Russian Air-to-Air missiles

F*ck the wobble-heads and their complaints. Tight-fisted cow-fondlers won't shell out the rupees needed for the late-model R-77s to match the Paki AMI-120C and they want to blame Russia? They were offered but they declined. If they regret their decision that is their problem.

Un-fecking believable, but that's the Indians for ya. Ever been involved in contact negotiations with them? Man... it just makes you lose the will to continue living...

The reality of that engagement is that the IAF was bush-whacked by a well-planned PAF ambush yet the Su-30MKIs were able to avoid and jam the incoming wave of AIM-120C and the Paki F-16s turned tail and legged it rather than sticking around to face the IAF counter-attack. That sez it all, 'cept the Indian nationalist media can't (or won't) see the forest for the trees.

If Su-30MKI and R-77s are shit, maybe they will find blissful contentment with their Tejas fiasco and their homegrown junk missiles?

limb wrote:I know this was probably discussed somewhere, but can anyone give me a quick rundown about indian whining that their R-77s had too little range and were to inaccurate compared to pakistani AMRAAMs, and thats why they lost the skirmish? BJP monkeys started parroting this on youtube and now these claims abound in western defence media.

AFAIK India uses the RVV AE with 110km range and the pakis use AIM-120C7 with 105km range. Theoretically bith are around equal with R-77 having a slightly larger NEZ due to better supersonic performance and G tolerance due to grid fins in exchange for smaller max range.

Indians are also blaming "inferior russian seekers"

India doesn't have R-77-1 type missiles, but basic R-77 missiles with range of 80 km and early ARH. Even their domestic Astra have similar range and the same ARH head. I don't think Russia is willing to sell R-77-1 to India after all sh*t they received from India. Problem is, that MICA AAM, that are used on Mirage-2000 and Rafales have the same range of 80 km. Only hope for India is Meteor AAM for Rafales, but will France sell them?

medo wrote:

limb wrote:I know this was probably discussed somewhere, but can anyone give me a quick rundown about indian whining that their R-77s had too little range and were to inaccurate compared to pakistani AMRAAMs, and thats why they lost the skirmish? BJP monkeys started parroting this on youtube and now these claims abound in western defence media.

AFAIK India uses the RVV AE with 110km range and the pakis use AIM-120C7 with 105km range. Theoretically bith are around equal with R-77 having a slightly larger NEZ due to better supersonic performance and G tolerance  due to grid fins in exchange for smaller  max range.

Indians are also blaming "inferior russian seekers"

India doesn't have R-77-1 type missiles, but basic R-77 missiles with range of 80 km and early ARH. Even their domestic Astra have similar range and the same ARH head. I don't think Russia is willing to sell R-77-1 to India after all sh*t they received from India. Problem is, that MICA AAM, that are used on Mirage-2000 and Rafales have the same range of 80 km. Only hope for India is Meteor AAM for Rafales, but will France sell them?

Being Meteor a common European endeavour it is not so simple.

What makes me not believe that story is the fact that the range of 80 km was brought up in the first place.

Missile range widely depends on altitude and speed. The 80 km figure is just one of many, slapped into a marketing brochure. It can be 55, 69 , anything.

Then there's the fact that no sane pilot would try to snipe an f-16 type target from within the higher end ranges of the missile in which it can barely turn, at that point you are just flinging rocks.

So i find the entire story hard to believe, the 80 km figure sounds like it was taken from the internet.

And with that being said, RVV-AE is the lowest tier of the R-77 family, essentially a watered down 90s product'

I know this was probably discussed somewhere, but can anyone give me a quick rundown about indian whining that their R-77s had too little range and were to inaccurate compared to pakistani AMRAAMs, and thats why they lost the skirmish? BJP monkeys started parroting this on youtube and now these claims abound in western defence media.

They got the cheaper older model R-77s because they didn't want to spend money on better models, plus there is no evidence the Pakistanis outranged them in any way. Sounds to me to be more a case of India not having a unified integrated air defence network where all the planes and ground and air based radar early warning and other systems can communicate and coordinate their operations... and without that having even the longest range AAM means nothing.

And what does that even mean inaccurate?

Are they trying to say their missiles flew past the Pakistani aircraft but didn't get close enough to explode.... is there any evidence of this at all?

AFAIK India uses the RVV AE with 110km range and the pakis use AIM-120C7 with 105km range. Theoretically bith are around equal with R-77 having a slightly larger NEZ due to better supersonic performance and G tolerance due to grid fins in exchange for smaller max range.

Neither missile could hit a modern fighter at such actual distances... that is just circle jerk bullshit.

