Russian Air-to-Air missiles

Let start from the basis : Lock On Before Launch mean simply that all the necessary vectorial data for generate an useful intercept point must be present for the sensor suit (and not specifically missile seeker...except,as i will further explained successively down here,for very short range combat employing HMS ) before weapon delivery , without chances to update those data in-flight, change initial point of intercept designated toward a target on which you obtain a lock after missile's delivery or capability of the missile to self classify or designate a "target of opportunity" in an area, etc..etc...

Excluding radar guided missiles as he has by talking about the R-73E and RVV-MD, which are both IR guided missiles, lock on before launch in this case means that before the missile can be launched it must have a solid lock on the target.
It does not need to calculate anything, it just needs a sensor on board the aircraft to direct the seeker in the missile to the target. That sensor can be the helmet mounted sight, the IRST, or the radar. Once directed to the target and a lock is achieved meaning the seeker is now tracking that target exclusively, then the missile can be fired.
A lock on before launch missile cannot be fired to fly to a specific place in space and then find and lock the target itself... that would be lock on after launch.
There is no datalink for communication between launch aircraft and either missile mentioned, so a missile launched without a lock will hit only the ground.

R-73/73M1/M2 in particular are missile with a inertial mid-course proportional guidance up to a preselected point of intercept and terminal IR guidance.

Perfectly true, but we are no longer talking about LOBL or LOAL, we are talking about the flight control algorithm that controls the flight surfaces of the missile and "flys" it to the target. Older model missiles will point their noses at the target and fly straight at them till they hit them due to their superior speed. Very simple, but offers the pilot more options to out fly the missile as it is flying to where he is and usually ends up in a tail chase to hit the rear of the tail pipe.
Proportional guidance means the missile determines the rate at which the target is moving within its field of view... if it remains stationary then the target is either moving directly towards or away from the missile and it will continue to fly till it hits the target on that course. If the target is moving in its field of view it corrects its flight... it is not so sophisticated as to calculate an intercept point in 3D space and time... it has no range information for closing rates so it cannot perform such a calculation. It determines the rate at which the target moves and instead of flying directly at the target by turning a little, it turns a lot more till the target stops moving in its field of view.
This means the missile is no longer flying directly towards the target but at an angle ahead of where it is moving so that the target no longer moves in its field of view... this means that after a period of time the missile will either run out of fuel and energy and fall to the ground, or it will hit the target.

Think of it in terms of people on the ground. One person is walking a course that is not straight from one end of a room to another. If someone else representing a missile starts to approach from the side and walks twice as fast as the target and keeps heading towards the target because the target is moving the missile will always be heading to slightly to the rear of the target, but because it is moving so much faster it will always hit it... and for shots from behind or the side it will most likely hit the target in the rear.
Now change the "guidance rules" for the missile. As it moves towards the target (which is not walking in a straight line remember) it will turn until the target stops moving... from the side that means walking toward a place slightly ahead of the target that will exactly coincide with where the target will be when you get there. When the target turns (because it is not walking straight) it will start moving again in the missiles field of view and so the missile will need to change course so that the target will be stationary in its FOV again.
For the target to be stationary in your field of view while it is moving and you are moving 2-3 times faster than it is that means you are getting closer and will impact the target unless it changes course and you do not. If it changes course and you correct your course then you should hit... assuming no countermeasures of course... we are talking about the guidance not the ECCM.

Talking of the last capability named in the Jane's article (capability to perform a 180 degrees turn after launch ) it is mentioned also by Yefim Gordon in its "Soviet-Russian Aircraft Weapons since World War Two" ,pag 33

That means that a target flying directly towards the launch aircraft, but offset to the side by a distance, you can get a lock, fire a missile, and it will use its thrust vectoring to pull a high g turn to keep the seeker nose pointed at the target as it flys past the launch aircraft and heads back behind the launch platform. The missile has turned 180 degrees to follow the target but it needs to keep its seeker pointed at the target at all times to have a chance of hitting it.
A missile with lock after launch capability can be fired forward at a target already behind the launch aircraft and it will perform the same 180 degree turn and then it will look for and ID the target before getting a lock and intercepting it.

The thrust vector capability of the R-73 allows it to be mounted on a weapons pylon facing backwards, so you can get a lock on a target behind the aircraft and fire the missile at a target behind the aircraft... it needs that thrust vectoring capability to keep the seeker in the nose pointed at the target throughout the engagement.
R-27s were tried but as their forward speed changed from negative to positive... ie they were hanging there at zero forward speed, without thrust vectoring the main butterfly wings stalled and the nose dropped and the missile lost lock of the target.

The HMS works solely with IR-Homing missile. Using it the pilot is able to fire a missile quickly at an enemy aircraft within visual range when sorely pressed for time during a dofg fight.

