered missile would be limited in top speed to around mach 5-6, whereas a scramjet powered missile has no top speed limit... it would be rather more work than a rocket powered model but the potential in terms of improved performance would be worth it.

    In other words rocket power now with something like an R-27E improved bigger rocket motor model to increase range and speed, with future models in scramjet with further increases in performance...

    The ramjet is supposed to work all the way to the target so it has better perfermances for intercepting a taget. The rocket version burns some time and then it goes unpowered so its performances are worse than those of the ramjet version.

    Indeed a ramjet model offers similar speeds to rocket powered versions but better fuel management because you can adjust the throttle to suit the situation... a high energy launch with a climb for altitude and then a long high speed cruise at a low to medium thrust setting to maintain speed and then high thrust for the terminal attack of the target. In comparison the rocket burns in two stages... high energy short burn and then medium energy long burn but is often unpowered when it reaches its target and the burn rates are fixed and cannot be changed after production.


    Why are they chosing the "normal" version then ?

    Simpler and easier and cheaper and available sooner.

    I suspect they will leave the ramjet powered model and go straight to the scramjet powered model with a from scratch design better suited to internal carriage for all types of aircraft... imagine a box shaped scramjet powered AAM with a range of 500km and an IIR seeker and a speed of mach 9 that can be carried in the PAK DA as well as PAK FA.

    BTW, for how many Km's does the rocket burns for a missile like R-77 ? Half of the max range ?

    Depends on the design... normally they have a short burn high energy fuel to accelerate the missile off the rail to get it up to speed and then a slower burning fuel layer that basically counters drag and helps the missile maintain speed.

    the first component might burn out in 5 seconds while the second component might burn for 30 seconds or more.

    Note when launched from low altitude high drag means most AAMs are not going to be mach 2 plus missiles, but their solid propellent burns at the same rate no matter what.

    At higher altitude the first burn gets the missile up to a much higher speed and so the sustainer fuel greatly extends the flight range because the missile is already moving fast.

    With a ramjet motor the throttle can be set to best efficiency and the on board fuel should be enough for a few minutes flight.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:57 pm

    If I understood correctly, at the max range the missile is not powered. So the probability of kill of Rocket missiles decrease a lot at its max range as it can't manœuvre using vector thrust ?

    Why not making a third rocket part for the end of the course so that it won't be affected by this. Using just its control surface won't make it able to reach enough G's to hit a target that has 8 G.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:39 am

    Forget the hollywood movie depiction of an AAM as something that will tail chase and dogfight an aircraft.

    Air to Air missiles have control surfaces that act as lifting surfaces at very high speed but are way too small to be of any use at lower flight speeds.

    A plane at 600km/h being chased by an AIM-9 also travelling at 600km/h is perfectly safe because a Sidewinder flying at 600km/h with no fuel left will drop like a rock rapidly.


    AAMs employ slashing attacks at high speed... normally very supersonic and at that speed if they miss and fly past the target they don't have the energy to turn 180 degrees to try to hit the target again... even if they could they would not be able to reacquire the target so it would be pointless anyway.

    An R-37 falling from the sky from a lofted trajectory launch 400km distant means the missile will likely be coming down at mach 4-6... in other words one second it will be 1km away and a tiny dot in the sky and the next second it will be flashing past... not time to dodge or outmanouver... if it misses it will likely keep flying down and hit the ground before being able to turn and climb and attack again... when it is coming down it has gravity to add to its speed and energy... once past the target to turn 180 degrees takes away speed and energy... at such high speed your turning circle will be dozens of kms which means impact with the ground is the most likely result but even if it could turn and then start to climb it would rapidly lose energy because not only is there no gravity assist there is a gravity energy deduction and of course drag at low altitude too... bullets from rifles leave the muzzle at high speeds but within a few hundred metres the bullets are subsonic because air is dense at low altitude and high speed flight difficult to achieve...


    _________________
    “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

    Fulcrum-35

    Posts : 2
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2017-05-21

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Fulcrum-35 on Sun May 21, 2017 12:44 pm

    Hello. This is my first post. I've just introduced myself in the dedicated section. I would like to raise the issue about the status of the R-74M missile program. According to my somewhat sparse knowledge, the R-74M short-range air-to-air missile is a further development of the R-73 with a new more sensitive two-band infrared Impuls-90 seeker. It features increased off-bore sight angles and digital signal processing. It completed state evaluation on October 3, 2012 and has been subsequently officially commissioned for service with the Russian Air Force. My questions are the following:
    1. Did external appearance slightly changed with respect to the R-73? I think not but I am not sure.
    2. Are there any engine improvements?
    3. Does anyone have any knowledge of the import substitution program concerning the seeker? I've heard about a follow-on version dubbed R-74M2 being tested (from Butowski I think). If this claim is corroborated, do you have any information about its national components under development?
    4. Is it still under production at Duks facilities?
    5. The same question as 4. regarding the R-73 taking into account that its Mayak-80 IR seeker is also produced and designed in Kiev's Arsenal?

    Thanks in advance for your time and answers.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10757
    Points : 11236
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  George1 on Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:02 am

    The new Russian air-to-air missile threatens US Air Force

    It can easily infect the systems of long-range radar detection and aircraft

    According to Western military experts, the new Russian long-range missile R-37M (AA-13 Arrow - NATO classification) air-to-air class poses a serious threat to US military aviation. In particular, it can easily infect the AWACS long-range radar detection and warning systems, reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft, refueling aircraft and aviation electronic suppression means. The maximum range of the R-37M is 370 km. Currently, it can be suspended at external sites of MiG-31BM interceptors. In the long term it is supposed to be used as an armament of Su-35S multifunctional fighters and fifth-generation airborne complexes T-50 (PAK FA).

    In the control and support network of the US combat aviation and NATO, accordingly, a weak point has arisen, which nullifies all the capabilities of the fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 attack aircraft, significantly reducing their range. In today's fighting, airplanes that are invisible can not do without refueling in the air and without the work of special aviation aircraft of the tactical and operational control network.

    It is also known that the Russian defense industry is developing an even more effective air-to-air missile KS-172, the range of which will be increased to 460 km.

    https://vpk.name/news/183442_novaya_rossiiskaya_raketa_klassa_vozduhvozduh_ugrozhaet_vvs_ssha.html


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


    eridan

    Posts : 147
    Points : 153
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  eridan on Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:54 am

    Does any one have a source talking about development history of r27 missiles? Stuff found on usual English speaking websites is pretty lacking, short and without much details. For example, I can't be sure when R27T variant entered service and when R variant entered service as different sources give out different years and don't specify models...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:34 pm

    The R-27 family of missiles is enormous....

    The MiG-29 originally only carried the SARH and passive radar homing models, and only the Flanker carried the larger longer ranged R-27E models in SARH and IR guided and passive radar homing models. The Su-33 had special models designed to operate over water.

    There were also models designed for older generation aircraft like upgraded MiG-23s.

    And of course there was the active radar homing model.


    _________________
    “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

    eridan

    Posts : 147
    Points : 153
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  eridan on Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:42 pm

    Yeah.... so is there a trustworthy source which states when R27T was put into active service, and when R27R was was put in active service?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Isos on Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:19 pm

    eridan wrote:Yeah.... so is there a trustworthy source which states when R27T was put into active service, and when R27R was was put in active service?

    There is no evidence that the R-27EA (whch is the active radar R-27's name) was ever put into service. It was probably developed during the same time than R-77 and so they choosed the R-77.

    But it should be a very potent missile with a range of 130km. Probably more with new motor technology and lunch by a supercruising su-35.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:13 am