Indians are also blaming "inferior russian seekers"

Most of the early missiles they bought were made at a time when Russia had no fighters able to carry R-77 missiles, and from memory the first ARH modules for the R-77 were made in the Ukraine.

The current ones are rather more sophisticated and made in Russia... but if they want to swap to buying US fighters I am sure they will get on well buying F-35s... cheaper than Rafales but with flying costs 4 times more most likely.

Such a shame russians abandoned their unique grid fin approach, in favor of generic fins. Theoretically , if the grid fins are folded in flight and the launching aircraft has supersonic speed, the problem of transonic drag shouldnt matter.

They don't even have them folded on wing pylons.

I thought a best of both worlds solution would be to have a solid rocket booster section that fitted over the rear of the missile so the control points where the grid fins fold out to use for control could be attached to the rear booster motor and control rear mounted simple small low drag fins.

When launched it is thrown down by the pylon and the solid rocket booster ignites and propels the missile forwards... the fins on the booster angle the missile upwards in a climb to altitude and then the solid rocket internal components get ejected backwards out of the rear booster which stays attached to the missile so it continues to use the small low drag fins... the main missile rocket motor lights up and directs its thrust through the rear booster and accelerates the missile to even higher speeds and higher altitude... when the target is in range and the onboard radar gets a lock the booster section can be dumped and the grid fins can deploy for the high g terminal interception phase of the engagement.

You could improve performance by making the original missile shorter and lighter and only containing the terminal rocket motor fuel, with a longer heavier booster for the initial launch and cruise to target area, and then be able to use the grid fins in the terminal attack phase where it would be very effective.

Wasnt the main disadvantage of the R-73 massive vulnerability to flares, compared to more technologically advanced seeker heads of the AIM-9P and M?

Actually it was the opposite, the R-73 was not vulnerable to flares... the kills were deemed to be kills in the training based on telemetry and tests of the missiles and their flight performance and seeker performance. The MiG-29s flares worked very well against the missiles used in the west, which is what drove the development of the AMRAAM.

The plan in the 1980s was that the US would make the AMRAAM and everyone in HATO would buy it, and Britain would make ASRAAM and everyone including America would buy that too. But the same as what happened with most such things everyone did their own thing... when they tested the MiG-29 and R-73 they knew that WVR combat was just too dangerous... even if they launched first their target aircraft had until your missile killed him to launch a missile at you and kill you and that would be 1:1 which of course was unacceptable for HATO which did not have numerical superiority remember.

The Americans focussed on AMRAAM and upgraded their Sidewinders to X models thinking IIR seekers would fix the problem against Soviet flares... as we saw in Syria against an Su-22 this does not seem to be the case even now.

What makes me not believe that story is the fact that the range of 80 km was brought up in the first place.

Very good post... talking of max range missile engagements sounds like armchair generals.

These max range figures might make sense if the target is a big heavy aircraft like an inflight refuelling aircraft or AWACS, but a nimble little fighter... no chance.

Also the distance given is where the launch aircraft is medium to high altitude and flying at a decent speed against a target flying towards them at a reasonable speed too.

Most AMRAAM launches are between 20km and 40km to make sure it has plenty of energy for the intercept, and most R-77 attacks would be the same.

Regarding early R-77s, the Malaysians operated MiG-29s and Hornets and had both early AMRAAMs and early R-77s and during training with Australia I seem to remember them saying they were simulating launching R-77s about 10-15km further away than they did with their AMRAAMs.

When the other side buys new missiles and you keep using older ones... well...

With Brahmos being so successful I am surprised they haven't started a joint venture to make long range AAMs... it is just an obvious thing for them to do... they probably could have paid for it with the 8 billion they spent on Rafales.... Russia can make scramjet engines and that would create an air to air missile a generation ahead of Meteor in terms of speed and range.

The r-77 in the pic is just a model and doesn't represent the r-77M which should be longer than r-77. This one is almost the same size as r-73.

limb wrote:I know this was probably discussed somewhere, but can anyone give me a quick rundown about indian whining that their R-77s had too little range and were to inaccurate compared to pakistani AMRAAMs, and thats why they lost the skirmish? BJP monkeys started parroting this on youtube and now these claims abound in western defence media.

AFAIK India uses the RVV AE with 110km range and the pakis use AIM-120C7 with 105km range. Theoretically bith are around equal with R-77 having a slightly larger NEZ due to better supersonic performance and G tolerance  due to grid fins in exchange for smaller  max range.

Indians are also blaming "inferior russian seekers"

This story was completely made-up in journalistic environment (if i am not wrong it was NDTV that begun in India this audience-appealing story based entirely on not informed speculations) and has nothing to do with the system's technical assessment following the clash with PAF.

