Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+51
TMA1
Rasisuki Nebia
ALAMO
thegopnik
limb
Dima
-89dbsm
Hole
LMFS
Arrow
George1
GarryB
dino00
nemrod
Fulcrum-35
Isos
miketheterrible
kopyo-21
Batajnica
Flanky
max steel
marat
Berkut
artjomh
magnumcromagnon
jhelb
sepheronx
nastle77
d_taddei2
Morpheus Eberhardt
Anas Ali
flamming_python
Werewolf
RTN
Mike E
mack8
indochina
Sujoy
eridan
Shadåw
KomissarBojanchev
Admin
medo
Viktor
Tunguska india
TR1
Stealthflanker
SOC
Austin
Cyberspec
Mindstorm
55 posters

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1113
    Points : 1280
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Mindstorm Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:22 pm

    Mir wrote:Is this development still alive or did the R-37M win the title?

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Aaml-i10

    At the time I thought it was a nice contender for both Naval and Ground Forces application as well?


    изделие 810 ,for performances and possibility of transportation in internal bays of new generation aircraft, has supplanted that object .

    GarryB, x_54_u43, LMFS and Mir like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7877
    Points : 7861
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Isos Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:44 pm

    Talk as much as you want, that won't change the facts.

    R-77 came after US made aim-120A/B.

    R-77-1 came after US made the longer range aim-120C7.

    R-77M is coming after US/EU made aim-120D/Meteor.

    Range maters.

    Btw the track while scan used with aim-120 was deadly to soviet fighters. They didn't even know a missile was launched at them.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1113
    Points : 1280
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Mindstorm Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:50 pm


    Isos wrote:R-77 came after US made aim-120A/B.

    R-77-1 came after US made the longer range aim-120C7.

    R-77M is coming after US/EU made aim-120D/Meteor.

    Range maters.


    Isos ,combustion chamber volume matter (above all for solid fuel engines), fuel fraction matter, cross sectional ratio to length matter not time of induction of the item.

    Р-77, by itself, also has nothing special in its aerodynamic design or layout ,the unique element of "innovation" was the lattice rudders, that anyhow offered only better terminal performances at higher speed and altitude in comparison with traditional design but worse ones al lower speed and altitude where them generated increased drag.

    изделие 170-1 at example increased the range also through increase of the size and the same will happen to US AA products of theirs next air to air missile design if the goal will be to increase substantially the effective engagement range (as said AIM-120D achieved it on papaer almost exclusively with a lofted trajectory option that would be markedly counterproductive against the majority of high-altutude/high-speed/high maneuvrable targets ).

    GarryB, dino00, x_54_u43, miketheterrible, PeeD and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:13 am

    Talk as much as you want, that won't change the facts.

    R-77 came after US made aim-120A/B.

    R-77-1 came after US made the longer range aim-120C7.

    R-77M is coming after US/EU made aim-120D/Meteor.

    Range maters.

    That is a perfectly natural result of the US being the aggressor and Russia reacting or responding to US developments.

    R77 came after AMRAAM because R-27E had outperformed Sparrow so they needed AMRAAM to restore superiority...

    Sparrow was defeated by R-27E so they introduced AMRAAM to defeat R-27E and the Russians eventually responded with R-77 because AMRAAM was not totally superior to R-27E and it took a while to enter widespread service... in the mean time R-73 and helmet mounted sights with all MiG-29s and Su-27s entered service meant they dominated common WVR combat meant HATO was in trouble.

    BVR combat was rare and offered marginal kill performance because long range shots against aware targets have a very low PK because there was plenty of time to evade and render the shot useless... look at iraqi MiG-25s against AMRAAMs.

    Russia is responding to US new longer range missiles but there increased range performance is the ideal case not the real world performance, which is very different... meanwhile the real range record holders are on the ground in teh form of the S-300V and S-400 and now S-500 systems as well as MiG-31s with R-37Ms from aircraft that actually do operate at altitude and speed.

    To fire a late model AMRAAM or meteor at those ranges you need to be launching at altitude and high speed... something most western fighters can do without burning off most of there fuel and reducing their flight range to 750km or less.
    The MiG-31 is an interceptor that expects a flight radius of 750km, but its missiles reach their rated distances because of it so they will be shooting down AWACS and JSTARS and inflight refuelling aircraft with 300km plus range missiles, while the western missiles with the same claimed performance wont because they will be fired slower and lower.

    Btw the track while scan used with aim-120 was deadly to soviet fighters.

    When did HATO shoot down actual Soviet Fighters?

    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 732
    Points : 734
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Mir Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:29 am

    According to Wikipedia there was one instance where a US P-2 shot down a Soviet Mig-15 with it's defensive guns, but the vast majority of planes downed was from US origin as they were obsessed with what was going on back in the USSR!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_combat_losses_between_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_United_States
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 658
    Points : 660
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  ALAMO Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:54 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Sparrow was defeated by R-27E so they introduced AMRAAM to defeat R-27E and the Russians eventually responded with R-77 because AMRAAM was not totally superior to R-27E and it took a while to enter widespread service...

    I guess that dissolution of the SU influenced that fact widely.

    GarryB likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3890
    Points : 3892
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  LMFS Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:19 am

    Mindstorm wrote:the unique element of "innovation" was the lattice rudders, that anyhow offered only better terminal performances at higher speed and altitude in comparison with traditional design but worse ones al lower speed and altitude where them generated increased drag.

    I read those are actually quite effective and less draggy than it would seem at high supersonic speeds, but of course at transonic speeds the lattice chokes and creates huge drag. Interestingly, one of the main reasons for its employment may be something as apparently unimportant as the size of the actuators needed, since the moments created at the missile's body as smaller than in normal aerodynamic surfaces.