The helmet sight and missile combination are ideal... in a western fighter the pilot tries to turn their whole aircraft to point the nose at the target, which also points the missiles on the pylons at the target and then activates the missile seeker to try to get a lock, or scans with radar and then directs the missile seeker to look where the radar is tracking to get a lock.
With the Mig-29 or Su-27 the pilot lowers a small monacle that has a cross hair on it. The pilot turns his head and looks at the target aircraft (which is a threat so of course he wants to visually track the enemy aircraft as much as possible anyway) When the target is within the 90 degree field of view of the R-73E he can push a button on his control stick to get the seeker of the selected missile to look where he is looking (determined by a system that tracks his helmet) and when it gets a lock the cross hair starts blinking... he is now free to pull the trigger and launch the missile.
With thrust vectoring capability the missile can pull very hard turns off the rail... just like the Mig-29OVT and point its nose in any direction it wants in flight.

BTW another advantage of proportional navigation is that the missile tends to hit the middle of the target rather than the jet engine nozzle, which makes the warhead more effective in bringing down the target.

It was more important for older MANPADs like Strela because of their relatively small warheads made hits to the tail pipe survivable.

Igla uses propnav too.

Evidence of GROM hits to Su-25s in the conflict in Georgia suggests it uses the old tail chase Strela guidance.

GarryB wrote:The thrust vector capability of the R-73 allows it to be mounted on a weapons pylon facing backwards, so you can get a lock on a target behind the aircraft and fire the missile at a target behind the aircraft...

Some of the R-73 rear-hemisphere engagement tests also involved firing the missile forward. TVC allowed it to maintain controllability through the transition around zero velocity.

Can't tell if that's what they're doing here, but this is still amusing:

GarryB wrote:in a western fighter the pilot tries to turn their whole aircraft to point the nose at the target, which also points the missiles on the pylons at the target and then activates the missile seeker to try to get a lock, or scans with radar and then directs the missile seeker to look where the radar is tracking to get a lock.

JHMCS, anyone?

Well technically Apache pilots can scoff at US fighter pilots getting HMS... they have had them for years.

...of course without a high off bore sight missile the only real advantage was when using the gun, but placing a cross hair in your field of view onto a target to get a lock is much simpler and more natural than using a mini joystick to manoeuvre a cursor of the target and pressing a button.

Finally i get some work-free time to write something ,let start:



Talking of the last capability named in the Jane's article (capability to perform a 180 degrees turn after launch ) it is mentioned also by Yefim Gordon in its "Soviet-Russian Aircraft Weapons since World War Two" ,pag 33

That means that a target flying directly towards the launch aircraft, but offset to the side by a distance, you can get a lock, fire a missile, and it will use its thrust vectoring to pull a high g turn to keep the seeker nose pointed at the target as it flys past the launch aircraft and heads back behind the launch platform. The missile has turned 180 degrees to follow the target but it needs to keep its seeker pointed at the target at all times to have a chance of hitting it.

GarryB i have cited the precise words of Yefim Gordon from the book and sincerely don't understand what is not clear for you in those words to lead to a so strange interpretation, i repeat them ,may be them will be appear more clear at a second look :

The missile is capable to do an U –Turn immediately after launch to engage an aircraft PURSUING the aircraft; however this requires the aircraft to be equipped with a tail protection system ENABLING TARGETING IN THE REAR HEMISPHERE

About ProNav ,i really appreciate (without any irony) your effort to explain the basis of the concept ,but,as you well know of course the method stand..... a bit more complex than that and not precisely in that terms imaged by you (some years ago i have read "Missile guidance and Control Systems" by G.R. Siouris which expend some dozen of pages on the detailed description of the various types of ProNav, give to it a look it is a very good book ).

Returning to the subject in question ,what has truly puzzled me is observe that pratically anyone has strangely overlooked ,in the articles cited , that R-73 is a missile with INERTIAL guidance and TERMINAL IR guidance (at the point that R. Hewson define it a medium range missile with inertial/IR guidance); inertial guidance in a missile has the exclusive purpose to provide to it the capability to autonomously reach a precise and precomputed point in the space and has virtually nothing to do with target motion or its variation of positioning in the three axis.
It,obviously, would be completely useless for a missile which has already acquired its target with the seeker -not differently than R-77 or AIM-120 employing inertial guidance to reach a particular,precomputed point of intercet in the space before the terminal active radar homing sequence-; a proof of that is that in short range employement ,when ther "Archer" acquire its target directly with its seeker , R-73 of course don't employ any inertial guidance.