As already explained in the past - i believe just in the thread about this particular clash - in the area of Kashmir 2 Су-30МКИ coming from the south-western Indian area was envoyed in an intercept mission against a group of PAF fighters.

Those two aircraft found themselves in an area with the convergence of 14 PAF fighters (if memory do not deceive me there was 8 F-16 from 2 squadrons 4 JF-17 from another and 2 Mirage IV that had strike functions) with the support of a SAAB-E2000 AWACS from the area of Islamabad.

PAF fighters capitalising theirs crushing numerical superiority begun a typical "hot" to "cold" dynamic posture with 2 JF-17 aircraft acting as baits while the others attempted to circumvent the two Су-30МКИ; in this situation the best those two aircraft could obtain is to resist to the attacks while continuing to illuminate from time to time enemy units so to force them to momentarily retreat and them managed to do that very well dodging not less than 7 AIM-120C, preventing PAF units from advancing in Indian  airspace and opening the possibility for two МиГ-21 Bison to penetrate enemy central formation while them was going "cold" to prevent Су-30МКИ from release РВВ-АЕ against them.

The proof that IAF had not complaining at all with the characteristic of export version of domestic air to air missiles after the clash is that just after the Ministry of Defense of India ordered 300 Р-73 (one of which launched from one of the two МиГ-21 Bisons previously mentioned downed a PAF F-16) and 400 РВВ-АЕ.

https://theprint.in/defence/wiser-after-balakot-india-orders-missiles-worth-700-million-from-russia/249553/

This story about the РВВ-АЕ supposedly "outranged" by the PAF F-16 AIM-120C (reality is that the former even enjoy a slight engagement range advantage against the latter in similar conditions) born entirely in journalistic environment because neither the two Су-30МКИ nor the twp МиГ-21 Bisons shot any РВВ-АЕ.

Scarce knowledgeable people wrongly infer that this could happen because the air to air missiles on board indian aircraft was inferior in engagement range to those of enemy when in reality in the fighting phase of this air clash the range between Су-30МКИ and PAF's F-16s and JF-17s was never more than 22-25 km and for МиГ-21 Bison that downed the F-16 (this Bison advanced in total radar silence to achieve surprise and engage the enemy F-16s at short range with Р-73s) only few km.

What I know. They did NOT have the russian r-77-1 but Ukrainian r-77 with around 80 km max range. At the time the su-30 fighters had the extended range r-27 missiles.

What I am not sure of is what actually went on. I think you are right about what you said with the events that went on and the number and tactics involved. What I heard though was that the Pakis spammed their amraams from within paki airspace and from a large enough distance that the Indian sukhoi pilots were not in any real danger as they were at such distance to avoid the missiles and even then their ew suite is highly capable so it was not a super danger.

Not sure if this is true but from what I can gather it was more complex than MSM and random pakis and Indians make it. This is usually the case. It all happened I think with western awareness and was done knowing the pakis could get major propaganda points and western media did not disappoint. There was no failure. It was retarded theatre. Talwar rattling. And western funded organizations started massaging the demoralization message and many but definitely not all Indians swallowed it. Just go on indian defense forum. You will see beyond just western fanboy comments but constant propaganda points made by a couple distinct people on their forum trying to frame the info. I sometimes wonder if there are paid shills on sites like that.

GarryB wrote:

I know this was probably discussed somewhere, but can anyone give me a quick rundown about indian whining that their R-77s had too little range and were to inaccurate compared to pakistani AMRAAMs, and thats why they lost the skirmish? BJP monkeys started parroting this on youtube and now these claims abound in western defence media.

They got the cheaper older model R-77s because they didn't want to spend money on better models, plus there is no evidence the Pakistanis outranged them in any way. Sounds to me to be more a case of India not having a unified integrated air defence network where all the planes and ground and air based radar early warning and other systems can communicate and coordinate their operations... and without that having even the longest range AAM means nothing.

And what does that even mean inaccurate?

Are they trying to say their missiles flew past the Pakistani aircraft but didn't get close enough to explode.... is there any evidence of this at all?

AFAIK India uses the RVV AE with 110km range and the pakis use AIM-120C7 with 105km range. Theoretically bith are around equal with R-77 having a slightly larger NEZ due to better supersonic performance and G tolerance  due to grid fins in exchange for smaller  max range.

Neither missile could hit a modern fighter at such actual distances... that is just circle jerk bullshit.

Indians are also blaming "inferior russian seekers"

Most of the early missiles they bought were made at a time when Russia had no fighters able to carry R-77 missiles, and from memory the first ARH modules for the R-77 were made in the Ukraine.

