BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

Thank You for answering all my questions in details much appreciate.

Mindstorm wrote:Therefore ,taking into account that NEZ is a variable figure , we can say that a missile like RVV-BD in a mid altitude interception attempt against the typical fighter aircraft in the class of F-15 (naturally here don't are taken into account supermanoeuvrable and/or supercruising aircraft) lie in a region equal to less than 40% of its maximum range.

So essentially it would mean at mid altitude the RVV-BD will have a NEZ of 80 Km at 40 % of 200 km.

The ramjet propulsion of Meteor allow the missile to capitalize a far longer burnout time ; effectively this mean that the typical speed drop experienced by other BVRAAM in the "coasting " phase and even more in the high G turns characterizing the terminal chasing phase is several times lower for this missile , a very important factor in modern engagements against very manoeuvrable targets with advanced MAWS against which the Pk of "classical" medium range missile would be very very low except in particular geometrical and energetic condition of the engagement.

For similar engagement range of F-15 will Meteor turn out to be a better misile than RVV-BD ?

For similar engagement range of F-15 will Meteor turn out to be a better misile than RVV-BD ?

If you put speed out of the equation, Meteor in this type of engagements and at the previously cited conditions (in particular middle altitude ....at very high altitude the situation change )against this type of targets is surely superior to RVV-BD.

Naturally if you want to remove force-multipliers units like AWACS and Stand-off jammers avoiding completely theirs OCA escort, for confront successively the other aircraft of the atack group enjoying a ,bynow, onesided tqactical advantages, VLRAAM like RVV-BD are game-changing weapons, without any corrispective at world .

I am a bit confused here so let me summarise this Mindstorm

RVV-BD: Advantage includes

Intercepting certain targets at long range 200 km like AWACS,JSTARS,B-52,B-2 ( meteor cannot )

Intercepting cruise missile at long range of tomahawk class , i am assuming the range will be like 200 km since its a slow and non-manouvering targets.

Intercepting targets like a manouvering fast one like fighter aircraft at mid altitude RVV-BD will be say 80 km at best ?

Since RVV-BD is a heavy missile and can cruise at high altitude ~ 25 km it can trade potential energy into kinetic energy isnt it when it top attacks the target ?

Meteor Advantage:

Due to ramjet propulsion it has energy through out the way hence the NEZ is ~ 100 km for fighter size targets at mid altitudes, much better than RVV-BD , AIM-120C/D , RVV-SD.

Cannot intercept targets at long range like Meteor does.

Does not fly high and is effective at mid altitudes , I assume mid altitudes means 10-15 km ?


Can you say this would be the right summary of our discussion ?

Also I wanted your views on why RCS of F-22 is rated at 0.0001m2 but the Chief Designer of PAK-FA stated the RCS of F-22 and PAK-FA being nearly equal at 0.3 - 0-4 m2.

Also what do you think about the intercepitibility and detection of VVLO targets like B-2 once it enters Russian Airspace ?

Thanks.

So essentially it would mean at mid altitude the RVV-BD will have a NEZ of 80 Km at 40 % of 200 km.

No.

The RVV-BD has a range artificially limited, so calculations made from its range make little sense.

It is like a 2,400hp engine with a governer on it that restricts power to 1,500hp to improve the life of its parts and reduce fuel consumption.

When talking about the engines limits and performance you need to keep that in mind... especially when talking about growth potential an other such things.

For similar engagement range of F-15 will Meteor turn out to be a better misile than RVV-BD ?

The F-15 is an extreme choice as it it one of the few aircraft (in its E model) that can actually pull 9 gs with a load.
For most other aircraft the difference is not so important.

If you put speed out of the equation, Meteor in this type of engagements and at the previously cited conditions (in particular middle altitude ....at very high altitude the situation change )against this type of targets is surely superior to RVV-BD.

That is like saying taking fire and forget guidance out of the equation Metis is better than Javelin isn't it?

Speed is an important part of any equation when talking about long range missiles.

Meteor is lighter, but will likely create a bigger RCS when carried externally due to the intakes.

Ramjet propulsion is certainly more efficient than solid rocket engines, but in practical terms they are slightly different missiles for slightly different missions.

Naturally if you want to remove force-multipliers units like AWACS and Stand-off jammers avoiding completely theirs OCA escort, for confront successively the other aircraft of the atack group enjoying a ,bynow, onesided tqactical advantages, VLRAAM like RVV-BD are game-changing weapons, without any corrispective at world .