What is see here is a big misunderstanding ,likely generated with confusion with features of missile in completely different class such as AGM-114 or FGM-148, of the LOBL/LOAL concept leading to conclusions completely out of line ,of the like:

"Why preatically any technical article or parameter chart give for R-73 and RVV-MD 30 and 40 km of effective engagement range ,pilots of opposing Air Forces declare that its wide stand-off range advantage over its competitors is one of its most feared and problematic capability and makers cite its stand-off range advantage as one of its best selling point when (....supposedly... ) its guidance would allow to it ,at maximum, to engage targets 8-9 km away ? "

Naturally the easy explanation is not that technical charts, pilot's opinions and the same maker's claims are wrong....but ,much more simply ,at be wrong is this warped concept of LOBL/LOAL
Just for example ,for a missile with radar guidance, the difference between a LOABL/LOAL missile is merely that the latter can be shooted in track-while-scan mode ,in opposition to after having obtained a radar lock, providing successively ,directly or indirtectly, further data to the missile when in flight .

Returning at the substance of this thread is important to point out that ,in fact, the only feature different in izdeliye 760 (alias R-73-M2),probably the russian internal version of the RVV-MD, in respect to other R-73 derivatives is capability to receive target data update while in flight ; the mere presence of a datalink receiver allow to the missile to be delivered before aircraft onborad sensor suit would obtain sufficient target positional and vector data integrating,instead, them on the fly ,obtaing in this way your..... "LOAL R-73".

Fom "Vympel plans to develop air-to-air missiles for Russia's PAK FA fighter" :

For the PAK FA, Vympel is developing two new missiles based on R-73/R-74 technology. The first of these is izdeliye 760. Based on the K-74M, this is intended to match the performance of the MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder. It will have an improved IR seeker, an inertial control system, a 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 320x320 mm.
To maximise the weapon's coverage, it can be fired in lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) mode, starting under inertial control before achieving in-flight lock-on.
It will be able to engage targets up to 160ⅹ from the aircraft's heading.

Inertial guidance is also used to control the flight of a missile that is not taking a direct path to a detected target, which is what it is used for in this case.

Rear facing sensors to detect targets for locking R-73 seekers only works with R-73s mounted backwards on their rails and can only be used in the lock on before launch method.

The 40km launch range would be for a high altitude launch against a head on target travelling at high speed, the missile would not actually fly 40km, as only a high speed target could be locked on at that range at that height.

Mig-25s and Mig-31s could often detect closing SR-71s at 120km+ with their IR sensors.

For the PAK FA, Vympel is developing two new missiles based on R-73/R-74 technology. The first of these is izdeliye 760. Based on the K-74M, this is intended to match the performance of the MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder.

The R-74 does not exist. The K-74 was the replacement for the R-73 (note K = in development, R = in service) that was going to be a Soviet designed missile with a fully gimballed exhaust nozzle and an IIR seeker, but now the company that was working on the seeker is in the Ukraine, as is the company working on the rocket engine.

The new all Russian missile for the PAK FA will:

...have an improved IR seeker, an inertial control system, a 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 320x320 mm.
To maximise the weapon's coverage, it can be fired in lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) mode, starting under inertial control before achieving in-flight lock-on.
It will be able to engage targets up to 160ⅹ from the aircraft's heading.

It will have an imaging IR seeker that will see targets as objects rather than as clusters of hot and cold points (aircraft metal out of the slipstream can get rather cold... at 10,000m the air temp is -60 C.). It will have an onboard database of 3D IR images of targets.

Very simply it needs the capacity for lock on after launch because it will sit in an internal weapons bay with no visibility of the target till it is launched and thrown out of the bay for motor start. This means it has to acquire its target after launch, just like the R-77 already does.

I wonder if the supposed inertial/midcourse guidance in the R-73M2 isn't intended as an IRCCM system rather than a true LOAL capability.

Missile: "There's the target, heading that way."

FCS: "Crap, tell the missile that's not the target."

Datalink: "Turn left stupid, you're chasing a decoy."

Could be interesting.

At any rate, just because Gordon, or even Jane's, print something does not make it 100% accurate. Same goes for pretty much any source out there.

[quote=GarryB]Rear facing sensors to detect targets for locking R-73 seekers only works with R-73s mounted backwards on their rails and can only be used in the lock on before launch method.[/quote]

Except for when they got one to turn 180 degrees?

[quote=GarryB]Very simply it needs the capacity for lock on after launch because it will sit in an internal weapons bay with no visibility of the target till it is launched and thrown out of the bay for motor start. This means it has to acquire its target after launch, just like the R-77 already does.[/quote]

That is only true if the weapon is not swung out on a rail for lock-on prior to launch, like the AIM-9 on the F-22A. Furthermore, I wonder how hard it'd be to make the forward portion of the wing-root AAM housing on the PAK-FA IR transparent to allow LOBL capability. IR wavelengths are considerably smaller so the "window" could easily be made to not be radar transparent as well, retaining the LO characteristics of the airframe.

Except for when they got one to turn 180 degrees?

Imagine two planes 2km apart flying directly towards each other... nose to nose.