    (as said AIM-120D achieved it on papaer almost exclusively with a lofted trajectory option that would be markedly counterproductive against the majority of high-altutude/high-speed/high maneuvrable targets ).

    Could you explain that? In principle, it would seem that high flying aircraft are an ideal target for AAMs with lofted trajectory, that can fly very far with very little loss of energy. Probably the turning capacities of a missile with very small surfaces as AIM-120D are poor at that altitude, but any aircraft is going to be challenged to turn in thin air and not have the speed the missile has to generate lift. Actually I have not seen numbers comparing turning capacities of modern AAMs and air superiority fighters like F-22 and Su-57 at high altitude, that would be very interesting indeed.

    dino00 likes this post

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1113
    Points : 1280
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Mindstorm Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:20 pm

    LMFS wrote:I read those are actually quite effective and less draggy than it would seem at high supersonic speeds, but of course at transonic speeds the lattice chokes and creates huge drag.


    Yes exactly.

    There was two distinctive threshold speed's measures, characterized by high-peak drag's increase (particularly at over 30° degrees AoA) where, in the coasting phase, those rudders performed distinctively worse than traditional actuators.

    The same disadvantages appear to manifest also in some other critical points during fully powered cruise ,threfore with products foreseeing reduced coasting phase (at example through ramjet or scramjet propulsion ,full throttleable a more efficient long-sustainer stage) the lattice grid fins are usually replaced by more conventional solutions.



    LMFS wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:(as said AIM-120D achieved it on papaer almost exclusively with a lofted trajectory option that would be markedly counterproductive against the majority of high-altutude/high-speed/high maneuvrable targets ).

    Could you explain that? In principle, it would seem that high flying aircraft are an ideal target for AAMs with lofted trajectory, that can fly very far with very little loss of energy. Probably the turning capacities of a missile with very small surfaces as AIM-120D are poor at that altitude, but any aircraft is going to be challenged to turn in thin air and not have the speed the missile has to generate lift. Actually I have not seen numbers comparing turning capacities of modern AAMs and air superiority fighters like F-22 and Su-57 at high altitude, that would be very interesting indeed.


    The point in debate here was the capitalizability of a lofted trajectory.

    In the case into examination for missiles in that class (medium range AA) theirs inherent structural limits, particularly relatively to altitude limit and lateral accelaration limits in environment with very low air density do not allow to follow the most energy effcient trajetcory - as for an idealized OC Optimal Control - that would foresee a lofted trajectory well beyond the boundary limits of theirs airframe.

    The result is that against targets at very high altitudes (17000-20000 m) the option for a lofted trajectory become effectively not disposable (the PN algorithms will authomatically exclude it because disadvantageous).

    Against similar targets -let put an F-22 or a Су-57 - an AIM-120D will not perform any better than an AIM-120C7.

    GarryB, dino00 and LMFS like this post

    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere

    Posts : 144
    Points : 146
    Join date : 2021-01-31

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Atmosphere Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:17 pm

    " one of the main reasons for its employment may be something as apparently unimportant as the size of the actuators needed, since the moments created at the missile's body as smaller than in normal aerodynamic surfaces"

    Given this exact context, this is false.
    In theory, true, grid fins have the upper hand when it comes to lower actuator size requirment but that is often used as an argument against the R-77, implying that russia did not have the technology to make small enough actuators for conventional fins thus deciding to go for the easier approach.

    In Reality, grid fins have distinct advantages in Terminal stage maneuverability, while according to KTRV, the AIM-120D still has an issue with effective maneuvering at lower speeds, an issue which was corrected with the R-77M which explains the return for the traditional fins. Along with the ability to make them fit inside.

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:09 am

    I guess that dissolution of the SU influenced that fact widely.

    That had a huge impact on deployment and production but did not have much of an effect on development to be honest.

    Actually I think things like the Ukraine stopping making helicopter and ship engines for Russian platforms is a blessing in disguise... they haven't always done a great job... the Sovremmeny class ships were very much hit and miss with their propulsion systems and many had real problems.

    Recreating production in Russia of these sorts of things is expensive and time consuming but they aren't building new factories designed and built in the 1970s... these are new state of the art facilities with modern production tooling and control and design equipment so even just with the same designs they can improve performance with better precision in production and the use of more modern materials that do a better job to increase performance... and now they make it themselves they can export it to customers who still prefer Soviet weapons an renew old trade links.

    I read those are actually quite effective and less draggy than it would seem at high supersonic speeds, but of course at transonic speeds the lattice chokes and creates huge drag.

    The grid fins present an enormous surface area that can retain effect at angles where a conventional fin has stalled and is creating drag.

    If the missile is flying at subsonic speeds then there is a problem because such tiny control surface and strakes there is no way it will have the speed and energy to out turn a plane.

    Interestingly, one of the main reasons for its employment may be something as apparently unimportant as the size of the actuators needed, since the moments created at the missile's body as smaller than in normal aerodynamic surfaces.

    They said when they revealed them that it offered the ability to apply a turning force while turned at much higher angles of attack than a conventional control surface.

    Would also add that a few ballistic rockets including Tochka use such grid fins.

    The idea that the grid fins choke on subsonic air is rather unlikely because the US mother of all bombs uses grid fin tail surfaces... it is just a good compact way of getting a powerful turning force control system that needs an enormous angle of attack before it stalls and fails to provide control.

    The other issue would be RCS, but it is an active homing missile so there is little point in being stealthy.


    Sponsored content

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 16 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:25 pm