Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:05 am

    Although they could always wire the underwing stations (at least the inner pair, an RVV-BD might overstress the outer wing) to fit more and up the maximum load to six.

    Sorry what?

    Overstress the outer wing pylons?

    On the Mig-25 all four wing pylons managed to carry R-40TDs without over stressing.

    The bomber version of the Mig-31 is supposed to be able to carry 9 tons, which was supposed to consist of two 1,500kg bombs under the belly and four more 1,500kg bombs under the four wing pylons.

    If that is true, I don't think the domestic version of the RVV_BD will be a problem in terms of weight.

    Regarding flight range, to double the range of the R-33 they will need a missile with a flight range of at least 240km, and from the reports and articles I have read on the subject (many provided by Austin) it seems the domestic RVV-BD has a range of 280km.

    The top folding fins are for conformal carriage on the Mig-31, but that does not limit its use to the Mig-31.

    The R-77 has forward folding grid fins for internal carriage, but can be carried externally on all sorts of Russian fighter aircraft.

    I have looked carefully at the few photos I have of the Mig-31M and it seems to me that the upper fins had to fold on the original R-37, but the bottom fins didn't need to fold to fit three abrest under the belly of the Mig-31M.

    This makes me wonder if 6 missiles could be carried under the aircrafts belly and four more under the wing pylons.

    This would not make sense for the older Mig-31s as the R-33 was largely an anti bomber weapon only and could only take lighter strike aircraft by surprise, but the ability to kill 8g targets makes the R-37M much more capable in that regard... assuming the domestic version is only as good as the export model in that regard.
    (I would think for a domestic version that 9 g would make a good target to design for...)

    I rather suspect there is a model of the RVV-BD for domestic use with fully folding tail surfaces for internal carriage in the PAK FA.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  SOC on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:43 am

    GarryB wrote:[Sorry what?

    Overstress the outer wing pylons?

    I meant the pylons. As in the pylons might not be rated for a weapon that size. Although, they can carry drop tanks, so who knows.

    GarryB wrote:I have looked carefully at the few photos I have of the Mig-31M and it seems to me that the upper fins had to fold on the original R-37, but the bottom fins didn't need to fold to fit three abrest under the belly of the Mig-31M.

    This makes me wonder if 6 missiles could be carried under the aircrafts belly and four more under the wing pylons.

    You can't get six underneath a MiG-31B/BS/BM without redesigning the conformal carriage points. There isn't enough clearance between the R-33 pairs to add two more weapons down the middle. As for the MiG-31M, I've got a crapload of detail shots of the MiG-31Ms at MAKS from various years fully loaded. Sometimes the rear R-37 fins were folded, sometimes not. And sometimes the upper ones weren't folded, but the lower ones were. And sometimes, the port pair had folded tails but the starboard pair did not. The one constant was that the forward missiles always seemed to have folded upper tails. The rear fuselage contours and the fact that the rear missiles weren't as submerged meant that the outer rear missiles could dispense with the folded upper fins. Amusingly, the time that they stuck two wingless R-33S rounds down the center (the ones Yefim Gordon called "wingless R-37s" in the Russian Aircraft Armament volume) seemed to indicate that they were unlaunchable unless the outer R-37s went first, due to the increased span fins and the fact that the upper fins folded outward when carried down the centerline.

    I think in practice they'd all be folded to permit clearance if you get a hung missile that won't eject.

    TR1 wrote:Range comes into question though, as BD also seems to be intended for internal application and hence has reduced range compared to R-37 ( they stated 200km for BD, while the missile family clearly has potential for more).

    I doubt the native missile will be larger. It's already pretty damn close to the dimensions of the 300km range R-37. A shorter range can be achieved using either 1) trajectory shaping, 2) a lower-impulse motor, or 3) a motor with a slightly shorter burn time in either boost or sustain modes or both.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:03 am

    I meant the pylons. As in the pylons might not be rated for a weapon that size. Although, they can carry drop tanks, so who knows.