Now push one aircraft sideways about 400m so they are flying in opposite directions on parallel courses.

With both aircraft flying at 600km/h that means when one plane sees the other gets a lock by slewing the missiles seeker onto the closing aircraft using his helmet mounted sight, and fires the missile just as the enemy aircraft is getting close, the first manouver the missile performs is a hard turn to follow the target aircraft as it goes past the launch aircraft and continues off on a parallel course... the missile burns most of its highest thrust fuel initially to gain speed but because it is turning so hard on launch it doesn't get to a very high speed because it burns most of its energy turning so it might not hit the target aircraft till the aircraft is 1km or more behind the launch aircraft... it is still a 180 turn, and lock on before launch engagement.

It is called an over the shoulder launch.

In a lock on after launch like the Python IV you fire the missile forward but it knows the target is behind and it turns 180 degrees and then starts looking for the target.
The R-73 and no current version of R-73 can do that.

They might make the new IIR short range AAM for the PAK FA able to do that, which will be useful because it is also called Morfei and will be used as a short range SAM for the Army and Navy, with a lock on after launch capability that will be very useful in saturation attacks and shooting down incoming missiles.

That is only true if the weapon is not swung out on a rail for lock-on prior to launch, like the AIM-9 on the F-22A. Furthermore, I wonder how hard it'd be to make the forward portion of the wing-root AAM housing on the PAK-FA IR transparent to allow LOBL capability. IR wavelengths are considerably smaller so the "window" could easily be made to not be radar transparent as well, retaining the LO characteristics of the airframe.

Or how about an extendible rail that can thrust the missile down out of the bay and turn 30-40 degrees off boresight, or even 360 degrees to improve the performance of the missile. (turning hard off a rail uses a lot of energy at a time when you want your missile as low drag and flying straight as possible to increase its acceleration and energy).

Such a set up might sound silly, but imagine taking that AAM off and replacing it with a gun pod...

Inertial guidance is also used to control the flight of a missile that is not taking a direct path to a detected target, which is what it is used for in this case.

Garry i am sorry ,but that is simply not true; no missile at world in any class (from cruise missile such as BGM-109 to air-to-air missile such as AIM-120 ),employ inertial guidance when its seeker has acquired the target, eventual not direct pact to the target is obviously computed much, much more precisely with missile axis to the target angular projection algorithms in augmented ProNav guidance.
Inertial guidance is simply employed to allow a missile to reach a specific, precomputed point in the space before terminal homing.

The 40km launch range would be for a high altitude launch against a head on target travelling at high speed, the missile would not actually fly 40km, as only a high speed target could be locked on at that range at that height.

In no way at world a 5,8 kg MK-80 seeker of an R-73 was capable to track a target of any type at..... 30 km , head-on !!
A modern, immensely more advanced and powerful OLS-UEM of a MIG-35 is capable to detect a target head-on at 20-25 km maximum,it is surely a figure for an high altitude launch , but for strict kinematical reasons, seeker's acquisition range has nothing to do with that.

Rear facing sensors to detect targets for locking R-73 seekers only works with R-73s mounted backwards on their rails and can only be used in the lock on before launch method.

GarryB you are an intelligent person ,please stop one moment and reason, i understand that you attempt to "adapt" Gordon's words to your idea...but believe me it is simply impossible ; there is no way at world for a R-73 making an U turn after launch against a pursuing aircraft to have the target in the field of view of its seeker before having complted the 180 degree turn, for this reason that Yefim Gordon specify that the aircraft must have a tail protection system enabling targeting in the rear hemisphere.

The new all Russian missile for the PAK FA will:

GarryB here we was talking of izdeliye 760 -alias R-73M2- and a lot of analysts believe that the RVV-MD now offered on the international market is nothing other than izdeliye 760 in its downgraded export version (not differently than RVV-SD and RVV-B).
Take into account that also the claimed times of development and introduction ,range of engagement ,field of view of the seeker etc..etc... correspond perfectly to those of izdeliye 760 ),therefore is perfectly possible that Russian internal version of the missile has the few izdeliye 760's features lacking in the export version .

The next generation close-range missile for PAK-FA ,to be finished in 2013 ,will be the Izdeliye 300 with compltely different capabilitites and a focal-plane array -FPA- .

Inertial guidance is simply employed to allow a missile to reach a specific, precomputed point in the space before terminal homing.

OK. Lets pretend you are right.
A target behind my aircraft has his radar on and based on that signal I can get a precise angular lock on his aircraft, so I launch my R-73 and it uses its thrust vectoring capability to pull a 180 degree turn off the rail.
With no data link the missile is now facing towards the target, but how does it identify the target?