The current ones are rather more sophisticated and made in Russia... but if they want to swap to buying US fighters I am sure they will get on well buying F-35s... cheaper than Rafales but with flying costs 4 times more most likely.

Such a shame russians abandoned their unique grid fin approach, in favor of generic fins.  Theoretically , if the grid fins are folded in flight and the launching aircraft has supersonic speed, the problem of transonic drag shouldnt matter.

They don't even have them folded on wing pylons.

I thought a best of both worlds solution would be to have a solid rocket booster section that fitted over the rear of the missile so the control points where the grid fins fold out to use for control could be attached to the rear booster motor and control rear mounted simple small low drag fins.

When launched it is thrown down by the pylon and the solid rocket booster ignites and propels the missile forwards... the fins on the booster angle the missile upwards in a climb to altitude and then the solid rocket internal components get ejected backwards out of the rear booster which stays attached to the missile so it continues to use the small low drag fins... the main missile rocket motor lights up and directs its thrust through the rear booster and accelerates the missile to even higher speeds and higher altitude... when the target is in range and the onboard radar gets a lock the booster section can be dumped and the grid fins can deploy for the high g terminal interception phase of the engagement.

You could improve performance by making the original missile shorter and lighter and only containing the terminal rocket motor fuel, with a longer heavier booster for the initial launch and cruise to target area, and then be able to use the grid fins in the terminal attack phase where it would be very effective.

Wasnt the main disadvantage of the R-73 massive vulnerability to flares, compared to more technologically advanced seeker heads of the AIM-9P and M?

Actually it was the opposite, the R-73 was not vulnerable to flares... the kills were deemed to be kills in the training based on telemetry and tests of the missiles and their flight performance and seeker performance. The MiG-29s flares worked very well against the missiles used in the west, which is what drove the development of the AMRAAM.

The plan in the 1980s was that the US would make the AMRAAM and everyone in HATO would buy it, and Britain would make ASRAAM and everyone including America would buy that too. But the same as what happened with most such things everyone did their own thing... when they tested the MiG-29 and R-73 they knew that WVR combat was just too dangerous... even if they launched first their target aircraft had until your missile killed him to launch a missile at you and kill you and that would be 1:1 which of course was unacceptable for HATO which did not have numerical superiority remember.

The Americans focussed on AMRAAM and upgraded their Sidewinders to X models thinking IIR seekers would fix the problem against Soviet flares... as we saw in Syria against an Su-22 this does not seem to be the case even now.

What makes me not believe that story is the fact that the range of 80 km was brought up in the first place.

Very good post... talking of max range missile engagements sounds like armchair generals.

These max range figures might make sense if the target is a big heavy aircraft like an inflight refuelling aircraft or AWACS, but a nimble little fighter... no chance.

Also the distance given is where the launch aircraft is medium to high altitude and flying at a decent speed against a target flying towards them at a reasonable speed too.

Most AMRAAM launches are between 20km and 40km to make sure it has plenty of energy for the intercept, and most R-77 attacks would be the same.

Regarding early R-77s, the Malaysians operated MiG-29s and Hornets and had both early AMRAAMs and early R-77s and during training with Australia I seem to remember them saying they were simulating launching R-77s about 10-15km further away than they did with their AMRAAMs.

When the other side buys new missiles and you keep using older ones... well...

With Brahmos being so successful I am surprised they haven't started a joint venture to make long range AAMs... it is just an obvious thing for them to do... they probably could have paid for it with the 8 billion they spent on Rafales.... Russia can make scramjet engines and that would create an air to air missile a generation ahead of Meteor in terms of speed and range.

Thank you. I never heared about AMRAAMs and R-77s being used in similar exercices that is quite interesting.
Do all AMRAAMs use a radio fuse?

TMA1 wrote:What I heard though was that the Pakis spammed their amraams from within paki airspace and from a large enough distance that the Indian sukhoi pilots were not in any real danger as they were at such distance to avoid the missiles and even then their ew suite is highly capable so it was not a super danger.

This is not correct.

As said the fighting phase of the air clash between the two Су-30МКИ of IAF and the 2 squadrons of F-16 and one squadron of JK-17 of PAF happened at less than 25 km, this distance in head-on engagement is within the "no-escape-zone" of both AIM-120-C5/7 and РВВ-АЕ (that anyway is NOT, by any meaning extent, a range where an enemy aircraft will be surely hit).

Obviously none of the aircraft involved and particularly PAF's F-16 and JK-17 followed an head-on flight pact (except for the two "baits" aircraft, all the others attempted and partially managed to out-flank the enemy Су-30МКИ so to attack them from angles outside theirs main radar's footprint) but instead constantly manoeuvered to get the chance to quickly pass from an "hot" posture to a "cold" one (accelerate in the opposing or sub-tangential vector of motion in respect to the illuminating enemy aircraft) using intermittently the afterburners.