I would say the opposite.

Without AWACS and a decent network of communication and control finding targets at 150km+ let alone hitting them will be difficult for most air forces to achieve without splashing a lot of civilian airliners or your own UAVs.

Intercepting certain targets at long range 200 km like AWACS,JSTARS,B-52,B-2 ( meteor cannot )

Of course it can... but more likely at 180km rather than 200km... the difference of 20km is insignificant given the flight time to that range anyway.

Intercepting cruise missile at long range of tomahawk class , i am assuming the range will be like 200 km since its a slow and non-manouvering targets.

Assuming it is located and correctly identified then both missiles could probably intercept such targets as they take their own engagement radar with them.

Intercepting targets like a manouvering fast one like fighter aircraft at mid altitude RVV-BD will be say 80 km at best ?

A manouvering target would drastically reduce the max range of both weapons as the intercept point for the missile to fly to would be constantly changing.

The best way to defeat a BVR is to change speed and direction every 20 seconds or so... it will be using so much energy to correct its flight path by the time it gets close it will drop from the sky with no energy left.

At the last few seconds when both missiles go active there are some aircraft that could in theory out manouver the RVV, while no manned aircraft is likely to out manouver the Meteor at their respective high kill probability ranges.

Since RVV-BD is a heavy missile and can cruise at high altitude ~ 25 km it can trade potential energy into kinetic energy isnt it when it top attacks the target ?

It climbs because the higher you go the less drag there is to slow you down, so it moves through the air more efficiently at very high altitude.

Climbing takes energy, but when you go into a dive on the target you actually get all that energy back so it is worth using it this way.

Let me put it this way... with a jet engine on a Mig-25 at full speed it can fly at just over mach 1.2 or so at sea level with the engines at max speed... with a lower engine setting at high altitude it travels at mach 2.83... it actually accelerates too fast at high altitude and will damage itself if the engines are left at full power at high altitude.

What do you think that does to the range of the aircraft?

Why do commercial airliners spend fuel climbing to medium altitudes... even for short 30 minute flights?

The flight from here north to Christchurch takes 30mins and by the time the little 767 has reached cruising height it is time to descend... why bother with the higher engine setting to climb all that way? Because it means they can use a much lower engine setting for the descent, so they get that energy back and overall save money on fuel... in a rocket you can't throttle the engine for efficiency so if you want to maximise range you use the most effficient flight profile... which means a lofted trajectory.

Due to ramjet propulsion it has energy through out the way hence the NEZ is ~ 100 km for fighter size targets at mid altitudes, much better than RVV-BD , AIM-120C/D , RVV-SD.

No. All missiles have energy through out the flight to the target.
Ramjet engines mean that fuel can be saved to allow acceleration later on, which is not possible with solid fuelled rockets.
The flight control system might throttle back the missile so it takes a little longer to get there, but that means it has more fuel when it arrives that can be used to speed up AFTER making a turn that bleeds off a lot of energy... the slower you are the tighter the turn you can perform...

Cannot intercept targets at long range like Meteor does.

This is an advantage of Meteor over RVV-SD and AMRAAM, but not RVV-BD... it can certainly intercept targets at long range... that is what it is for.

Does not fly high and is effective at mid altitudes , I assume mid altitudes means 10-15 km ?

Does not fly high is not an advantage.

Garry you are missing the point , both RVV-SD and Meteor on paper are capable of intercepting target at 100+ km , the difference is Meteor uses ramjet propulsion and is energetic in all flight profile while RVV-SD uses solid fuel along with coasting which slows the missile and the end game energy needed for 100 + km of RVV-SD is lower but for Meteor it is not diminished.

So practically the Meteor would retain end game energy at 100 km interception while RVV-SD would diminish it making it practically useful (NEZ) at 60-70 km.

Thats the whole point of Ramjet propulsion.

RVV-BD is a true Long Range AAM becuase for slow non manouvering target like cruise missile or awacs it can intercept at say 180-200 Km , while meteor cannot because its not a long range missile but a energetic missile at 100 km interception.

While Meteor is superior to RVV-BD for mid-altitude interception where ramjet is effecient , RVV-BD is superior on most parameter specially VLR inteception.