    It was my understanding that the Mig-31BM was a multirole upgrade that allowed the aircraft to carry a range of weapon options including anti radiation missiles, and guided bombs.

    The two main normal payloads of the original Mig-31 were two R-40TD missiles on the two wing pylons and 4 R-33s under the belly and the gun, or 4 R-60Ms on twin launchers on two wing pylons and 4 R-33s under the belly and the gun.

    If the outer wing pylons are not normally carried on the early models, but were included in the Mig-31M and Mig-31BM upgrades you'd think that would be so they could be used.

    You admit yourself that the outer pylons can carry fuel tanks, though they are rarely seen because they don't extend range by a significant amount but do limit speed while fitted.

    The aircraft is optimised for high speed so far that its subsonic radius is not that much bigger than its supersonic radius, and speed is what this aircraft is all about hense the rarity of external fuel tanks.

    Having large AAMs on the outer pylons would not reduce max speed at all because max speed is engine limited.

    You can't get six underneath a MiG-31B/BS/BM without redesigning the conformal carriage points.

    Once the R-33s are used up from stocks do you think they will make more?

    Do you think it would be worth changing the conformal carriage points on the inservice Mig-31s to use their new standard missile?

    I think in practice they'd all be folded to permit clearance if you get a hung missile that won't eject.

    Sounds like they have folding top fins like the R-77 has folding rear fins... in case the aircraft position you are trying to fit them to requires it...

    I doubt the native missile will be larger.

    I think a Military official mentioned the domestic version was slightly heavier than the export model in addition to being longer ranged.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  SOC on Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:18 am

    GarryB wrote:Once the R-33s are used up from stocks do you think they will make more?

    Do you think it would be worth changing the conformal carriage points on the inservice Mig-31s to use their new standard missile?

    Depends on how much it'd cost. You're also looking at potential clearance issues with the airbrakes, MLG doors, and such. The underside of the MiG-31M wasn't quite exactly the same as that of the MiG-31B/BS at any rate so what worked for the later model might not work for in-service jets. Looking at an underside view of a MiG-31B you might get it to work, but again, you're going to need to put in some work to reconfigure everything. At that point you'd have to ask if the extra time and money is worth carrying two more missiles under there, or if you're better off adding R-73s/-77s to the outer wing stations and configuring the inner wing stations to accept RVV-BDs.

    GarryB wrote:I think a Military official mentioned the domestic version was slightly heavier than the export model in addition to being longer ranged.

    That suggests more propellant. A bit more in the boost stage will give you a kE kick to get a bit more range out of a lofted profile for a long-range shot, for example.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:40 am

    Depends on how much it'd cost. You're also looking at potential clearance issues with the airbrakes, MLG doors, and such.

    Not to mention the extra weapon points and wiring, but the point is that this is the new standard main weapon for the Mig, and if the US is developing new hypersonic threats to Russia then two extra missile on belly positions might be useful.

    They could take advantage of the fact that they are making this change and remove the gun at the same time.

    It is not like the RVV-BD domestic model is temporary... this will be its standard and Primary weapon.

    The R-33 uses a catapult to throw the missile down and clear of the aircraft before its motor starts, even the R-77 uses a similar pneumatic arm to assure clearance. I rather suspect the R-37 will use the same or similar launch mechanism.

    At that point you'd have to ask if the extra time and money is worth carrying two more missiles under there, or if you're better off adding R-73s/-77s to the outer wing stations and configuring the inner wing stations to accept RVV-BDs.

    Most of the photos I have seen of the BM shows four pylons with 4 R-77s as normal payload.

    Except for noninterception missions the standard payload would be belly mounted heavy long range missiles and wing mounted medium range missiles and no gun.

    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  SOC on Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:11 am

    GarryB wrote:The R-33 uses a catapult to throw the missile down and clear of the aircraft before its motor starts, even the R-77 uses a similar pneumatic arm to assure clearance. I rather suspect the R-37 will use the same or similar launch mechanism.