In those relative geometrical and kinematic conditions between the attacking and defending aircraft not a single today operative medium range air to air missile can achieve a decent P-hit against a modern fighter aircraft, and much less against the most aerodynamically high-performance ones such as F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter Typhoon or advanced Сухой products

All the stories about shots at 100 km of distance cannot but evoke a laughter's burst in people knowing the real conditions in which truly happen air clashs ; in the event in question, exactly like in almost the totality of pasted successful hits BVR, both the aircraft shot-down ,an PAF's F-16 hit by Р-73 and an IAF МиГ-21 Bison hit by an AIM-120C, was not aware of the incoming missile and never attempted any defensive maneuver.

The two МиГ-21 "Bison" was guided by IAF ground control stations toward two F-16s of squadron 4 of PAF air groups that was retreating (going "cold") from illumination by part of one of the Су-30МКИ and proceeded at high speed from a lowered altitude in complete radar silence (so to avoid also RWR of F-16s from provide any warning of the incoming menace ,being prevented to detect anything with their main radar's footprint, pointed in the opposite direction) toward the two F-16s.

Few seconds before the transition to WVR the other Су-30МКИ detected a stable radar contact -tracking - by part of the PAF's SAAB E-2000 AWACS on the incoming МиГ-21s , at this point the IAF ground control station uttered a command for abortion of the attack to the two МиГ-21 Bisons, but only one respected the command, the other continued the attack maneovring within lock-on range of Р-73's homing head to the side of the first F-16 and releasing the missile attending its destruction few seconds later, but .before its was in position to attack the second F-16, it was hit in the stern by an AIM-120C delivered by one of the F-16s of squadron 3 in "hot" postion that had been alerted of the intruder's position by the SAAB E-2000.

In both instances the attacked aircraft was unaware of the attack and do not executed any defensive maneuver .  

The recording data of the encounter has been passed to and accurately analised by a commission at ГосНИИАС.

Rvv-ae sucks big time. They need to buy rvv sd.

Even Russia never bought that missiles. It's not a secret that its range was too short to be the main MRAAM so they asked for an upgrade which is the r-77-1.

I would take aim-120C7 anyday over r-77.

And their astra mistral mk1 is just a r-77 with a new body. Mk3 is made with russian help.

Indians can't complain about russians. It's all their fault if they suck.

Isos wrote:
Rvv-ae sucks big time. They need to buy rvv sd.

Even Russia never bought that missiles. It's not a secret that its range was too short to be the main MRAAM so they asked for an upgrade which is the r-77-1.

I image that you already know why serial production of the item was not accepted in the Federation until completion of изделие 170-1 program; performance of the product had nothing to do with that.

K-77 ( изделие 170) was partially produced and assembled at "Артем" factory in Kiev (propulsion and dynamic vectoring actuators coming instead from Federation's companies) and so high Command, in the difficult '90 years, decided to not accept serial induction in sevice of a product (even more so crucial as main air to air missile) for which was impossible to establish a completely independent production chain for all the missile's components and ,in the same way, logistical and maintenance services for its parts.

ВВС do not accepted much later изделие 170-1 because it had superior engagement range in comparison to изделие 170 (that being the simple effect of natural technological improvements occurred in the mean time) but merely because its full component's basis was entirely domestic.

Even more this item is a mere transient product of two much more advanced designs in the same class.

Isos wrote:I would take aim-120C7 anyday over r-77.

Because, i image, that you believe that AIM-120C7 outrange K-77.....and in reality it is not the case, except obviously in the media circus
Neither AIM-120C7's propulsion ,neither its aerodynamic layout neither its fuel composition neither its material composition boast any evolutionary improvement worth of mentioning , even less the revolutionary one that could justify the ridiculous figures for the increase in A-pole range usually circulating on the media.  

AIM-120D has been the first product in the class of medium range air to air missiles, with active radar homing seeker, that could really boast an increased engagement range in comparison with products like K-77 and any iteration of AIM-120C and that mostly thanks to a lofted trajectory option (anyhow not employable in several interception's conditions without accepting a significative degradation of the P-hit of high performance targets) while propulsion and body layout was practically identical to AIM-120C-7.

As said nothing worth even mentioning under a strict aerodynamic technical point of view.

Its range is in the same ballpark of изделие 170-1.

Lol. You contradict yourself. If they were happy with r-77 perfs they would have not asked a longer range for the r-77-1.

Of course range was an issue.

