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


+59
Tolstoy
Kiko
zepia
JohninMK
Mir
Atmosphere
marcellogo
Big_Gazza
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
63 posters

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2961
    Points : 2953
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Arrow Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:00 pm

    rom Shoigu’s visit to Vympel Design Bureau. Screenshot from the video. Ed. 810 – further development of the R-37M in production.

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Ce2f834e5c002

    GarryB, dino00, thegopnik, LMFS, Hole, lancelot and TMA1 like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39584
    Points : 40078
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB Fri Jan 19, 2024 12:36 am

    News about new missile moved to cruise missile thread here .
    thegopnik
    thegopnik


    Posts : 1772
    Points : 1774
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  thegopnik Wed Mar 27, 2024 9:39 pm

    I want to propose an argument that the new 300km air to air missile is a K-77M design according to what Tass reported last time than it is the R-37 design.

    https://lenta.ru/news/2023/08/30/su57/?ysclid=lua6b6swlp738132269

    Russia's fifth-generation Su-57 fighter will soon receive missiles capable of hitting targets up to 300 kilometers away. This was reported to TASS by a source in the military-industrial complex.

    According to him, at present, the Su-57 in the zone of a special military operation (SMO) solves tasks with high quality. "Today, the fighter operates at a range of 120 kilometers, in the near future they expect the arrival of aviation missiles for high-speed air targets at a range of up to 300 kilometers," the source said.


    1. The booster stage for hermes is 210mm for 1st stage and sustainer stage at 130mm, container is 3.5 meters, range is 100kms. The 1st stage achieves 80kms and sustainer stage 20kms. According to brochure the booster and sustainer stage appear to be half and half in length. Assumption that booster stage is still 80kms and 40 seconds of 7000km/hr according to klevok d2 ramjet stage covers 77.77kms so add that to booster stage we get 157.77kms.

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Screen84

    - the entire diameter is 200mm so that is more volume for fuel than what the Klevok-D2 can achieve means range.
    - the warhead is smaller for k-77 because its 22.5kg while the klevok proposed 57kg so more room and weight can be used for fuel means more range.
    - length of the ramjet proposes it at a 4 meter length which means more range.

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/cylinder-volume

    if we see the volume in mm, than we get K-77M at 125663706.14mm and will have to do 2 calculations since we know the hermes is half and half with booster and sustainer stage at 1.75 meter length so 60613103.26 + 23228150.68 = 83841253.94 I know this isn't entirely accurate because of warhead and electronics but we can assume they would be both have the same sizes for either since we are trying to determine what amount of fuel in terms of percentage in volume an air to air missile has over a MLRS missile. so 125663706.14 / 83841253.94 = 1.498 we can round that to being 50% more range than klevok D2 so that achieves 236.55kms.

    but this can be far significantly more because the ramjet stage at 130mm achieved about the same range as the 210mm booster stage despite having a smaller volume of fuel not counting the warhead and electronics on it. The booster stage had like 3 times the volume for fuel than the ramjet stage from the earlier calculation made in the paragraph above so that already hits the 300km range

    2. A ramjet version of the k-77m was used on October 2020.

    3. tass usually gets information from the MIC like the news of the internal hypersonic air to ground missile which was later classified as Gremlin, and referencing the 120km range they were talking about R-77 design thus the 300km referencing is that the new version will be longer than that.

    300kms air to air missile was already achieved 30 years ago and in 2014 they boosted the R-37M to 400kms. It is safe to assume that a ramjet(or maybe scramjet) can get a 600km version of the air to air R-37 missile version but maybe such a design is not being considered yet because powerful aerial radars like ROFAR are needed. If integrated with S-500 aerial targets can be targeted form the ground by 600km ground to air missiles or 600km air to air missiles. If an adversary aircraft ascends to target the Su-57 showing most of its stealth to be face to face with the aircraft the long-range air defense will get a big RCS reflection from the belly of that adversary aircraft. If that aircraft tries to descend to try to fly under the radar horizon. The topside of that aircraft will be more exposed to the Su-57 to be targeted and share that radar information with the S-500.