    So does the Kh-31. It's launch rail incorporates two such ejector arms to push the weapon clear. You could do something for the RVV-BD easily, and fit it to the inner wing pylons at much less cost than reprofiling and rewiring the bottom of the fuselage.

    Like this:

    http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/pix/Su-30MKI_KH-31_AS-17_Krypton.jpg

    GarryB wrote:Most of the photos I have seen of the BM shows four pylons with 4 R-77s as normal payload.

    Except for noninterception missions the standard payload would be belly mounted heavy long range missiles and wing mounted medium range missiles and no gun.

    The images also don't show any changes to the underfuselage arrangement, either. Besides, with the domestic RVV-BD likely to arm the Su-35 and potentially the PAK-FA as well, you'll have a lot more shooters if they're really needed.

    Or, hell, they could just go and redo the lower surfaces to accomodate six weapons. I just have yet to see anything remotely suggesting the possibility, and because the BM modernization program is ongoing I don't currently rate it as all that likely as the extant BMs (not the demonstrator, the real ones) show no changes to their undersides. I think it's safe to say that the RVV-BD's domestic weapon has been coming for a while now, and such a change would've shown up if it was going to happen as part of the current upgrade program. Doesn't preclude a modified program or a second upgrade in the future, obviously.

    Interestingly as an aside, one image of a service BM shows four underwing R-73 rails. All the BM images I've got show them fitted with four shallower underwing pylons, doing away with (or at least not carrying in the photo) the huge inner wing pylon.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:48 am

    The Mig-31BM upgrade has been going rather slowly... perhaps part of it is waiting for its new primary weapon?

    I doubt the R-33 would fit on the new re-profiled 6 position setup, so until the R-37M had been tested there would be little reason to do anything till it had cleared its tests. Look at the Su-34... the design changes slightly as new things are added like APUs in the tail etc etc.

    The Mig-31M was an upgrade too, so if the new belly can be applied to it, then it should be applicable to the in service aircraft too.

    Regarding stress on pylons the new Kh-31s are in the 700kg weight range with flight ranges to 250km or so, so if the BM can carry those it should have no problems with the RVV-BD, which I understand to be in the 500kg range for the export model and 600kg for the domestic. (Flight range is given as 280km).

    The whole idea of putting the R-33s on the belly is to reduce drag, so fitting 6 missiles on the belly and at the same time remove the gun should be worth while.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  SOC on Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:47 am

    GarryB wrote:The Mig-31Bm has been going rather slowly... perhaps part of it is waiting for its new primary weapon?

    I doubt the R-33 would fit on the new re-profiled 6 position setup, so until the R-37M had been tested there would be little reason to do anything till it had cleared its tests. Look at the Su-34... the design changes slightly as new things are added like APUs in the tail etc etc.

    The R-33S might've fit on the MiG-31M, as it had the R-37s mid-body wings (smaller span than those on the R-33). The center pair were slightly behind the outer pairs so you might've been able to get the rear fins to stagger enough with the center missiles to allow them to be fired. The center ones (judging by a close-up underside shot of a MiG-31M with two R-33S and four R-37) did appear to lack clearance with the outer missiles though, meaning they'd need to go off last.

    The lack of progress for a while on the MiG-31BM might've had something to do with being a lower funding priority at the time as well.

    GarryB wrote:The Mig-31M was an upgrade too, so if the new belly can be applied to it, then it should be applicable to the in service aircraft too.

    Noooo...the MiG-31M, Izdeliye 05, was always meant to be a new-build airframe. They modified an old test bird to test a few things as 051 Blue, but the real prototypes (052-057 Blue) were purpose built. There were numerous internal and external structural changes, and actually the forward fuselage got an increase in diameter due to the larger radar antenna. I wonder if that's part of what led to the 6 missile configuration being possible?