While R-37 the true VLRAAM can do the same at 300 km , not to mention Mig-31 at M 2.5 and 20 km can make a big difference in kinemetics for R-37

Intercepting targets like a manouvering fast one like fighter aircraft at mid altitude RVV-BD will be say 80 km at best ?

Yes , probably is so and its PK would be ,very very low against a modern, aware, manoeuvrable (or worse supermanoeuvrable) target like for all BVR medium range missiles operative today worldwide.

Naturally this considering engagements between comparable forces...if,instead we talk of overwhelming attacks by part of a side enjoying crushing : numerical advantage - 17:1 -,AWACS , stan-off/in ,Jammers, training, age of the aircraft, modernity of weapon suit etc.... against mostly untrained opponents, equiped with immensely downgraded export versions of already old aircraft , devoid of any ECM suit, of any type of MAWS and of same generation weapons,and with radar completely out of work, for prolonged embargo even medium range BVR missile can achieve in those conditions acceptable PK's levels (in the most recent conflicts at example AIM-120A/C managed to achieve ,with AWACS/jammer aid against "blind" and largely outdated/downgraded aircraft ,firing often at very reduced rangeand from the most favourable geometry a PK of 0,46 ..... at least acceptable ).

The problem at which Meteor attempt to find a solution is not gain the upper hand in engagements against third world nations ,where air superiority could be achieved ,taking into account the product of all those positive contingential elements previously mentioned, even by F-16A employing only gun.... but confront in enormous "many vs many" engagements an advanced Air Force equiped with modern very manoeuvrable aircraft with modern MAWS and ECM suit ,and all the other corollary resources like : AWACS, stand-off jammers, ground based ELS ,OTH radars ,SIGINT posts, advanced OLS etc..etc..etc.., against which the BVR phase would represent only a brief window with very limited losses on both side before the merge .

Meteor is the first technological attempt to produce a medium range BVR sufficiently efficient against modern fighter aircraft .

Can you say this would be the right summary of our discussion ?

More or less is so.

Also I wanted your views on why RCS of F-22 is rated at 0.0001m2 but the Chief Designer of PAK-FA stated the RCS of F-22 and PAK-FA being nearly equal at 0.3 - 0-4 m2.

If i would have not been busy at work i would have explained it in the other topic, in any instance that is another very important information to consider when someone debate of this subject on internet :

Those figures of RCS of 0,0001 or 0,001 (-40/30 dBSM ) are refered to totally academic critical narrow reradiating cones for the head-on inception angles not .... i reapeat NOT ...to the average RCS of this type of aircraft
Even very little variation from that critical angle, always considering only an head-on radar illumination, produce enormous variations in the final RCS ,even in the scale of some orders of magnitude ,those figures ,representing the lower RCS achieved by a particular platform in a single, academic ,super critical,frontal angle , was conceived to "dramatize" public marketing ; the problem is that the horde of ignorants fan-boys have quickly jumped on them believing that them was the average RCS of those aircraft !!!

What Alexander Davidenko (coming from the same research center where the same Physical theoretical structure of modern stealth was created and from a part of the achievements of which ,with P.Ufimtsev works and publiations, the same American scientifical community of the sector formed itself...this is a good video on that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgeUaD4SB_8 ]www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgeUaD4SB_8 [/url] ) cite here, as in Russian tradition, is instead the AVERAGE area of diffraction for a realistic multiplatform tactical engagement ( many vs many engagements between data sharing aircraft) ,in those conditions the resultant RCS of an aircraft like F-22 would be 0,3/ 0,4 square meters.

Therefore no one has lied : LM executives talk of a single,academic, super critical head-on angle RCS figure , Davidenko refer,instead, to effective average RCS figure for a typical three-dimensional tactical many vs many engagement, clear ?

In any instance critics of F-22 in American Air Force commutity have very often breached this low level "Veil of Maya" in public communication ,alluding to the real capitalizable RCS level of Raptor .
Those are some of them by Sprey and Wheeler :

"In truth, against short wave length radars, the F-22 is hard to detect only over a very narrow band of viewing angles. Worse, there are thousands of existing long range,
long wavelength radars that can detect the F-22 from several hundred miles away at all angles."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/thread/05516f44d354fb43

The F-35 advocates will protest, what of its two most prized features: 'stealth' and advanced avionics? What the Pentagon will not tell you is that 'stealthy' aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft.

http://f35insouthburlington.blogspot.com/2010/05/q-with-winslow-wheeler-by-juliet-buck.html

Garry you are missing the point , both RVV-SD and Meteor on paper are capable of intercepting target at 100+ km , the difference is Meteor uses ramjet propulsion and is energetic in all flight profile while RVV-SD uses solid fuel along with coasting which slows the missile and the end game energy needed for 100 + km of RVV-SD is lower but for Meteor it is not diminished.

