- Kh-31P, Kh-31PK , Kh-31PD missile
- Kh-25MP modular missile
- Kh-58USHKE missile
Last edited by George1 on Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:53 am; edited 1 time in total
flamming_python wrote:Does Russia have a S-300 based surface-to-air ARM missile - that can be employed against AWACS and such?
I've heard it doesn't :L
flamming_python wrote:Does Russia have a S-300 based surface-to-air ARM missile - that can be employed against AWACS and such?
I've heard it doesn't :L
KomissarBojanchev wrote:Ive always wondered if the kh-58 and such are superior to the HARM...
Does Russia have a S-300 based surface-to-air ARM missile - that can be employed against AWACS and such?
I've heard it doesn't :L
Ive always wondered if the kh-58 and such are superior to the HARM...
GarryB wrote:Does Russia have a S-300 based surface-to-air ARM missile - that can be employed against AWACS and such?
I've heard it doesn't :L
Using TVM guidance if the target is emitting enough radar energy to track it then I don't see any reason why it couldn't just use that signal to home in on... if it could detect it... of course it is not the most reliable signal to home in on because if the radar turns off on the ground... you can still damage it on the ground if your missile lands nearby, but with an aircraft travelling at 600km/h+ then that isn't going to happen.
I don't know much about missiles, but if the AWACS turns its Radar off once it realises its being homed in on, the missile could by that stage already be close enough to be able to track just the aircraft itself (if its active radar homing).
S-300 doesn't have such missiles though AFAIK.
GarryB wrote:AFAIK the S-300 has a TVM capability, which means the ground radar acts like an aircrafts radar in a Semi Active Radar Homing intercept like with an R-27ER1 attack where the ground radar paints the target and the missile homes in on the reflected energy. The main difference is that with a SARH missile it is the missile that works out where it is in relation to the target and determines what flight manouvers it has to perform to intercept the target. With TVM or track via missile the missile has a radar receiver and a datalink and transmits the information it detects back to the ground station for processing. The ground based processing will be much more efficient and powerful because it can be as large and as expensive as you need it to be. It wont be destroyed everytime the missile is launched.
GarryB wrote:An advantage of TVM is that the target has little idea of whether it has been engaged or not... it can just detect the lock. There could be ten missiles climbing up to intercept it... or none.
You still need to "lock on" during endgame with TVM or SAGG.
Up to that point, the radar generates midcourse guidance commands based on target reflections and sends them to the missile to put it close to the target for TVM or SAGG to function during endgame. The advantage is that you can wait to "lock on" until very late in the engagement process. With a Mach 6+ missile that still pretty much eliminates the concept of reaction time.
GarryB wrote:The target will not know what radars are receiving the energy bouncing off its airframe, it will know it is being painted, but it wont know if one missile is coming up to engage it, or ten, or none.
GarryB wrote:So what you are saying is that a discrete tracking of the target to first detect it and then the occasional pulse to determine it is still going where they estimate it is going is used to direct the missile to a general interception point and then when it is a few seconds away the target will be painted with a radar beam and the intercepting missile or missiles will home in on that reflected signal.
So there is no lock as such that the target could recognise... it would detect the original scan and then ranging pulses, and then after a period it will be painted with a continuous beam for a few seconds till missiles start impacting it.
As opposed to an ARH missile like R-77 where the initial scan and ranging pulses would be detected, and then the radar signal from the R-77 scanning and then locking onto your aircraft and guiding to impact.
GarryB wrote:Hey... how about this... fire an R-77 and an R-27EP at the same target with a short interval with the R-77 second.
The R-27EP will arrive first and start passively looking for an active radar emission... and then the R-77 will arrive and scan for and then paint the target with its own radar. I wonder if the R-27EP could then home in on the reflections of the active radar from the R-77?
Certainly it is worth it anyway as the approach of two missiles, one active radar and one not would likely cause the target to scan for threats to work out where those missiles came from... and the act of scanning would attract the R-27EP.
GarryB wrote:Thanks Sean.
So basically the main advantages of SAGG would be it combines the advantages of enormous ground radars, with having a radar in the nose that might start off a long way from the target but as it gets closer its quality of data increases rapidly, plus of course the processing power that a ground network can provide.
Are you implying that 48N6 can guide itself in terminal phase in case link with radar is broken for some reason?