When engaging targets in front of the aircraft the radar or IRST or helmet mounted sight is used to turn the actual seeker in the missile directly at the target so it is in the centre of view for a lock... after pulling a 180 degree turn the R-73 will be moving backwards in relation to the launch aircraft but the turn will have offset its position 100m or more depending on the flight speed of the aircraft, it is now looking back but there is no datalink for the launch aircraft to see what the missile can now see or vice versa.

What happens when it does its 180 degree turn and sees 4 aircraft... the 100m offset means the missile will be seeing those 4 aircraft from a different perspective from what the rear facing sensors on the launch aircraft saw them and are still seeing them.
What if the missile selects the closest threat... what if the closest threat is your wingman?

If it were possible to fire at targets unseen behind the aircraft then the R-73 would be a much more capable missile... you could fire it toward radar contacts and as it gets closer it will get a lock and guide to the target.
Without a datalink however it could just as easily lock on to anything in its field of view of course.

BTW you make it sound more sophisticated than it is, inertial navigation for a V-1 is to fly in a specific direction (by physically angling the launch ramp in the correct direction) for a fixed period of time and then cut the control surfaces lines to make the weapon fall from the sky. R-73s can be carried by all manner of aircraft, many of which have no radar or means of determining range to targets, like the Yak-130 with no radar, but with a helmet mounted sight you can get a visual lock which is good enough for such a missile as its range means it is a WVR missile and if you can see it, it can probably reach it.
Firing an R-73 from a Ka-50 means the R-73 will be launched with no idea how far away the target is, it will just fly at the locked target till it runs out of fuel or impacts the target. It will certainly not create a 3D model of the space around it and calculate an intercept point to fly to.
That is pointless for an IR guided missile.

For an ARH missile it is crucial as the inertial nav system has to get the missile to a point where the target is in range of the missiles radar seeker... too close and the missile might not get a lock before it blows past, too far away and it might not get a lock either and it will give early warning of the attack.
The difference of course is that ARH have datalinks and more accurate target data from the launch aircraft that will be updated during the missiles flight.

In no way at world a 5,8 kg MK-80 seeker of an R-73 was capable to track a target of any type at..... 30 km , head-on !!

An SR-71 has a surface temperature of over 350 degrees at normal operational height and speed.
Modern seekers don't rely on detecting very hot things... that would make flares too interesting.
I am also referring to high altitude use, where the ambient temperature is -62 degrees C or colder and there is no earth clutter to distract the missile.

At high altitudes there is little moisture to reduce range and no weather to interfere. Remember we are talking about MAX range too, not normal or expected range.

GarryB you are an intelligent person ,please stop one moment and reason, i understand that you attempt to "adapt" Gordon's words to your idea...but believe me it is simply impossible ; there is no way at world for a R-73 making an U turn after launch against a pursuing aircraft to have the target in the field of view of its seeker before having complted the 180 degree turn, for this reason that Yefim Gordon specify that the aircraft must have a tail protection system enabling targeting in the rear hemisphere.

Mindstorm, you are an intelligent person, please stop one moment and think, even with a rear facing sensor like an IRST that could pass on to the missile an IR view of the target to get something to compare with when it turns and looks for itself no aircraft are fitted with rear facing IRSTs, there are no datalinks connecting the launch aircraft with the missile so it can be given live data of the target when it starts looking.

The rear facing sensor system is for missiles launched rearward and it is used in exactly the same way that the forward facing sensor systems are used with the R-73.
They find the target and give angular information for the missile seeker to look directly at the target and get a lock before the missile is launched.
Rear facing sensors would not work with a forward facing missile for the same reasons that a rear facing sensor would be of no use with forward facing missiles.
Before the missile is launched the seeker needs to be locked on to the target.

There is no ability to acquire a new target after launch... otherwise your own wingmen are in serious danger.

Take into account that also the claimed times of development and introduction ,range of engagement ,field of view of the seeker etc..etc... correspond perfectly to those of izdeliye 760 ),therefore is perfectly possible that Russian internal version of the missile has the few izdeliye 760's features lacking in the export version

If the domestic IR AAM had lock on after launch capability then there would be little reason for the new missile, and certainly much less urgency.

What happens when it does its 180 degree turn and sees 4 aircraft... the 100m offset means the missile will be seeing those 4 aircraft from a different perspective from what the rear facing sensors on the launch aircraft saw them and are still seeing them.
What if the missile selects the closest threat... what if the closest threat is your wingman?

It would happen exactly what happen any time the seeker of R-73 ,in the terminal IR homing phase, is forced to choose between the original "intended" target and 4 or 5 flares or/and a towed decoy or even .....a friend aircraft overposing itself ,at very close range, on the same pact of original target.
The problem of possible "fratricide" in many vs many WVR engagements (stimed at reason by Russian the most common hypothetical instance against an advanced enemy),for a missile like R-73 devoid of any in-flight positional data update and target designation capability for achieve a possible lock-on on the intended target after launch , was one of the main motivations for which the project of a similarly employed R-73 was abandoned in soviet times.