    Flying too low will give huge RCS reflections to the Su-57 and trying to target the Su-57 will limit your missiles range since more fuel has to be burned to ascend. Flying too high to make most of your stealth work against the Su-57 will put the radar horizon to good use like 50000ft or 15.24kms flight ceiling of F-35 against a 10 meter tall radar would make the aircraft tracked at 522kms. I hope the 600km killzone between SAM and aircraft happens. For reference width of Poland is 589kms. If a war broke out and Ukraine is demilitarized every aerial target in Poland can be considered dead without targeting airfields.

    Hole likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39584
    Points : 40078
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:30 am

    I would agree... the new R-77M should have a significantly expanded flight range so I would say a 300km range model would actually make sense.

    Interesting, but they are working on a replacement for the R-37M and the R-37M already reaches 300km from a normal fighter aircraft with a supersonic launch.

    I do agree that the missile they are talking about is a scramjet powered R-77. They paused the ramjet powered R-77 to focus on getting the R-77 with a more powerful rocket motor into service faster, but also because changing from a ramjet to a scramjet would also massively boost performance without massively boosting cost.

    The replacement for the R-37M is the izd 815 and I rather suspect it will be scramjet powered as well because the range improvements over the R-37 are described as from 1.6 to 9 times further in range, which suggests it can manage its fuel and achieve a significant increase in range by not wasting fuel in flight.

    A solid fuelled rocket has a fixed burn rate... so they normally bake it in layers, so the inner layer burns fast and hot and generates the most thrust and that is for launching the missile clear of the aircraft carrying the weapon and enabling the missile to climb from where it was launched to a higher altitude with thinner colder air so it can fly faster and further. The next layer traditionally is not as energetic and burns for much much longer so the first layer accelerates and climbs to thin air and low drag where it can fly faster for a given level of thrust as the fuel burns the missile gets lighter of course but it burns from the centre outwards so the remaining fuel acts to support the walls of the missile so the walls of the missile can be made thinner and lighter making the missile thinner and lighter...

    The improved R-77 with the rocket motor presumably has more powerful rocket fuel and it has an extra "layer" that can be ignited as it approaches the target for extra energy for manouvering.  So effectively you launch it and it climbs and accelerates and the cruises to the target and then as it approaches its target it lights up the third stage rocket motor and accelerates towards the target will lots of flight energy for harder turns.

    The core problem with solid rocket motors is that they fuel is fixed... the high energy fuel will burn at full speed till it burns out and then the next layer of fuel starts burning immediately afterwards. The second fuel basically counters drag and helps the missile maintain speed for a long cruise to the target area.

    There is no control over how long the high energy fuel burns for or when it stops and the lower energy fuel starts.

    In comparison a ramjet or scramjet can be throttled.

    At a given altitude the top speed of the missile is largely fixed so any extra thrust is wasted and as the missile climbs and accelerates the faster it can go, but if you imagine a solid rocket fuel motor being full throttle for the first 30 seconds and then idle for the next 5 minutes there is a huge difference between launching from a standing start sitting on a motorway that is flat and level and starting from the bottom of a very steep hill.

    A ramjet and a scramjet means you can use a throttle to spend the fuel more efficiently, but it is not as clear cut as it seems.

    Many people wonder why fighter aircraft use afterburner for takeoff and the reason is that burning lots of fuel to get airborne and up to a decent flight speed is fuel well spent because all the time flying at very low speeds is more time in the air not getting very far. Using 3 times more fuel to gain height and speed means getting where you are going faster and eventually you throttle back and maintain a higher speed which makes you more fuel efficient.

    If you think about sitting on the side of the road on a motorway, you use a lot of accelerator pedal to accelerate through the gears to get to motorway speed as fast as you can. In 30 seconds you might use more fuel than you would at idle in a high gear for two minutes, but if you just put it in high gear and idled for two minutes you wont travel 100m because you will be going slow. Using the accelerator and burning more fuel you get up to motorway speed quickly and then you can idle along the flat motorway and move at 100km/h at idle instead of maybe 10km/h at idle if you didn't use the accelerator.