And you are wrong. It may have been produced in Ukraine back in the day but russians also offer r-77 for export so they can produce it yet they didn't order it since they were smart and went for the longer range r-77-1 which is the only competitor to aim-120C.

R-77 (produced in 2002) can compete against aim-120A/B (produced since 1991) and first C variants. That's why it has 80km range, because those aim 120 had less than 70km range.

Aim-120C7 has 105km range (2007) and russian created the r-77-1 with 110km to compete against it (used first in 2012).

US have aim-120D with 160km for a long time and europeans have meteor too and russia is creating the r-77M with 190km to compete against them.

Russians are always late and try to catch up with longer range missiles.

Mindstorm wrote:

TMA1 wrote:What I heard though was that the Pakis spammed their amraams from within paki airspace and from a large enough distance that the Indian sukhoi pilots were not in any real danger as they were at such distance to avoid the missiles and even then their ew suite is highly capable so it was not a super danger.

This is not correct.

As said the fighting phase of the air clash between the two Су-30МКИ of IAF and the 2 squadrons of F-16 and one squadron of JK-17 of PAF happened at less than 25 km, this distance in head-on engagement is within the "no-escape-zone" of both AIM-120-C5/7 and РВВ-АЕ (that anyway is NOT, by any meaning extent, a range where an enemy aircraft will be surely hit).

Obviously none of the aircraft involved and particularly PAF's F-16 and JK-17 followed an head-on flight pact (except for the two "baits" aircraft, all the others attempted and partially managed to out-flank the enemy Су-30МКИ so to attack them from angles outside theirs main radar's footprint) but instead constantly manoeuvered to get the chance to quickly pass from an "hot" posture to a "cold" one (accelerate in the opposing or sub-tangential vector of motion in respect to the illuminating enemy aircraft) using intermittently the afterburners.

In those relative geometrical and kinematic conditions between the attacking and defending aircraft not a single today operative medium range air to air missile can achieve a decent P-hit against a modern fighter aircraft, and much less against the most aerodynamically high-performance ones such as F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter Typhoon or advanced Сухой products

All the stories about shots at 100 km of distance cannot but evoke a laughter's burst in people knowing the real conditions in which truly happen air clashs ; in the event in question, exactly like in almost the totality of pasted successful hits BVR, both the aircraft shot-down ,an PAF's F-16 hit by Р-73 and an IAF МиГ-21 Bison hit by an AIM-120C, was not aware of the incoming missile and never attempted any defensive maneuver.

The two МиГ-21 "Bison" was guided by IAF ground control stations toward two F-16s of squadron 4 of PAF air groups that was retreating (going "cold") from illumination by part of one of the Су-30МКИ and proceeded at high speed from a lowered altitude in complete radar silence (so to avoid also RWR of F-16s from provide any warning of the incoming menace ,being prevented to detect anything with their main radar's footprint, pointed in the opposite direction) toward the two F-16s.

Few seconds before the transition to WVR the other Су-30МКИ detected a stable radar contact -tracking - by part of the PAF's SAAB E-2000 AWACS on the incoming МиГ-21s , at this point the IAF ground control station uttered a command for abortion of the attack to the two МиГ-21 Bisons, but only one respected the command, the other continued the attack maneovring within lock-on range of Р-73's homing head to the side of the first F-16 and releasing the missile attending its destruction few seconds later, but .before its was in position to attack the second F-16, it was hit in the stern by an AIM-120C delivered by one of the F-16s of squadron 3 in "hot" postion that had been alerted of the intruder's position by the SAAB E-2000.

In both instances the attacked aircraft was unaware of the attack and do not executed any defensive maneuver .  

The recording data of the encounter has been passed to and accurately analised by a commission at ГосНИИАС.

Figured it was probably bullshit. What you are saying with both stories sounds legit. Where you get your info fren? Anyways good post!

Lol. You contradict yourself. If they were happy with r-77 perfs they would have not asked a longer range for the r-77-1.

Not at all... the R-77 is a product of the Soviet Union which included significant parts from the Ukraine, and made from technology and materials of that era.

The newer missile is made with newer materials and technology and is completely made in Russia... if the older missile was also completely made in Russia they would have ordered that too while waiting for an upgrade, but it wasn't so they didn't.

Did you listen to Mindstorms description of the engagement... if they are launching AMRAAMs at less than 25km range and getting one kill despite overwhelming numbers advantage... imagine what could have happened if they fired more than one R-73 in this engagement?

US have aim-120D with 160km for a long time and europeans have meteor too and russia is creating the r-77M with 190km to compete against them.

First of all the R-77M is claimed to have double the range of the R-77-1 with 110km range which means 220km, and even if it isn't, they have R-33s and R-37s with greater range capacities if needed or wanted.