...like the Yak-130 with no radar, but with a helmet mounted sight you can get a visual lock which is good enough for such a missile as its range means it is a WVR missile and if you can see it, it can probably reach it.
Firing an R-73 from a Ka-50 means the R-73 will be launched with no idea how far away the target is, it will just fly at the locked target till it runs out of fuel or impacts the target. It will certainly not create a 3D model of the space around it and calculate an intercept point to fly to.
That is pointless for an IR guided missile.

Very well GarryB, with that phrase you have perfectly and correctly explained why ,after having acquired theirs target with the IR seeker, missile like R-73 ....DON'T need any inertial guidance

even with a rear facing sensor like an IRST that could pass on to the missile an IR view of the target to get something to compare with when it turns and looks for itself no aircraft are fitted with rear facing IRSTs, there are no datalinks connecting the launch aircraft with the missile so it can be given live data of the target when it starts looking.

Yes, correct GarryB and what is the point ? The point instead is just ,as already explained the problem of target designation for similar type of employement of a missile devoid of any in-flight data receiver. Maybe this exctract from Flight International n. 16 of 22 March 1994 (pag 33) will clarify at what,likely, E. Gordon refere in its statement:


"Considerable speculation has also been sparked by suggestions that the Su-35 will eventually be fitted with a rear-facing radar in the tailcone extension (personal note : it refere to the words of Major General Vasili Alexandrov, Chief of the Central Scientific and Research Institute of the Russian Federation Air Forces in a conference in 1993) .
This, it is claimed, will not only have a passive threat-warning role (personal note: the tail mounted protection system at which E Gordon refere in its statement) but will potentially facilitate "over-the-shoulder" shots with the R-73."

Rear facing sensors would not work with a forward facing missile for the same reasons that a rear (i image you intended forward ,) facing sensor would be of no use with forward (i image you intended rear) facing missiles.

It would work exactly in the same way included the enormous problems of target designation after launch (an immense problem in the large scale "many vs many" engagements on which Russian analysts modulate theirs air-to-air weapon system's requirements) over,naturally, greatly reduced probability to kill -PK - against highly manoeuvrable targets .

There is no ability to acquire a new target after launch... otherwise your own wingmen are in serious danger.

Yes, words exactly to the mark

If the domestic IR AAM had lock on after launch capability then there would be little reason for the new missile, and certainly much less urgency.

Izdeliye 300 should have a FPA,a significantly higher G limit, about double seeker homing range in respect to.... izdeliye 760, very high resistance to DIRCM and virtual total immunity to flares ; to me those don't appear precisely as little differences.
While i don't believe that it will be ready in 2013 , i strongly believe that Russians designers will press for completion of Izdeliye 300 for 2014 to allow weapon tests and validation on PAKFA for 2015.

It would happen exactly what happen any time the seeker of R-73 ,in the terminal IR homing phase, is forced to choose between the original "intended" target and 4 or 5 flares or/and a towed decoy or even .....a friend aircraft overposing itself ,at very close range, on the same pact of original target.

Not quite the same.

The target aircraft ejecting flares or another target flying in front of the locked target is a case of pattern recognition, where the first lock is not a lock onto the hottest part of the target... otherwise simply the target turning 180 degrees would break the lock by concealing the pattern locked onto with the other half of the aircraft.
Very simply it is a case of the missile seeker looking and locking on a distinctive blob of different IR returns and treating that blob as a target.
Single high intensity flares no longer work against modern seekers, as they lock onto patterns of IR energy so to have a chance of decoying it you need a pattern of different temperature flares that might distract the seeker.
The R-73 is known to be very resistant to flares.

Very well GarryB, with that phrase you have perfectly and correctly explained why ,after having acquired theirs target with the IR seeker, missile like R-73 ....DON'T need any inertial guidance

Think of an inertial guidance in this context as an autopilot... rather than a flight control system that controls the aircraft (missile) till the precise target location has been established.

It uses target information from the target seeker, but rather than blindly flying towards the targets signature, it uses the changing angular information to formulate an interception flight profile rather than a tail chase flight profile.

This, it is claimed, will not only have a passive threat-warning role (personal note: the tail mounted protection system at which E Gordon refere in its statement) but will potentially facilitate "over-the-shoulder" shots with the R-73."

Potentially... meaning he does not know and is guessing of a potential capability...

To fire at targets detected behind your aircraft you need either a two way datalink where your missile shows you what it sees and you select the correct target for it, or it needs a FPA or QWIP seeker or imaging seeker that would allow the missile to use a 3D library of targets and select its own target in flight...