With respect Austin, both missiles are designed to intercept targets at beyond 100km.
The different propulsion options is a design trade off.
The Russians have plenty of ramjet powered missiles in service right now... if they wanted an equivalent to Meteor they could have done it years ago.

Meteor is NOT energetic all the way to the target, it will be operating at minimum throttle all the way to the target... thrust will be just high enough to overcome drag and maintain speed.
It will be flying straight and level to the interception point to conserve as much energy as possible.

The RVV-BD is not a skyrocket that burns all its fuel in a few seconds and then coasts 200km to the target.

It will have two types of fuel on board, as I have repeated over and over... the first to burn will be high energy propellent that burns rapidly but also accelerates the missile rapidly. When that has burnt out... 10-15 seconds, the main fuel will start burning and it will burn for several minutes and perform the role of a gas generator in a base bleed artillery round... it simply reduces drag.

The Ramjet is far more efficient as it scoops the O2 it needs from the air it is travelling through. It can also manage its fuel and at 80km flight distance suddenly put on a burst of high thrust to accelerate to intercept a target at that range. The solid fuelled rocket has no such flexibility.

RVV-BD is a true Long Range AAM becuase for slow non manouvering target like cruise missile or awacs it can intercept at say 180-200 Km , while meteor cannot because its not a long range missile but a energetic missile at 100 km interception.

Slow nonmanouvering target?

You watch Hollywood movies too much Austin... do you think a single flick of the control stick and a pilot can evade a long range missile?

Or do you think it will be a manouver contest like a dogfight?

A target at 200km might get plenty of warning it is under attack... or it might be a total surprise when the radar of the incoming missile suddenly goes active... the point is that the target aircraft might be at 5,000m altitude and an RVV-BD coming down from very high altitude at mach 4-5... if the missile misses by 20m there is still a chance its directional warhead might spray the target with enough fragments to rip it to pieces.

To dodge the missile you need to see its precise flight path so you can turn your aircraft into the turn and greatly increase the amount the missile has to turn to hit you. A missile falling at such speeds will turn from a faint dot to a blur and a loud bang too fast for most pilots to do much at all... but if the missile gets its angles wrong and misses... do you really think it will turn back up 180 degrees and have another go?

The Meteor might have a chance in a relatively shallow engagement where it is not so high as the RVV-BD or as fast and the target is not too low flying, but a rocket powered missile will likely hit the ground before managing a 180 degree turn at such speeds.

While Meteor is superior to RVV-BD for mid-altitude interception where ramjet is effecient , RVV-BD is superior on most parameter specially VLR inteception.

I disagree.

Meteor is not a VLRAAM.

It is an AMRAAM/RVV-SD type missile with extended reach and potential re engagement capability in the event of an initial miss.

With respect Austin, both missiles are designed to intercept targets at beyond 100km.
The different propulsion options is a design trade off.
The Russians have plenty of ramjet powered missiles in service right now... if they wanted an equivalent to Meteor they could have done it years ago.

Both missile are designed to intercept targets beyond 100 km is true in letter but one is designed to intercept a manouverable target at 100 km range more effeciently (modern fighter aircraft ) while the other is a true VLRAAM designed to intercept certain class of target more efficiently like AWACS,JSTAR , Bombers and subsonic cruise missile.

The propulsion system is not a tradeoff but an optimisation to do a certain job well.

It has nothing to do with what kind of experience Russians have or what kind of experience EADS lack but more of what is the right tool for the job.

It is not to say RVV-BD wont be effective against supersonic/manouverable target like fighter but it will be at substantial reduced range ~ 80 compared to ~ 100 km for Meteor , but a Meteor will never intercept a AWACS at 180 km because its not a true LRAAM.

Meteor is NOT energetic all the way to the target, it will be operating at minimum throttle all the way to the target... thrust will be just high enough to overcome drag and maintain speed.
It will be flying straight and level to the interception point to conserve as much energy as possible.