    GarryB wrote:The whole idea of putting the R-33s on the belly is to reduce drag, so fitting 6 missiles on the belly and at the same time remove the gun should be worth while.

    May as well retain the gun. Never know when it'll come in handy (warning shots across the nose, oh crap the FCS just blew a fuse, etc.).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:06 am

    The lack of progress for a while on the MiG-31BM might've had something to do with being a lower funding priority at the time as well.

    I rather think the change to PVO now under Aerospace and Space Defence Force commmand would result in clarity regarding the position of the Mig-31s and Flankers of the PVO.

    It seems that they are still on VVS airbases and on 24/7 alert but under the command of the VKO.

    I would think the changes to the conformal positions would be trivial... a bit like the changes for the F-15 from Sparrow to Amraam in conformal fuselage positions.

    [quote]Noooo...the MiG-31M, Izdeliye 05, was always meant to be a new-build airframe. [/qote]

    And after that was rejected on cost grounds the features of the Mig-31M became an upgrade for the Mig-31s already in service.

    I wonder if that's part of what led to the 6 missile configuration being possible?

    I don't think they made the entire aircraft wider to accomodate a larger radar antenna...

    May as well retain the gun. Never know when it'll come in handy (warning shots across the nose, oh crap the FCS just blew a fuse, etc.).

    The problem is that changing to a different gun would be tricky unless they went for the GSh-23L as it uses the same ammo. Rate of fire is much lower, but I suspect 3,500rpm would still be effective.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:47 am

    Gary, I have yet to see a single Russian source indicating the MiG-31s are anyone but the VVS's, and trust me, I looked around. They still fly in VVS colors Wink .

    AFAIK no changes to BM fuselage is planned, so IMo 4 missle positions under belly will stay.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:31 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    My thoughts as well. Range comes into question though, as BD also seems to be intended for internal application and hence has reduced range compared to R-37 ( they stated 200km for BD, while the missile family clearly has potential for more).


    Tr1 the 200 km range of RVV-BD has literally nothing to do with "supposed" internal carriage, it instead has anything to do with the fact that the missile in question is nothing more than an export version intended for export .

    On the specific of its range at pag 26 of Aviation Week of July/August 2011 is specified


    The missile's key feature is ots extended range, which company officials note is 200 km using a two-stage motor, or significantly more of the 120 km for the R-33E .Although Russian industry had been working on longer-range versions, the defense ministry has set 200 km as the range for the export version




    On the Take-Off magazine of December 2011 pag 34 is specified :

    "Boris Obnosov confirmed that Vympel was developing a long-range weapon in addition to the RVV-SD medium- and RVVMD short-range missiles.
    Last year, paperwork for an export version, designated as RVV-BD, was finalised, which cleared it for display at MAKS 2011."


    According to the official information disseminated during the air show, the new missile’s performance is far more advanced over that of the well-known long-range R-33E


    Most probably, the RVV-BD is an export version of the advanced longrange missile being developed under the programme of MiG-31 interceptor upgrade in service with the Russian Air Force (an upgraded MiG-31BM was shown at a static display during MAKS 2011).


    Practically ,as its cousins RVV-SD and RVV-MD, is nothing more than a scaled down export version of the domestic LRAAM purposely designed ,adapted and limited for international market ; in particular RVV-BD is offered for the foreign market as a successor of the R-33E offered with MIG-31E.



    Thanks, the info is appreciated!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:26 pm

    Gary, I have yet to see a single Russian source indicating the MiG-31s are anyone but the VVS's, and trust me, I looked around. They still fly in VVS colors

    But are they under VVS control, or are they directed by the new Aerospace Defence Forces?

    When they were part of the PVO they were part of the Air Force, but for a while the PVO became a separate branch.

    Now it has been merged with the Space Defence Forces and the command structure is via the Space Defence Forces rather than VVS.