Russians are always late and try to catch up with longer range missiles.

R-33 outranged all western inservice missiles with a range of 160km, and is replaced by the R-37M with substantially better flight range, there was no need to modify their R-77s for most of that period because not that many of their front line aircraft could even use them up until 2005 or later.

The fixation on max missile range is rather pathetic anyway as shown by the above case with aircraft avoiding AMRAAM interception from 25km range... well inside their so called No Escape Zone... another bullshit American term.

By your own admission even in 2007 their new AMRAAM can't even outrange the R-27EP/ER missiles...

If India are not happy with Russian AAMs why do they not buy all French missiles and convert their Russian aircraft to use them?

Not at all... the R-77 is a product of the Soviet Union which included significant parts from the Ukraine, and made from technology and materials of that era.

And today Russia produces both... but they buy only the r-77-1. Range is important.

First to shoot has the advantage. Even if the missile miss.

Did you listen to Mindstorms description of the engagement

No I don't. Even the indian air force didn't know what was happening, a random guy on a forum doesn't know anything. He is getting those figures from nowhere.

R-33 outranged all western inservice missiles with a range of 160km,

Used only on mig-31. We are talking about fighter's missiles.

The fixation on max missile range is rather pathetic anyway as shown by the above case with aircraft avoiding AMRAAM interception from 25km range... well inside their so called No Escape Zone... another bullshit American term.

Then why do they develop them ? R-77 Pk isn't any better.

Is this development still alive or did the R-37M win the title?



At the time I thought it was a nice contender for both Naval and Ground Forces application as well?

There is quiet on izd. 172 front my old chap.

ALAMO wrote:There is quiet on izd. 172 front my old chap.

Quiet in the sense that it has died or quiet in the top secret sense?

My guess is, it is a kind of dead-end story
SAM went for another stuff, as we already have the whole echelon of Buk/S-300/350/400/500, none of them has any connection to KS-172.
WWS is now picking the cherries, with all the programs targeted for bay-capable assets. KS-172 is hardly the case. R-37 derivative seems obvious continuation here.
They have lost the window of opportunity with 172, me thinks

Mindstorm wrote:In both instances the attacked aircraft was unaware of the attack and do not executed any defensive maneuver.

Yet it was the Pakistani F-16 that was able to shoot down the Indian Mig 21. Whereas none of the Indian Mig 21s, Su 30MKIs could shoot down any Pakistani fighter.

Mindstorm wrote:As said nothing worth even mentioning under a strict aerodynamic technical point of view.

Its range is in the same ballpark of изделие 170-1.

If the comparison is kept strictly to domestic versions then whatever you have just explained is some what true.

But if you are comparing Russian export version with US/Western versions then it is completely misplaced.

Despite the fact that both the US/West and Russia continue to export degraded version of weapons export version of Western military hardware is streets ahead of Russian export version military hardware.

One example you have already provided in your previous post where Indian Su 30MKI could not shoot down Pakistan F-16s.

Isos wrote:R-77 (produced in 2002) can compete against aim-120A/B (produced since 1991) and first C variants. That's why it has 80km range, because those aim 120 had less than 70km range.

Aim-120C7 has 105km range (2007) and russian created the r-77-1 with 110km to compete against it (used first in 2012).

US have aim-120D with 160km for a long time and europeans have meteor too and russia is creating the r-77M with 190km to compete against them.

Russians are always late and try to catch up with longer range missiles.

According to Defense Studies, Ukraine has received a $200 million contract for the supply of R-27.

There is speculation about the buyer. Either India or Indonesia. I suspect it's India.

And today Russia produces both... but they buy only the r-77-1. Range is important.

There will be a price difference and the original RVV-AE was mainly used by export Russian aircraft and not so much by Russian aircraft... though the MiG-29S and SM and SMT could use it, as could the MiG-33 but the latter never entered service and the SMT models only entered Russian service when Algeria rejected the ones they bought... so hardly a reason to buy enormous batches of them.

Now that they have produced a definitive upgrade there is little reason to buy older model missiles.

Some export customers don't want to pay to upgrade their export aircraft to operate the new missiles so they keep buying the old ones, and to be fair if engagements are going to be at 30km or less then the old models will do fine.

I would expect with the old models being made in Russia they will now be making the other parts needed to make them only of Russian parts so the old missiles might have marginally improved performance now too.

First to shoot has the advantage. Even if the missile miss.

Not true at all. The first to shoot gives the enemy clear grounds to shoot you down by any means necessary, and shooting first from long range almost assures a miss against a modern aircraft with a modern self defence EW suite.