If Meteor is NOT energetic all the way is what you think then you have not really understood the reason for using ramjet propulsion. Ramjet gives you constant energy throughout the flight envelop i.e. when ramjet starts burning when solid booster is ejected till Ramjet fuel burns off , the energy produced is constant and do not reduce or stop like coasting in case of solid fuel missile.

Hence Ramjet missile tend to be effecient in energy management through out the entire flight envelop hence better NEZ while solid fuel might initially kick off at Mach 4 ,then a slow sustainer or burner sets in that would propel it at mach 2 or they might just coast in between and finally it would have some high energy fuel or might use the same sustainer fuel but would trade potential energy into kinetic energy by flying high and then flying down for a kill.

Both Ramjet and Solid fuel are effecient for certain task.

The RVV-BD is not a skyrocket that burns all its fuel in a few seconds and then coasts 200km to the target.

Who said that , the russian have already declared that RVV-BD uses dual fuel propulsion which i would say with certainity that the first part is high burning more energy fuel that takes the missile to 25 km and sets it to cruise mode while the second one is slow burning energy effecient fuel thats used in cruise mode and terminal homing trading PE to KE in end game.

It will have two types of fuel on board, as I have repeated over and over... the first to burn will be high energy propellent that burns rapidly but also accelerates the missile rapidly. When that has burnt out... 10-15 seconds, the main fuel will start burning and it will burn for several minutes and perform the role of a gas generator in a base bleed artillery round... it simply reduces drag.

We both are saying the same thing , i am really not aware of the exact grain geometry of solid fuel or how much time it burns and stops till sustainer fuel take over but we are both saying the same thing.

The Ramjet is far more efficient as it scoops the O2 it needs from the air it is travelling through. It can also manage its fuel and at 80km flight distance suddenly put on a burst of high thrust to accelerate to intercept a target at that range. The solid fuelled rocket has no such flexibility.

Solid fuel ramjet like meteor is much less effecient then liquid fuel ramjet like Brahmos you should keep that in mind , having said that they do energy throttling but not much there , generally ramjet gives you the same constant energy across all flight regime , throttling too is much effecient with liquid fuel compared to solid fuel ramjet.

Slow nonmanouvering target?

yes like Tomahawk Cruise missile or AWACS.


A target at 200km might get plenty of warning it is under attack... or it might be a total surprise when the radar of the incoming missile suddenly goes active... the point is that the target aircraft might be at 5,000m altitude and an RVV-BD coming down from very high altitude at mach 4-5... if the missile misses by 20m there is still a chance its directional warhead might spray the target with enough fragments to rip it to pieces.

To dodge the missile you need to see its precise flight path so you can turn your aircraft into the turn and greatly increase the amount the missile has to turn to hit you. A missile falling at such speeds will turn from a faint dot to a blur and a loud bang too fast for most pilots to do much at all... but if the missile gets its angles wrong and misses... do you really think it will turn back up 180 degrees and have another go?

Well its more complex , A fast missile at the target is encountered by Aircraft manouvering alerted due to ESM , Jammers and Chaff

Mindstorm wrote:Yes , probably is so and its PK would be ,very very low against a modern, aware, manoeuvrable (or worse supermanoeuvrable) target like for all BVR medium range missiles operative today worldwide.

Can you tell me how supermanoeuvrability helps here becuase all supermanouverable is done at when the aircraft is at low speed , a bvr missile would still beat that because the missile can pull substantial more G then aircraft for eg RVV-SD is capable of intercepting 12 g targets.

BTW i always wondered why dont they develop a IIR or 2 color IR version of RVV-SD for BVR engagements like they used to do with R-27 ? You can fire both missile simultanously at the target for improved Pk

largely outdated/downgraded aircraft ,firing often at very reduced rangeand from the most favourable geometry a PK of 0,46 ..... at least acceptable ).

Yes i read that in Kosovo conflict AIM-120A/B was fired at a distance of no more than 30 km and multiple in tens of BVR was fired at single target.

So in real sense the true potential of BVR is still to be exploited , in a complex war scneario even with AWACS support i suppose IFF is a BIG problem.

Meteor is the first technological attempt to produce a medium range BVR sufficiently efficient against modern fighter aircraft .

I really do not know if ramjet makes a very big difference but it does make a difference compared to other boys in the block.

BTW dual pulse propulsion seems to be very promising field for solid motor rocket both to have end game energy and the way it manages energy.

