BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

Full article discussing the WorldWide AAMs progress here
http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/air-to-air-domination.html#more


Russia
Like the rest of its defence sector, Russia's airborne weapons industry suffered a lack of investment and a dearth of state orders for the last 20 years. Only export sales kept production lines active but, from the late 1990s and into the last decade, international orders sustained a reasonable workload. Russia's weapon builders - unified under the Tactical Missile Corporation (TMC) - face a less well-defined future. Export sales are dropping off as major customers like China and, to a degree, India find alternative sources of supply. The more recent customers for Russian combat aircraft like Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam or Venezuela are not big enough to fill the gap left by China and India.
At the same time there is a reawakening in Russia's procurement plans, thanks to the Sukhoi Su-35S and next-generation T-50 (PAK-FA) fighter programmes. The 48 advanced Su-35S jets announced in 2009 were the first new-build aircraft to be ordered for the Russian fighter force since the 1990s. More Su-35Ss are likely to follow, bridging the gap until the T-50 is ready for meaningful operations. The expansion of the Su-35S force and the resulting potential for export sales, plus the promise of the T-50 means that for the first time in many years Russia's weapon industry has serious goals.
The two primary air-to-air weapons from the TMC are improved versions of missiles with their design roots in the 1980s. Revealed in 2009, the RVV-SD (Raketa Vozdukh-Vozdukh-Srednaya Dalnost, medium-range AAM) and RVV-MD (Raketa Vozdukh-Vozdukh-Malaya Dalnost, short-range AAM) are the latest developments of the well-known RVV-AE/R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') and R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') missiles respectively. Products of the Vympel Design Bureau, they are staged improvements of the original designs rather than radical enhancements.
Several aerodynamic refinements have been made to the BVR-capable RVV-SD. Its rear section has a tapered 'boat tail' shape and the active radar seeker dome is longer and more pointed. Although its propulsion system is unchanged, the revised airframe configuration and flight control software increases range to at least 110 km. The RVV-SD has an upgraded inertial platform in its guidance and control section and a modernised seeker with improved algorithms. At its 2009 debut the RVV-SD was described by Vympel as a "proposal", so the production status of the missile remains unconfirmed.
The RVV-MD IR-guided dogfight missile introduced several performance improvements but not to the level predicted for most preceding R-73 upgrade concepts. Three main enhancements consist of: a two-colour IR seeker, an expanded seeker field-of-view of ±60° and an extended in-flight standby time of six hours.
Current or future Russian orders are likely to be built to RVV-SD and RVV-MD standards. Vympel designers have also spoken of further AAM developments based on the original RVV-AE/R-77 and R-73 designs. This includes a BVR missile referred to as Izdeliye 180 with a revised airframe design that replaces the lattice rear fins with conventional tail fins. Vympel says the new fins lessen drag and reduce weight by removing the heavy actuators needed for the old control surfaces. The missile will be fitted with an improved, higher-speed datalink and an inertial guidance system for mid-course navigation. The rocket motor is an improved dual-pulse engine with a maximum burn of 100 seconds and the ability to control the frequency of thrust inputs. A dual-mode (active/passive homing) seeker is likely to be fitted.
A successor to the R-73/RVV-MD may come in the shape of Vympel's Izdeliye 760 (a derivative of the earlier K-74/Izdeliye 740 concept). It will have an improved IR seeker, an inertial control system, datalink receiver for target updates and an advanced rocket motor with a longer burn time. To make the missile suitable for internal carriage, its cross-section will be reduced. To maximise the weapon's coverage, it can be fired in lock-on-after-launch mode, starting under inertial control before achieving in-flight lock-on. It will be able to engage targets up to 160º from the aircraft's heading. The Izdeliye 760 may have already completed flight tests.
The follow-on to the Izdeliye 760 is identified as the K-MD (Izdeliye 300), which is intended to outperform the ASRAAM and AIM-9X. Although it will draw on experience from the R-73/R-74 series, it will essentially be an all-new missile. It will use an IR seeker with a focal-plane array and this will have more than twice the lock-on range of the Izdeliye 760 seeker, a high resistance to countermeasures and a target-recognition capability.
In terms of deployed weapons Russia's most notable recent achievement has been the introduction of the very-long-range R-37 missile as part of the MiG-31BM 'Foxhound' upgrade. One of Russia's 'lost projects' from the 1990s, the R-37 was designed to work specifically with the aircraft's improved NIIP Zaslon-M passive electronically scanning array (PESA) radar. The R-37 has an range of up to 230 km. After many years of delayed development the MiG-31BM/R-37 combination is entering Russian service.
A second long-range AAM programme exists in Russia, albeit under many different names. Developed by Novator, the K-100 missile (also known as the Izdeliye 172, KS-172, RVV-BD and AAM-L) is potentially a 200 km+ weapon associated with the Su-35S (and export Su-35BM) programme. Versions of this missile have sporadically appeared in public since the 1990s and in recent years full-sized mock-ups were shown carried by Su-35 aircraft. In March 2004 Indian press reports claimed that Russia and India were about to begin collaborative development of the 172 missile, referred to as the R-172. By 2006 the Izdeliye 172/K-100 was confirmed as a potential weapon for Sukhoi's revised Su-35 design and was exhibited in China that year. A full-size mock-up of a weapon identified only as 'AAM' (a catch-all designation) was shown for the first time in more than a decade at the 2007 Moscow Air Show. The K-100 was absent in any form from the 2009 Moscow Air Show, indicating perhaps that the programme has returned to classified status.