The R-73 in all its current forms lacks a datalink and an imaging IR seeker (IIR seeker) and is like all the other IR guided missiles in the Soviet Arsenal like the R-24T, R-27T, R-27ET that all have flight ranges that greatly exceed their normal target lock on range. The R-27T and R-27ET have the same IR seeker as the R-73 but because it is mounted in a larger missile the angles of FOV are 55 degrees + and - so although it does not have thrust vectoring it has a good seeker and should be a very capable missile.

Their main advantage of long range translates into a high energy interceptor, and the ability to hit targets further away at lower altitudes and also the ability to chase down receding targets, which are difficult targets for SARH targets to lock onto.

Rear facing sensors would not work with a forward facing missile for the same reasons that a rear (i image you intended forward ,) facing sensor would be of no use with forward (i image you intended rear) facing missiles.

Nope. I meant what I said. Rear facing sensors might alert the pilot to an incoming threat, but forward facing missiles need forward facing sensors and a target in front of the aircraft to get a lock. They can't be passed information about where to look and then get fired off to turn 180 degrees and find and lock a target in flight.

Python 5 can do that. R-73 cannot.

Izdeliye 300 should have a FPA,a significantly higher G limit, about double seeker homing range in respect to.... izdeliye 760, very high resistance to DIRCM and virtual total immunity to flares ; to me those don't appear precisely as little differences.

Those are all very desirable features, but the R-73 in all models was already good at ignoring flares, and AFAIK its combat record is actually very good.
The R-73 can engage targets performing 12 g manoeuvres so its flight performance is already pretty good.. only unmanned vehicles on paper could evade it.

I have a few photos of mockups of various planned missiles:

I have done a little search of some of my old articles on future Russian AAMs and I found this:

In 2010, Vympel expects to complete its development of the short-range Izdeliye 760 missile — which is a significantly modernized version of the R-73 weapon, outfitted with an inertial flight control system and course correction receiver, improved rocket engine and with new multi-mode infrared seeker. The Izdeliye 760 is expected to be a close counterpart to the Western-built ASRAAM and Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles.

So when the article was written (by PiBu) in 2007 the Izdeliye 760 was a significantly modernised R-73.
A course correction receiver?
This new missile will not be command guided, so I assume he means a datalink to pass target data to the missile in flight.
New multimode IR seeker?
Does he mean multi bandwidth?
Does he mean it can now engage ground targets?

I rather suspect (on the datalink feature alone) that the RVV-MD is not the i760.

The I760 will likely be the first IR guided AAM carried by the PAK FA till the more definitive custom designed model is ready (ie i300).

Three years later, the new-generation K-MD short range missile (also to be designated the Izdeliye 300) is to be operational. When compared to Izdeliye 760, the new missile will have longer range and will be capable of being launched from any direction; it will be also more resistant to jamming. The K-MD will be fitted with a new imaging infrared seeker enabling identification of target according to memorized images. The seeker's lock-on range will be two times greater than the seeker for the Izdeliye 760 missile. A new adaptive warhead will be introduced, and the missile's control will be performed with aerodynamic surfaces, as well as a thrust-vector engine nozzle.

This will be the new weapon designed specifically for the PAK FA and will be the designed from scratch weapon.

So currently we have the RVV-MD which tidies up all the bits of the R-73 with digital electronics, more powerful motor. Still just a two colour seeker and its thrust vectoring is achieved by pushing material into the rocket exhaust to divert the plume.
Next, we will get a new missile that looks very similar to the R-73 and RVV-MD that will have a better sensor and a datalink that allows lock on after launch capability.
Finally we will get a new missile that looks like a new missile with IIR seeker that can find its own targets and also likely change targets in flight if needed, and uses proper thrust vectoring nozzle which should allow even better turning capability.

Most important of all is that the PAK FA will likely have an IRST that operates in long wave, medium wave, and short wave IR which will allow it to detect targets at extended ranges depending on the conditions.

In this case it means that with new IR seekers in missiles with datalinks and lock on after launch capability, as well as the ability to determine the target for itself (I300) then fitting such seekers to missiles like the RVV-SD or RVV-BD would create very interesting weapons.

For instance a long wave ground based radar detects a threat in the far north and a flight of PAK FAs flys up to intercept... 300km from the intercept point Flanker pilots report they are coming under AMRAAM attack and they are having trouble detecting the threat, so the lead PAK FA fires two RVV-BD with IIR seekers.

Not being active seekers that give away the missiles presence the missile will climb rapidly under power and then coast the remaining 250km to the target area... looking all the way for IR targets beneath it... when it gets to 250km it detects targets whose signature matches the F-22 and it dives down silently and attacks.

If on the way down it detects a B-2 then it will change targets and take out the bomber.

A two way datalink with the missile would allow the missile to send back an IR picture of the target and other potential targets in the area.

Not really new as the Granit already does this, though using radar and doing it as part of a team of missiles rather than just an individual.