    This means that a flight efficient flight profile for a ramjet or a scramjet is to use a high throttle setting to climb and accelerate as much as possible... the higher you get the faster you will go for a given throttle setting. The extra energy you burn in the climb you can normally recover part of it in the descent on the target, but flying at mach 10 at 50km altitude using a medium throttle setting is going to get you to the target much faster than flying at mach 4 at sea level at max throttle because of the enormous drag at that altitude.

    Even when you know it is coming how do you dodge a threat approaching at 3km per second?

    Two seconds before impact and the missile is 6km away... half a second before impact it will be 1.5km away... how much of a manouver can you perform in half a second to dodge such a threat?  A threat you will likely never see, because 100m from your aircraft it might explode... the entire missile might be rigged to shatter into thousands of pieces that will shatter your aircraft with a warhead of small metal balls and bits of missile moving probably 7 to 8 times the speed of sound when it impacts you.

    RDX plastic explosive detonates at about 3km/s...

    They have a whole range of new air launched missiles including air to air and air to ground, and one of the interesting ones is the replacement for the Kh-31 that will use scramjet propulsion.

    The interesting thing about scramjets is that it offers solid rocket fuel levels of thrust and speed, for jet engine fuel efficiency and duration.


    1. The booster stage for hermes is 210mm for 1st stage and sustainer stage at 130mm, container is 3.5 meters, range is 100kms. The 1st stage achieves 80kms and sustainer stage 20kms. According to brochure the booster and sustainer stage appear to be half and half in length. Assumption that booster stage is still 80kms and 40 seconds of 7000km/hr according to klevok d2 ramjet stage covers 77.77kms so add that to booster stage we get 157.77kms.

    If you are talking about scramjets as opposed to ramjets then the smaller the solid rocket booster is the better because the scramjet is actually more powerful and more efficient. The first model Hermes don't have two powered stages... the solid rocket booster accelerates the missile to about 1.3km/s and then the front missile is narrower for low drag and is unpowered and coasts towards the target area.

    With the plans for the front missile component to be powered too then it actually makes sense to make it full calibre to fill out the tube so instead of a 210mm tube for the 210mm calibre booster and a 130mm calibre missile it would be a 210 calibre tube with a 210 calibre booster and a 210mm calibre missile. The extra volume of the missile carrying a lot of fuel to accelerate the missile and allow it fly much further and also manouver on its way into the target to evade air defences on the way in without losing too much speed.

    Those solid rocket boosters are used for sounding rockets and come in three or four sizes for different throw weights and burn out speeds. The SOSNA and SA-19/22 (Tunguska/Pantsir) all use them on different models. AFAIK the 210mm calibre boosters are used for the 40-45km range Pantsirs, while smaller boosters are used for the 20km and 10km versions respectively. I suspect the new anti drone missiles where four missiles are mounted in the space of each tube probably also have a new booster of much smaller calibre to fit four in the space of one 210mm booster tube.

    A scramjet powered R-77 wont be a two stage missile. It is intended for internal carriage in internal weapon bays so they wont make it long.

    The fuel efficiency of a scramjet means a built in solid rocket motor inside the scramjet tube will accelerate and allow the missile to climb and then the scramjet can take over and accelerate and climb to any altitude you want and very high speed... by weight it is 3-4 times more efficient than solid rocket fuel.

    zardof and thegopnik like this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2839
    Points : 2877
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  mnztr Sun Jun 16, 2024 3:26 am

    Proof that R-37 has changed the game:

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/06/air-launched-sm-6-spotted-again-on-f-a-18-super-hornet/

    lancelot likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2839
    Points : 2877
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  mnztr Mon Jun 17, 2024 4:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would agree... the new R-77M should have a significantly expanded flight range so I would say a 300km range model would actually make sense.

    Interesting, but they are working on a replacement for the R-37M and the R-37M already reaches 300km from a normal fighter aircraft with a supersonic launch.

    I do agree that the missile they are talking about is a scramjet powered R-77. They paused the ramjet powered R-77 to focus on getting the R-77 with a more powerful rocket motor into service faster, but also because changing from a ramjet to a scramjet would also massively boost performance without massively boosting cost.

