Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Viktor wrote:

mack8 wrote:Could that be taken as confirmation that Su-35 can carry 4 RVV-BD? 200km range, active radar seeker, 8g capability, quite a headache to any potential opponent.

This is an export model. Domestic one probably goes even further.

I know, they test in past a missile (R-37) with 300 km range. Is RVV-BD the same missile? I'm sure this missile will be as well in armament of PAK-FA and Su-30SM, not only for Su-35 and MiG-31BM.

RTN wrote:What is the typical shelf life of an air to air missile, for example the R-77?

After the expiry of their shelf life are they "recycled"? In other words simply replace the guidance kit coz I guess the warhead need not have to be changed.

Werewolf wrote:I would guess about the same or near same shelf life of modern IIR/CCD ATGM's which have a shelf life of around 15-20 years.

The worst thing for electronics and seeker is if they would be constantly fed by the internal batterie because the life of it would decrease to less than few hours at least of some internals.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:I would guess about the same or near same shelf life of modern IIR/CCD ATGM's which have a shelf life of around 15-20 years.

The worst thing for electronics and seeker is if they would be constantly fed by the internal batterie because the life of it would decrease to less than few hours at least of some internals.

Hmm... What do you think would be the first to go?

My guess would be the battery as you mentioned, but those are probably the easiest parts to replace.

GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

Anas Ali wrote:

GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
(47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Anas Ali wrote:

GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
(47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Anas Ali wrote:

GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
(47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.

By the way, kgs is a unit of force (also weight); the "s" in it comes from the Russian word сила (force). Sometimes it's written as "kgf".

On the other hand, "kg" is a unit of mass.

GarryB wrote:

thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?

I am simplifying this quite a bit but a good rule of thumb is the size of a control surface will matter in that the larger the surface for a given speed will have more turning force applied and give better manouver capability.

An exception of course is when the control surface stalls... the front control surfaces of the R-27 where is starts out narrow and gets wider is designed to reduce drag and delay stall to give better turn performance than a standard triangular fin.

The potatoe masher type rear fins on the R-77 are also designed to give max turning force with a compact shape and high angles of attack before stalling.

the thrust vector engine gives excellent manouver capability, but only while the rocket motor is burning... just like aircraft a TVC missile has excellent turning ability.

the R-73 is smaller and lighter and has TVC so it can turn harder than the R-27.

The R-27ET has much longer range and a wider field of view because the missile body is wider.

If you were chasing down a target at low level the R-27 would have a better chance of running it down... otherwise the R-73 would be the preferred weapon... both don't just tail chase... they track the target and fly an intercept course to meet the target at a location ahead of where the target is at that time.

Makes them quite hard to evade.

(47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

Sorry... bad choice of words... everything has mass and mass does not change under acceleration due to another mass or movement.

the 47kg warhead weighs 47kgs at one g... ie sitting on a table. At 1 g its weight is 47kgs.

At 2gs its weight is 96kgs... its weight at 90gs is just 90 x 47kgs = 4,230kgs.

Its mass does not change... think of weigh as momentum, where speed is measured in gs.

Anas Ali wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Anas Ali wrote:

GarryB wrote:The R-27 doesn't have TVC rocket motors, but it does have large forward control fins so it is possible that it might be able to pull extreme g turns.

The reverse butterfly shape of the control surfaces should make them able to pull turns with less drag and speed loss in the turns than conventional missiles.

Main barriers to high speed turns are small control surfaces limiting their rate of turn so high gs can't be acheived before they stall and stop turning the missile at all, and of course the structural strength to endure such high energy turns.

Even just the 47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs...

thanks a lot but i got to ask which of the air to air missile that have the best maneuverability ?
where can i learn about the shape of the control surfaces and more importantly how they effect the maneuverability ?
(47kg warhead in the R-27 acts like a 4.2 ton mass at 90gs) WOW , i need to learn this info too or the equation .

thanks again and sorry for the many questions but i love learn

F = ma, where for "m" (mass) in kg and "a" (acceleration) in g, "force" would be in kgs (kilogram force). For "m" in kg and "a" in m/s^2 (meter per second squared), F would be in N (newton).

So if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

By the way, Garry intended to say 4.2 tonne force.

The missile maneuverability is a complicated matter; it would be hard to cover it here.

By the way, kgs is a unit of force (also weight); the "s" in it comes from the Russian word сила (force). Sometimes it's written as "kgf".

On the other hand, "kg" is a unit of mass.

i dont know how to thank you , i really appreciated
thanks so so much  

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
… if a 70 kg pilot is maneuvering at 6 g, the force on him/her (his/her apparent "weight") would be 420 kgs. In this example, a = 6 g, and it is the magnitude of the vector sum of all accelerations on the pilot, and it includes the acceleration due to earth's gravity.

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi does anyone know of any of the average costs of bombs, missiles etc and how they compare to there western counterparts, i would expect as normal is the case that the Russian equivalent will be cheaper. any info would be great