Those figures of RCS of 0,0001 or 0,001 (-40/30 dBSM ) are refered to totally academic critical narrow reradiating cones for the head-on inception angles not .... i reapeat NOT ...to the average RCS of this type of aircraft
Even very little variation from that critical angle, always considering only an head-on radar illumination, produce enormous variations in the final RCS ,even in the scale of some orders of magnitude ,those figures ,representing the lower RCS achieved by a particular platform in a single, academic ,super critical,frontal angle , was conceived to "dramatize" public marketing ; the problem is that the horde of ignorants fan-boys have quickly jumped on them believing that them was the average RCS of those aircraft !!!

I thought so he was refering to average RCS versus frontal RCS that LM was touting.

At 0.3-0.4 m2 average RCS even a decent X band radar like that of IRBIS will be able to see it far enough not to mention high power ground based radars.

I guess aircraft like F-22 , F-35 and PAK-FA will have to rely on good old tactics of low flying , avoiding known Radars sites and using Jammers if required like conventional aircraft besides relying on stealth to do its job , there is no immunity by flying high and fast since they would be seen by modern radars specially those with VHF and L-band.

Tell me what do you think about B-2 stealth since Dr Carlo told me it can even avoid getting detected by VHF radars due to its size , that was designed to fly high and slow and penetrate deep in to Soviet Airspace and hunt mobile topol launchers ?

Therefore no one has lied : LM executives talk of a single,academic, super critical head-on angle RCS figure , Davidenko refer,instead, to effective average RCS figure for a typical three-dimensional tactical many vs many engagement, clear ?

Yes clear , yes no one lied but they didnt speak the full truth

Some data on Meteor

http://www.bayern-chemie.com/meteor.htm

Some update on PAK-FA A2A missile from yefim gordon new book , Russian Airpower New Edition.

Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

A shortrange of this weapon designated K-77M derivative of R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.

For close range engagement T-50 may use K-74M2 short range AAM , the missile has a matrix IR seeker head capable of discerning real targets from decoy and having twice the lock on range of R-73 AAM.

The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM

Austin wrote:Some update on PAK-FA A2A missile from yefim gordon new book , Russian Airpower New Edition.

Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

A shortrange of this weapon designated K-77M derivative of R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.

For close range engagement T-50 may use K-74M2 short range AAM , the missile has a matrix IR seeker head capable of discerning real targets from decoy and having twice the lock on range of R-73 AAM.

The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM

Gret news Austin, very thanks !!

I too have ordered the book, but have still not received it (i hope only that it will not arrive within two weeks when work will absorb me completely for a while...).

The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM

If that information will reveal itself true and with reasonably good Pk , this weapon will become quickly very,very VERY popular in Russian Air Force , it would be one of those game changer capabilities

Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

Like GarryB has noted this ramjet propeled weapon,if completed and introduced in service, will almost blend the boundaries between medium range and long range AAMs and with all the advantages now offered by Meteor ....simply fearful !!
I think that ,likely, the domestic version of RVV-BD ,with ranges ostensibly between 300-350 km (a derivative of the R-37M now operative with Mig-31BM ), will no become a common weapon mounted on SU PAKFA/ HAL FGFA except for extreme missions , infact "izdelie 180-PD" will be capable to carry out almost any operational task of medium-long range missiles but much more efficiently.

R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.

The seeker of this missile is very interesting probably ,this seeker from Agat showed last year







It will likely become a true "must" also for new generation of ground and ,even more, naval based SAM systems .

Capability to home on seeker source ,moreover, allude propably to capability to intercept enemy AAM when their radar become active ....seem that between this izdelie 180 and K-74M2 has been opened a new front foreseeing active war against enemy AAM !!
A very, very interesting development.

What Yefim Gordon confirms is that the RVV-PD and R-77M program is alive.

I think it would be waste of resources to shut off a ramjet program after having done the groundwork and displayed in early 90's , probably the newer one will take advantage of more modern solid fuel and seeker.

The K-74M program is very interesting , its agile and sensitive enough to hit a AAM would mean to me that it would be used as a primary weapon against BVR missile , for WVR weapon depending on the engagement zone it would have too short a time to intercept it but BVR missile most likely.

If K-74M even ends up having a range of R-73 i.e. ~30 km then the anti-missile missile is possible , with two way datalink a LOAL is on the cards as well.