Here is a good update on RVV-BD missile page 35

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to21.pdf

1 ) It says RVV-BD uses high performance bi-pulse solid fuel motor , is this same as the new dual pulse motor that modern missile uses ? From what i have read about Indo-Israel Barak-8 SAM ,which uses dual pulse motor , it provide high end game energy compared to normal solid fuel. If its the same thing then we can be sure RVV-BD will have significant end game energy.

The was Dual Pulse motor would from what i have read it fires every 2 seconds or so which provides sustainable energy during flight and end game energy ( someone correct me if i am wrong )

2 ) It also says Novtor lost the long range missile competition so AAM-L is a thing of past , RVV-BD won at the end of the day over Novtar ?

3 ) Interesting thing is the seeker provide wide angle +/-60 field of view plus a 60 Kg warhed is similar to what many Ground Based SAM usually have , looks like a big bad missile.

4 ) The GD seems excited with the missile says flies with a swing ( an indication of unstable aerodynamics ? ) and nothing has long reach both inside and abroad.

I thing they anticipated that for any future sale of Su-35 or current customers of Su-30MK would be demanding a long range missile to justify the performance of BARS and Irbis , plus with Meteor in the market by 2014 or so they want to be a big ahead in the game.

It seems that in this case "dual pulse" solid fuel rocket can mean different things.

In the conventional use a dual pulse solid rocket engine operates the way I have described in the past... get a tube with a star shaped object down its core and pour in the solid rocket propellent in a liquid form. When it sets hard take the star shaped core out and place the tube in another tube with the ends blocked off and hold it in the centre while you pour more solid rocket propellent to fill the tube around your solid rocket fuel core.

You end up with a larger tube of solid rocket fuel with an outer layer of lower energy rocket fuel that will burn for minutes and an inner core of much higher energy faster burning solid rocket fuel. Right down the centre of the high energy fuel is a star shaped cavity. By making it star shaped you increase the surface area of fuel that can burn. If you just put in solid blobs of rocket fuel and burnt it from one end to the other then you would need thick strong rocket walls to withstand the heat and pressure. By burning the fuel from the centre out the unburnt outer fuel supports the rocket walls right till the last lower pressure fuel is burnt so they can be made much thinner and they don't need to be heat resistant.

As the central core of fuel burns the missile accelerates and climbs in a few seconds. The rest of the fuel counters drag so the missile maintains high speed all the way to the target... it greatly extends the range of the weapon.

With this new Israeli missile it sounds like it has separate rocket motors, so when the first fuel burns out the missile coasts and the missile can ignite the remaining fuel as needed... either to extend range or to add performance during the terminal phase of the attack.

AFAIK the R-33 uses a high energy acceleration fuel and a sustainer fuel and the long range models of the R-27 do too, and I would expect that is what the RVV-BD does but have no evidence either way.

I would take the claim of enabling several chances at hitting the target with a grain of salt as missiles have tiny control surfaces and are no where near as manouverable as an aircraft.

The only reason they can pull high g turns is because of their speed... at mach 4 even a relatively gentle change of direction will pull high gs.

some update on A2A misile development of Russia
http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/air-to-air-domination.html

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.

RVV-BD Long Range Air to Air Missile

http://www.missiles.ru/RVV-BD.htm

Here is a nice video of Meteor , It seems Meteor has two way data links , perhaps its time the revive the Ramjet based R-77

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/02/13/mig31/

Very interesting...range of MiG-31 interception will double due to new air to air missile. This is clearly for the BMs, so we might FINALLY see the R-33 successor enter service.

TR1 wrote:http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/02/13/mig31/

Very interesting...range of MiG-31 interception will double due to new air to air missile. This is clearly for the BMs, so we might FINALLY see the R-33 successor enter service.

It'll be the domestic RVV-BD, which was developed from the R-37 anyway. If you look at the RVV-BD and notice the folding upper rear control fins, you can tell that they were operating under the "this goes under the MiG-31" theory anyway. They did away with the R-37's folding lower fins, implying that they aren't going to dork around with the conformal missile carriage of the FOXHOUND and retain a four missile loadout under the fuselage. 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.

SOC wrote:

TR1 wrote:http://www.lenta.ru/news/2012/02/13/mig31/

Very interesting...range of MiG-31 interception will double due to new air to air missile. This is clearly for the BMs, so we might FINALLY see the R-33 successor enter service.

It'll be the domestic RVV-BD, which was developed from the R-37 anyway. If you look at the RVV-BD and notice the folding upper rear control fins, you can tell that they were operating under the "this goes under the MiG-31" theory anyway. They did away with the R-37's folding lower fins, implying that they aren't going to dork around with the conformal missile carriage of the FOXHOUND and retain a four missile loadout under the fuselage. 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.

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).

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.

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.