R-77-1(RVV-SD) vs MBDA Meteor. Which missile is better?
In air combat overall.
In air combat overall.
GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.
The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.
Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.
Isos wrote:GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.
The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.
Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.
Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.
Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.
Ives wrote:Isos wrote:GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.
The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.
Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.
Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.
Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.
Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?
Isos wrote:Ives wrote:Isos wrote:GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.
The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.
Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.
Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.
Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.
Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?
No it is not. It is like AIM-120D, just a rocket engine.
But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?
Isos wrote:But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?
Ramjet is clearly an advantage because the missile is powered at max speed all the way but R-77 is also very fast even if the speed goes down at then end.
No one can really compare them because no one has the real datas of both missiles. The advantage of R-77 is that it is cheaper and you can lunch more of them at a same target while those who use Meteor don't have full load of meteor with them.
Future R-77M should have dual pulse rocket motor so that it burns at the bigining and at the end for the interception so that it accelerate on the targetfor the interception.
miketheterrible wrote:What?
The power required to even be able to counter a systems EW would be astounding. Meteor nor any other missile has that capability, especially in its current size.
miketheterrible wrote:I'm fully aware how this stuff works, and physics. No, no missile of the size will be able to jam or counter an electronic warfare system operating at 15GHz and large amount of power output. LPI mode is a nice word or catch phrase but so long as it has a signal output, it can be jammed.
As well, basic electronics, especially solid state, can easily be fried by microwaves. So the whole Donald Cook thing is BS but jamming its systems with airborn radar is possible in either frying basic solid state components or best, to cause interference in its systems. Which in this case came disable a whole ship.
miketheterrible wrote:low probability of interception. It more or less runs underpowered.
Are you going to ask us ridiculous questions all the time or are you going to do some research?
How hard is it for you to figure out basic physics More Power > Less Power.
You blast something with radiation, you are going to destroy it. Let me tell you something, if you want to put this stuff to the test, stand in front of a 400MW radar and tell us how you feel afterwards. If you know what would happen, then take your cell phone and put it in front of a 400MW radar and see what happens.
Point is, EW systems jam the signals by blasting it with radiation at various frequencies. Noise more or less. And it can screw with the missiles guidance or even fry electronics (most solid state these days are well protected though from Radiation).
This is the most basic and simplistic method of mentioning it. There are others who are more knowledgeable and capable than me in mentioning it.
Enera wrote:I remember reading some of GarryB's posts in the forum regarding long range anti air missiles but I cannot remember which post specifically. I vaguely remember the detail where Russian missiles will run out majority of its fuel when it's near the target. This means that they won't be burning when it nears the target compared to Meteor. So the targeted airplane will be less alerted through its missile warning sensors as the Russian missile don't have a big exhaust plume signature anymore.
However, it is important to specify the range of engagement here; R-77-1 will be able to catch the target by surprise below 50 km while Meteor doesn't (Meteor have this big burning plume at its butt at all times, being a ramjet). That tells you which can hit the target first since what you don't see or late to see, will kill you first. At long range, any missile will have low probability to hit. R-77-1 will run out energy at or near max range while Meteor doesn't. So R-77-1 won't probably hit the target reliably at long distances while Meteor can since it's still burning. But recall that Meteor will alert the target due to constantly burning engine so at long range, maneuverable target can find and consequently avoid Meteor.
Therefore Meteor is more to take out non-maneuverable ones like fuel tankers. This basically tells me that Meteor is a specialized missile to hit targets that cannot do evasive maneuvers while not particularly good at going for maneuverable ones. Compare this to R-77-1; it can take the target by surprise (little or non burning engine at end of burn phase) and while at long range where it is not terribly efficient, carry the same advantages of too late to be seen.
On electronics, I agree to miketheterrible. Any missile won't be able to simply jam airborne electronics carried by aircraft since the former is tinier than the latter. It is more apt to term it by spoofing where the missile momentarily fools the targeted electronics that it is not in the position the aircraft determined to be et al.
HoJ is also a buzzword; what if the target have a towed decoy that emits jamming waves or shoot jamming waves to the ground (ground bounce jamming) ? Then the missile will obediently go there and not hitting the actual target. But as laymen that don't have access to military data, we can only speculate which is best but I think my deduction is largely correct, by logic.
I think your mistake, Ives, was to rely on Quora which are mostly filled by Russophobes that seek to badmouth Russia in every opportunity (just read on how to break Russian IADS on Quora and you will see it) and then faithfully took MBDA advertising on Meteor; you don't usually see the above explanation on the pros and cons of ramjet missiles regarding air combat. Both R-77-1 and Meteor have their respective niche but they are not wonder weapons, not as the manufacturers like to claim when you start to think logically about it.
They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed.
Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.
Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.
Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?
But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?
But, let's say Meteor has any ECM against Khibiny-M with its DRFM?
I remember reading some of GarryB's posts in the forum regarding long range anti air missiles but I cannot remember which post specifically. I vaguely remember the detail where Russian missiles will run out majority of its fuel when it's near the target. This means that they won't be burning when it nears the target compared to Meteor. So the targeted airplane will be less alerted through its missile warning sensors as the Russian missile don't have a big exhaust plume signature anymore.
Therefore Meteor is more to take out non-maneuverable ones like fuel tankers. This basically tells me that Meteor is a specialized missile to hit targets that cannot do evasive maneuvers while not particularly good at going for maneuverable ones. Compare this to R-77-1; it can take the target by surprise (little or non burning engine at end of burn phase) and while at long range where it is not terribly efficient, carry the same advantages of too late to be seen.
Both R-77-1 and Meteor have their respective niche but they are not wonder weapons, not as the manufacturers like to claim when you start to think logically about it.
Isos wrote:The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.
jhelb wrote:Isos wrote:The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.
Anti ECM capabilities of missiles ? Can you please elaborate on what these anti ECM capabilities of missiles are ? Thanks.
|
|