Garry if you have read the whole article it seems that Europe & especially German with their Meteor project can be deadly in the race among AAM manufacturing companies worldwide. Also if I may discuss Pakistan in the spectrum we are very much involved in the production of T-Darter & A-Darter missiles produced by South Africa & now also the Brazil had joined this club.
I just want to say that AAM manufacturing nowadays is becoming more & more diversified & from the full article it seems half of the world has or is going to start their domestic AAM projects which may undermine the sales not just of US but also of Russia

it seems

R-77 Is Superior To Mica-EM  






http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/r-77-is-superior-to-mica-em.html

Weird considering there are far more nations using MICA than RVV-AE. Russia don't even use it. Also, Pakistan was begging for MICA until French Senate rejected clearance. Ever since that Indian batch of R-77s went bad, there hasn't been much demand for it.

Can you please remove !! in topic title , since it hurts our Google search rank?

Otherwise interesting!

ok our patriot
i did not know that (!!) is aproblem

Vladimir79 wrote:Weird considering there are far more nations using MICA than RVV-AE. Russia don't even use it. Also, Pakistan was begging for MICA until French Senate rejected clearance. Ever since that Indian batch of R-77s went bad, there hasn't been much demand for it.

ok,but it does not mean that it is not superior to mica
ariants of the R-77 have been exported to most current operators of late model MiG-29 and Su-27/30 series fighters, and there are claims the missile may have been licenced by China. The seeker and guidance package are known to have been licenced by China for use in the PL-12/SD-10 Sino-AMRAAM.

The R-77s main problems were first that there were only a few hundred aircraft that could actually carry and fire it (Mig-29S) in service in the Russian Air Force, but the most importantly the active seeker and parts of it were made in the Ukraine so there was a scramble to develop Russian components to replace the fairly important Ukrainian components.
Another issue is that radar guided missiles are great for closing targets but receding targets are much harder to get a clean lock, so because they are presenting their engine nozzles it is much easier to get an IR lock on with such a target.

As such the Russian AF prefers to carry a mix of IR and radar homing missiles, which the R-27 and R-27E model missiles had.
Now however the Russian MIC has developed all digital versions of their R-77 and R-73 missiles and significantly increased their performance. The electronics are lighter and faster and more precise and accurate and allow flight path shaping to greatly increase range performance and accuracy.

Look at the size of the other WVR missiles, they're a bit smaller and likely to be a bit more agile. Look at the size of the other BVR missiles, they're all 50% bigger. When no one else does something it's likely that something was a mistake. The Russian, Chinese, Indians etc all have had the chance to build something similr and no one has.

Also look at the missile itself. It has the strakes which cause a lot of zero lift drag compared to a missile body cylinder. It's just a bad overall design philosophy for a weapon. The thing is, it doesn't matter because the French pilots and planes are good enough to make the question academic other than on message boards where French Fanboys try and make it out to be better than AMRAAM at BVR and better than the others at WVR when there is no way that is possible under the rules of engineering unless the other guys screwed up..

The R-77 employs conceptually similar guidance to the AMRAAM, with an inertial unit, datalink uplink receiver and a terminal seeker, specifically the 9B-1348E in the baseline active radar variant. The missile is credited with an A-pole range of 54 NMI, the capability to defeat a 12G target, can be launched at 8 G, and requires an AAKU/AKU-170 launcher.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html

The R-77's main superiority compared to the AIM-120B/C is in range and manoeuvrability. The R-77 is bigger than the AIM-120, and carries more powerful propellant. The range of the R-77 is between 50km and 80km depending on the model. The R-77’s unique “potato masher” fins at the rear provides lower drag at supersonic speeds than large fins, and are able to cause the missile to turn much faster at 12G, which is significantly more than most crewed aircraft at 9G. The missile’s speed is limited to Mach 3 due to excessive nose-cone heating.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r77.asp



Russian BVR Missiles - Technology Growth
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

ahmedfire wrote:

Also look at the missile itself. It has the strakes which cause a lot of zero lift drag compared to a missile body cylinder. It's just a bad overall design philosophy for a weapon. The thing is, it doesn't matter because the French pilots and planes are good enough to make the question academic other than on message boards where French Fanboys try and make it out to be better than AMRAAM at BVR and better than the others at WVR when there is no way that is possible under the rules of engineering unless the other guys screwed up..