No I don't. Even the indian air force didn't know what was happening, a random guy on a forum doesn't know anything. He is getting those figures from nowhere.

Mindstorm has be the best inside knowledge of anyone on this forum, as far as I am concerned if he says that happened then it happened.

He is not paying me to say this, I am just basing my opinion on his track record on this forum.

Used only on mig-31. We are talking about fighter's missiles.

The R-33 was used on the MiG-31 but all new fighters in Russia are intended to be able to carry R-37M, which has more than double the R-33s range of 160km.

Then why do they develop them ? R-77 Pk isn't any better.

When you are flying with AWACS support with your own radar off you are essentially invisible to any targets not scanning with their radar and you can launch an attack against a target with no emissions... a long range shot against a third world 3rd gen fighter who is unaware they are under attack has a reasonable chance of success... unless the target is an Iraqi MiG-25 of course...

Why does the US make F-35s?

My guess is, it is a kind of dead-end story

There was talk of India funding it, but nothing seemed to have happened and we got R-37M instead, but that is about to be replaced shortly anyway...

But if you are comparing Russian export version with US/Western versions then it is completely misplaced.

Tell that to Egypt... the US refused to sell them there longest range AAMs... it will be interesting to see what they get from Russia...

Despite the fact that both the US/West and Russia continue to export degraded version of weapons export version of Western military hardware is streets ahead of Russian export version military hardware.

You say that but provide no proof. T-90s in Syria seem to have done rather well, Turkish Leopard IIs not so good...

One example you have already provided in your previous post where Indian Su 30MKI could not shoot down Pakistan F-16s.

But then if you are accepting his account of what happened a larger force of Pakistani aircraft only managed to shoot down one MiG-21 and according to the account lost one F-16 in the exchange...

According to Defense Studies, Ukraine has received a $200 million contract for the supply of R-27.

According to SIPRI the 2019 order from India for 300 R-27R/T orders went to Russia, along with an order for 300 R-73s and 400 R-77s... it notes the R-27s were for MiG-29s and Su-30s and the R-73s and R-77s were for MiG-21s.

According to the same source (SIPRI) the Ukraine sold 360 R-27s to India in 2012... and they were delivered 2013, and also sold 5 R-27s to Indonesia in 2014.

Hardly believe that Ukraine is capable of producing R-27 anymore.
Embargo works both ways, and Ukrainian production was affected by Russian sanctions, too.
The only thing they can do, is cannibalizing own stocks, put a fresh paint on it, and deliver ...

Isos wrote:
R-77 (produced in 2002) can compete against aim-120A/B (produced since 1991) and first C variants. That's why it has 80km range, because those aim 120 had less than 70km range.

Aim-120C7 has 105km range (2007) and russian created the r-77-1 with 110km to compete against it (used first in 2012).

US have aim-120D with 160km for a long time and europeans have meteor too and russia is creating the r-77M with 190km to compete against them.

Russians are always late and try to catch up with longer range missiles.

Those figures unfortunately i have already seen several times.....

I repost a mine response to Austin of 10 years ago from the BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development thread



"Austin do you realize to have just cited as source the ,by now,infamous designation-system article on AIM-120 ? (at now only some fanboy ,brainburned beyond any hope ,in very low level sites like F-16 . net and similaria, has still the face to even only think to cite it !!!).

May be that you don't remember, but in one of my first posts here ,i cited just this comical, amateurish,self-embarassing article as a clear example of the galactical idiocies which ,on the wake of horrible partiality and total ignorance, begin to spread at light's speed on the net ,becoming even subliminally accepted as true .
I cited in that istance this article (naturally of immensely different technical , professional level and ,obviously reliability ) by Richard Fisher

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

Austin now i will explain to you what comical operation those decerebrated at designation-system have maked in this ....."article".

See the range figures that them show : 50 - 70 and 105 km , what those numbers recall to your mind ?

...Exact Austin , Bingo !!!

Them have taken the figures of AIM-120C5 :50 km , AIM-120C7 :70 km , and AIM-120D (...this strange number ,105 km , in fact is simply the range figure of AIM-120C7 -70 km - with the +50% increase in engagement range expected for AIM-120D ....70+35= 105 km Very Happy ) and have bestowed them to.... AIM-120A/B and C5 !!!

The thing i find even more hilarious is that this authenticate masterpiece of biased ignorance became in few years ,in internet, a true milestone in majority of the discussions on the subject ,naturally only to feed the odd ,Hollywoodian ideas present in the mind of the horde of childish fanboys.
This comical garbage from designation-system has litterally canceled on internet the serious articles and publications on the subject by names like J. Lake, R. Fisher , R. Hewson etc... unbelievable