    The replacement for the R-37M is the izd 815 and I rather suspect it will be scramjet powered as well because the range improvements over the R-37 are described as from 1.6 to 9 times further in range, which suggests it can manage its fuel and achieve a significant increase in range by not wasting fuel in flight.

    A solid fuelled rocket has a fixed burn rate... so they normally bake it in layers, so the inner layer burns fast and hot and generates the most thrust and that is for launching the missile clear of the aircraft carrying the weapon and enabling the missile to climb from where it was launched to a higher altitude with thinner colder air so it can fly faster and further. The next layer traditionally is not as energetic and burns for much much longer so the first layer accelerates and climbs to thin air and low drag where it can fly faster for a given level of thrust as the fuel burns the missile gets lighter of course but it burns from the centre outwards so the remaining fuel acts to support the walls of the missile so the walls of the missile can be made thinner and lighter making the missile thinner and lighter...

    The improved R-77 with the rocket motor presumably has more powerful rocket fuel and it has an extra "layer" that can be ignited as it approaches the target for extra energy for manouvering.  So effectively you launch it and it climbs and accelerates and the cruises to the target and then as it approaches its target it lights up the third stage rocket motor and accelerates towards the target will lots of flight energy for harder turns.

    The core problem with solid rocket motors is that they fuel is fixed... the high energy fuel will burn at full speed till it burns out and then the next layer of fuel starts burning immediately afterwards. The second fuel basically counters drag and helps the missile maintain speed for a long cruise to the target area.

    There is no control over how long the high energy fuel burns for or when it stops and the lower energy fuel starts.

    In comparison a ramjet or scramjet can be throttled.

    At a given altitude the top speed of the missile is largely fixed so any extra thrust is wasted and as the missile climbs and accelerates the faster it can go, but if you imagine a solid rocket fuel motor being full throttle for the first 30 seconds and then idle for the next 5 minutes there is a huge difference between launching from a standing start sitting on a motorway that is flat and level and starting from the bottom of a very steep hill.

    A ramjet and a scramjet means you can use a throttle to spend the fuel more efficiently, but it is not as clear cut as it seems.

    Many people wonder why fighter aircraft use afterburner for takeoff and the reason is that burning lots of fuel to get airborne and up to a decent flight speed is fuel well spent because all the time flying at very low speeds is more time in the air not getting very far. Using 3 times more fuel to gain height and speed means getting where you are going faster and eventually you throttle back and maintain a higher speed which makes you more fuel efficient.

    If you think about sitting on the side of the road on a motorway, you use a lot of accelerator pedal to accelerate through the gears to get to motorway speed as fast as you can. In 30 seconds you might use more fuel than you would at idle in a high gear for two minutes, but if you just put it in high gear and idled for two minutes you wont travel 100m because you will be going slow. Using the accelerator and burning more fuel you get up to motorway speed quickly and then you can idle along the flat motorway and move at 100km/h at idle instead of maybe 10km/h at idle if you didn't use the accelerator.

    This means that a flight efficient flight profile for a ramjet or a scramjet is to use a high throttle setting to climb and accelerate as much as possible... the higher you get the faster you will go for a given throttle setting. The extra energy you burn in the climb you can normally recover part of it in the descent on the target, but flying at mach 10 at 50km altitude using a medium throttle setting is going to get you to the target much faster than flying at mach 4 at sea level at max throttle because of the enormous drag at that altitude.

    Even when you know it is coming how do you dodge a threat approaching at 3km per second?

    Two seconds before impact and the missile is 6km away... half a second before impact it will be 1.5km away... how much of a manouver can you perform in half a second to dodge such a threat?  A threat you will likely never see, because 100m from your aircraft it might explode... the entire missile might be rigged to shatter into thousands of pieces that will shatter your aircraft with a warhead of small metal balls and bits of missile moving probably 7 to 8 times the speed of sound when it impacts you.

    RDX plastic explosive detonates at about 3km/s...

    They have a whole range of new air launched missiles including air to air and air to ground, and one of the interesting ones is the replacement for the Kh-31 that will use scramjet propulsion.