That strakes, well i see it will improve glide and contribute to Body buildup performance , as BVR weapons , and well most importantly MICA has TVC in shape of vanes ,and MICA is lighter which will improve maneuverability .

of course there would be a tradeoff in shape of reduced range through either drag or reduced rocket motor ISP because use of vanes , but well i see it as a fair and must be accepted tradeoff .


somehow however i think French want to make a "dual role" weapons, and MICA is the result of it..

That strakes, well i see it will improve glide and contribute to Body buildup performance , as BVR weapons , and well most importantly MICA has TVC in shape of vanes ,and MICA is lighter which will improve maneuverability .

of course there would be a tradeoff in shape of reduced range through either drag or reduced rocket motor ISP because use of vanes , but well i see it as a fair and must be accepted tradeoff .


somehow however i think French want to make a "dual role" weapons, and MICA is the result of it..

bigger size in R-77 give it alonger range and still can face a 12G target ,mica could has alittle mire turnings than r-77 but r-77 still has efficient turnings to defeat (theoritically) any exist aircraft but with another advantages like many seekers available than mica and longer range ..

longer range not just because of more fuel<<it also because of the air craft it self.. i'll quote that

In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

ahmedfire wrote:

bigger size in R-77 give it alonger range and still can face a 12G target ,mica could has alittle mire turnings than r-77 but r-77 still has efficient turnings to defeat (theoritically) any exist aircraft but with another advantages like many seekers available than mica and longer range ..

well MICA also have IR seeker version .. and we haven't seen any "R-77ET" or "R-77P" yet..

longer range not just because of more fuel<<it also because of the air craft it self.. i'll quote that

which will work both way, MICA can also gain advantages through its own launching platform's speed and altitude.

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
[/quote]

All Seekers on current Active and Semi Active RADAR homing AAM available today are monopulse

well MICA also have IR seeker version .. and we haven't seen any "R-77ET" or "R-77P" yet..

what about that

which will work both way, MICA can also gain advantages through its own launching platform's speed and altitude.

comparing flanker with 2.25 mach with rafale 1.8 mach ?!!

ahmedfire wrote:

what about that

Problems with your figure is.. there are no solid evidence that those missiles have been built .

as for MICA IR

comparing flanker with 2.25 mach with rafale 1.8 mach ?!!

Which obviously not fair since those aircrafts are of a different classes.. try MiG-29M instead

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2356&catid=262

R-77M AA-12 mod PD - longer range version
R-77 AA-12 mod IR Imaging seeker
R-77E AA-12 mod possible ARM variant

i think the point is not if russians already producing IR version of R-77 or not,,the point is if they can do that or not ,ofcourse they can ,russians has abigger experience in thermal homming than any western country,, ols 35 is fully better than osf on rafale ,,
the new ols-50 is arevolution in IRH developmwnts...

Which obviously not fair since those aircrafts are of a different classes.. try MiG-29M instead

see the videos of french DASSAULT ,they easily saying that rafale can defeat any flanker ,so i putted flanker aginst dassault


so,why no one comment on the first picture ?

ahmedfire wrote:

see the videos of french DASSAULT ,they easily saying that rafale can defeat any flanker ,so i putted flanker aginst dassault


so,why no one comment on the first picture ?

So that's the problem eh ?... well i never take such promotional video seriously.. but calling missile is inferior from others because of strakes ?.. well that need a clear examination.

Mig-29 and Su-27 have speeds of mach 2.35 or so.

Current models are not slower.

I'm aware of this thank you.. however it is more wise to compare Rafale with the MiG's instead of Flankers .

ahmedfire wrote:

That strakes, well i see it will improve glide and contribute to Body buildup performance , as BVR weapons , and well most importantly MICA has TVC in shape of vanes ,and MICA is lighter which will improve maneuverability .

of course there would be a tradeoff in shape of reduced range through either drag or reduced rocket motor ISP because use of vanes , but well i see it as a fair and must be accepted tradeoff .


somehow however i think French want to make a "dual role" weapons, and MICA is the result of it..

bigger size in R-77 give it alonger range and still can face a 12G target ,mica could has alittle mire turnings than r-77 but r-77 still has efficient turnings to defeat (theoritically) any exist aircraft but with another advantages like many seekers available than mica and longer range ..

longer range not just because of more fuel<<it also because of the air craft it self.. i'll quote that

In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

The range of the R-77 has been overhyped indeed. It's maximum range (A-Pole, max kinematic, etc) is about 80 km for the RVV-AE. That's assuming the target is slow and dumb. Versus a fighter, hell, even a F-35, the R-77 only has about 50 km range, and that's according to Rosoboronexport.

^^ besides your claim I never got a definite clue regarding its range even WIKI quotes at least seven different ranges all drastically different

Air-to-air missile non-comparison table

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html

nightcrawler wrote:^^ besides your claim I never got a definite clue regarding its range even WIKI quotes at least seven different ranges all drastically different

It's in the Rosonboronexport catalog. I don't know where it is but the links are posted somewhere on this forum.

Like Garry said, there's a hell of a lot of variables when it comes to "maximum range". One can easily get an outrageous range if they somehow managed to fire it in space, and had it traveled several thousand kms.