    I think it would be best to wait till after the tests of the RVV_BD are complete and the weapon has been accepted into service before we decide whether they will alter the design to suit the new weapons.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:03 am

    Practically ,as its cousins RVV-SD and RVV-MD, is nothing more than a scaled down export version of the domestic LRAAM purposely designed ,adapted and limited for international market ; in particular RVV-BD is offered for the foreign market as a successor of the R-33E offered with MIG-31E.

    The whole RVV-AE designation means air to air missile, active radar guided, for export, and is the export model of the domestic R-77. The RVV-SD and RVV-MD, and RVV-BD are therefore export models, but they aren't just export models of the old R-77, R-73, and R-37M respectively.

    The RVV-AE is the R-77, so the RVV-SD is a greatly updated and improved model with digital signal processing chips and all round improved performance. The SD is a similarly greatly improved digital model of the R-73, and that the BD is fully digital too.

    Now they are not going to export their best stuff now and we can assume that in parallel with these new digital upgraded missiles for export they will also have a domestic digital equivalent for each weapon that are being produced and bought by the Russian AF.

    Perhaps an R-77M, because the R-77 was bought in very small numbers as it could be carried by Mig-29C aircraft with the hump back. The R-73 is likely designated R-73M2 or something, while the BD will likely be designated R-37M... it will be interesting to see if they use them on the Su-35 and Mig-35 which could both use the missiles range because of their radar performance.

    The better question is, will the next generation of Russian AAM designed from scratch... likely to fit in internal weapons bays... be exported widely, or only to countries that buy the PAK FA?

    Recent talk about future Russian aircraft carriers mention capability to not just dominate the sea surface and air space around a carrier group, but also the underwater and outer space above the carrier... this suggests an aircraft carried missile able to reach up and hit satellites or ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10517
    Points : 10994
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Novator K-172, Vympel R-37: News

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:25 am

    The Vympel R-37 (NATO reporting name: AA-13 Arrow) is a Russian air-to-air missile with an extremely long range.
    It was designed to shoot down AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft whilst keeping the launch platform out of range of any fighters that might be protecting the target.

    The Novator K-100 is a Indian/Russian air-to-air missile designed as an "AWACS killer ranges up to 300–400 km (160-210 mi). The missile has had various names during its troubled history, including Izdeliye 172 ('Article 172'), AAM-L (RVV-L), KS–172, KS-1, 172S-1 and R-172. The airframe appears to have been derived from the 9K37 Buk surface-to-air missile (SAM).



    Tunguska india

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    Join date : 2012-05-23

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Tunguska india on Wed May 23, 2012 1:25 pm

    Can anyone please enlighten me on Novator K -172 range ,Guidance system? as i did not find any information in indian sources.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2012 11:02 am

    All that information would be estimates and guesses.

    The KS-172 has only existed so far as we know as a mockup.

    The R-37M is being tested this year with the Russian Mig-31s for operational service.

    The KS-172 has not been funded and is not related to the BUK SAM.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Viktor on Thu May 24, 2012 12:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:All that information would be estimates and guesses.

    The KS-172 has only existed so far as we know as a mockup.

    The R-37M is being tested this year with the Russian Mig-31s for operational service.

    The KS-172 has not been funded and is not related to the BUK SAM.

    There was an article few years ago sugesting K-172 is now called K-100.

    K-100 was meant to be codevelopt with India while K-37 was meant just for Russian airforce.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3220
    Points : 3306
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  medo on Thu May 24, 2012 4:34 pm

    I don't know for KS-172, but R-37 was tested years ago against targets around 300 km away. It seems Mig-31BM will be first operational plane equipped with R-37 missiles. I don't know if Su-35 will also use they. In the nineties they plan to use KS-172 on Su-35, but maybe they will integrate R-37 to Su-35.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Viktor on Thu May 24, 2012 6:15 pm

    medo wrote:I don't know for KS-172, but R-37 was tested years ago against targets around 300 km away. It seems Mig-31BM will be first operational plane equipped with R-37 missiles. I don't know if Su-35 will also use they. In the nineties they plan to use KS-172 on Su-35, but maybe they will integrate R-37 to Su-35.