    The interesting thing about scramjets is that it offers solid rocket fuel levels of thrust and speed, for jet engine fuel efficiency and duration.


    1. The booster stage for hermes is 210mm for 1st stage and sustainer stage at 130mm, container is 3.5 meters, range is 100kms. The 1st stage achieves 80kms and sustainer stage 20kms. According to brochure the booster and sustainer stage appear to be half and half in length. Assumption that booster stage is still 80kms and 40 seconds of 7000km/hr according to klevok d2 ramjet stage covers 77.77kms so add that to booster stage we get 157.77kms.

    If you are talking about scramjets as opposed to ramjets then the smaller the solid rocket booster is the better because the scramjet is actually more powerful and more efficient. The first model Hermes don't have two powered stages... the solid rocket booster accelerates the missile to about 1.3km/s and then the front missile is narrower for low drag and is unpowered and coasts towards the target area.

    With the plans for the front missile component to be powered too then it actually makes sense to make it full calibre to fill out the tube so instead of a 210mm tube for the 210mm calibre booster and a 130mm calibre missile it would be a 210 calibre tube with a 210 calibre booster and a 210mm calibre missile. The extra volume of the missile carrying a lot of fuel to accelerate the missile and allow it fly much further and also manouver on its way into the target to evade air defences on the way in without losing too much speed.

    Those solid rocket boosters are used for sounding rockets and come in three or four sizes for different throw weights and burn out speeds. The SOSNA and SA-19/22 (Tunguska/Pantsir) all use them on different models. AFAIK the 210mm calibre boosters are used for the 40-45km range Pantsirs, while smaller boosters are used for the 20km and 10km versions respectively. I suspect the new anti drone missiles where four missiles are mounted in the space of each tube probably also have a new booster of much smaller calibre to fit four in the space of one 210mm booster tube.

    A scramjet powered R-77 wont be a two stage missile. It is intended for internal carriage in internal weapon bays so they wont make it long.

    The fuel efficiency of a scramjet means a built in solid rocket motor inside the scramjet tube will accelerate and allow the missile to climb and then the scramjet can take over and accelerate and climb to any altitude you want and very high speed... by weight it is 3-4 times more efficient than solid rocket fuel.

    I guess the holy grail would be an engine that can cycle between ram and scramjet mode. If you look at the genius KH-31 it actually uses the space vacated by the solid fuel booster for ramjet combustion. They could make one where there would be some parts of the ramjet combustion chmaber that perhaps use aluminum that is burned as part of the fuel during ramjet mode and as it burns away and speed increases it changes the shape of the combustion chamber to a scramjet. Easy? *uck no. Possible...I think so.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39584
    Points : 40078
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  GarryB Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:00 am

    Really the only difference between a scramjet and a ramjet is that the former can burn fuel in its hot section while the airflow is supersonic.

    Both are tubes with no fans or blades  where the air goes in the front and is compressed... fuel is added and burned and the resulting burning material blows out the back generating thrust.

    The core difference is that with a ramjet the airflow through the section where the fuel burns needs to be subsonic, while in a scramjet it can be supersonic.

    So what I am suggesting is that a scramjet is already a ramjet, but can operate at much higher speeds, while a ramjet is limited to around mach 4 or 5 at best.

    The Kub SAM uses the same combined rocket ramjet motor design 50 plus years ago...

    The SA-4 KRUG was a huge missile with ramjet propulsion and solid rocket boosters strapped around it to get it airborne with the SA-6 next to it for scale:

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Krug_k10

    The SA-6 was much more elegant:

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Kub10

    Other ramjet powered missiles including medium and long range naval SAMS in the British and US Navy often had two stage missiles with a solid rocket booster that normally doubled the length of the missile.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2839
    Points : 2877
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  mnztr Tue Jun 18, 2024 2:52 pm

    Yes that is why you could make the compressor cone for the ramjet out of a combustable or non durbale material as its role would only be to acclerate the missile into the scramjet envelope. Probably 1 or 2 min. But maybe morr complexity then its worth

    Sponsored content


    Russian Air-to-Air missiles - Page 18 Empty Re: Russian Air-to-Air missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:29 pm