    Sukhoi advertise Su-35BM with long range missile. K-37 certanly has future no doubt.

    What will happen with K-100 remaines to be seen.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 25, 2012 12:57 am

    I suspect the only hope the KS-172 had was if the Indians were interested in it... and I rather suspect they will want to go with the already developed missile in the form of the RVV-BD, which is the export model of the R-37M.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10517
    Points : 10994
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  George1 on Fri May 25, 2012 1:03 am

    GarryB wrote:I suspect the only hope the KS-172 had was if the Indians were interested in it... and I rather suspect they will want to go with the already developed missile in the form of the RVV-BD, which is the export model of the R-37M.

    Something like Brahmos and Oniks
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 28, 2012 9:31 am

    Something like Brahmos and Oniks

    Yes and no.

    The case with Onyx and Brahmos was that the Indians wanted a supersonic anti ship cruise missile, but they also wanted land attack capabilities too... because lets face it... Pakistan and China really don't have huge navies that would warrant hundreds of anti ship missiles. Having a missile that could attack land targets was necessary for India.

    Onyx wasn't designed for hitting land based targets and had too great a range for the Russians to be able to sell it to India anyway. The Yakhont was an export derived model of Onyx, but also did not have land attack capability, so Brahmos made a lot of sense. The result was Brahmos, which has the anti ship performance of Yakhont and a land attack capability that Onyx and Yakhont didn't have.

    In the case of the KS-172 we are talking about something the Russians already have developed, so unless the KS-172 has some special power that India particularly needs then it really doesn't make sense to enter into a joint venture to produce it because the R-37M has already been produced, as has the 200km range RVV-BD export derivative.

    If India wants a long range AAM that it can use as a fire and forget weapon to disrupt enemy aircraft attacks with little danger to their own aircraft then it makes sense just to buy RVV-BD off the shelf.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:24 pm

    I read on few occasions that MIG-31 could take over guidance of S-300 missiles. As both systems where serving PVO it could be some higher lvl of system integration never mentioned before.
    As this now 400km range missiles comes in the play could it be that S-400 for instance could takeover R-37M/K-100 missile guidance or MIG-31BM 40N6 guidance.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:47 am

    I have also read that this ability to take over the guidance of missiles (both SAMs and AAMs) is also a feature of the upgraded A-50s and the new A-100s will also have such a capability.

    The Su-30 in PVO service was used to provide target data to a Mig-31M with an old model radar for a test of the R-37. The target was outside the radar range of the Mig-31M with an older radar fitted so target data was provided by the Su-30 till the missile got close enough to detect and track the target itself.


    _________________
    “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
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Viktor on Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:I have also read that this ability to take over the guidance of missiles (both SAMs and AAMs) is also a feature of the upgraded A-50s and the new A-100s will also have such a capability.

    The Su-30 in PVO service was used to provide target data to a Mig-31M with an old model radar for a test of the R-37. The target was outside the radar range of the Mig-31M with an older radar fitted so target data was provided by the Su-30 till the missile got close enough to detect and track the target itself.

    Now imagine situation where just three MIG-31 interceptors flying at 20 000m in the circle providing constant 360° coverage above few S-300 regiment efficiently eliminateing S-300 earth curvation problem and at the same time fictionaly not being able to stay out of munition cozz of takeover abillity. Lots of flexibility. Now in line the with the 400km 40N6 and 400km R-37M protected space becomes much wider with few regiments of S-400 being able to protect fighters above. Those fighters with R-37M can engage low flying cruise missiles or fighters in SEAD missions or on the other hand flow out of safe zone and take on flying tanker or AWACS with R-37M. Airbattles over some theritory with integrated airdefense would see combined engagement of advesary by fighters and airdefense systems.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:48 pm