I wonder what kind of AAM are under development we will have to wait and see.

Mindstorm the new book Russian Airpower New Edition is a much better book then the older one and has good details on every major program and upgrade with excellent photograph , certainly its worth having it.

The new book does not mention more information on PAK-DA , perhaps the agency would have told him to not revel more , he has given good details on PAK-DA in his book Russian Strategic Aviation as too what are the requirements.

Mindstorm wrote:
I think that ,likely, the domestic version of RVV-BD ,with ranges ostensibly between 300-350 km (a derivative of the R-37M now operative with Mig-31BM )

The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.

The K-37 ( R-37 ) uses inertial midcourse guidance with radio command correction switching to semi-active or active guidance homing during terminal phase.

The R-33S now has active radar homing with a kill range of 160 km , and kill probability against target pulling 4G is described as 60-80 %.

Another interesting thing described for modernised Mig-31BM is that it allows support of exotic combat scenario , like attack targets with other fighter missile , i.e take over guidance of AAM launched by other fighters without switching on their radars.

The Mig-31BM can track 24 targets and can attack 6 priority targets with long range R-37M missile . the maximum target detection range of radar is 240Km , has pictures of cockpit of modernised Mig-31BM

The R-37 missile is designed to be dynamically unstable and boast of enhanced agility

It seems in April 1994 the K-37 achieved a "world first" by destroying an aerial target at more than 300 km during a test launch

Makes an interesting read

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

pg 83

Note: In addition to kills listed above, on 24 March 1999 an F-16AM of the Dutch Air Force damaged a Serb MiG-29 with a single AIM-120A. Also on 24 March another Serb MiG-29 was engaged by 2 or more US fighters and successfully evaded 3 AIM-120Cs.

U.S. has recorded ten AIM-120 kills
–
Four not Beyond Visual Range
–
Fired 13 missiles to achieve 6 BVR kills Pk = 0.46*
–
Iraqi MiGs were fleeing and non-maneuvering
–
Serb J-21 had no radar or Electronic Countermeasures (ECM)
–
US Army UH-60 not expecting attack; no radar or ECM
–
Serb MiG-29 FULCRUMS had inoperative radars
–
No reports of ECM use by any victim
–
No victim had comparable BVR weapon
–
Fights involved numerical parity or US numerical superiority

The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.

It refer probably to the maximum range at which, in tests, it achieved an hit ; that has nothing to do with the maximum engagement range of the same missile.

Makes an interesting read

Yes this was one of the two studies at which i had made reference.

Note: The way in which it is expressed can be misleading, the total number of Aim-120 shooted has been 17 (it is specified very well at pag 20 (17 shoot for 10 kills for a Pk of 0,59 , if instead we subtract the 4 missiles employed well WVR , we obtain a Pk of 0,46 - 6 downing for 13 missiles employed - at BVR).

Even more interesting is that this publication don't take into account the two Mig-25 avoiding 2 AIM-120A in 6 January 1999 over the Souther "no fly zone" (the two 2 MIG-25s in question always the 6 January 1999 avoided also 3 Sparrows from 2 F-15C and 2 Phoenix from 2 F-14s !!! )

Is important to note that NONE of the aircraft ever downed by AMRAAM - all very old specimen ,often also horribly export downgraded versions ,with radar out of work for embargo or for jamming and outnubered 17:1 by enemies equiped with theirs most advanced fighters and with AWACS- have ever manoeuvered to avoid the incoming missiles except the normal manoeuvres during flight pact ,neither was even only aware to be under missile attack , (is important to note that ,to the contrary ,anytime a similar aircraft was aware of an attack and attempted any type of avoiding measures BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically , all of that without any involvement of any ECM system !!

What Yefim Gordon confirms is that the RVV-PD and R-77M program is alive.

Well they cancelled the T-95 because of what they described publicly "obsolete" technology.

The question becomes is ramjet state of the art because Meteor uses it, or will they decide that it is worth the effort and money to go for a scramjet design?

A scramjet design, while more complex and needing greater precision in the hot section has the same drawbacks as a ramjet (ie requires volume and solid rocket booster), and also its advantages (lighter and the ability to restart the motor), but it would also have a speed advantage over any rocket... and high speed reduces engagement times which is critical in BVR combat.

I think it would be waste of resources to shut off a ramjet program after having done the groundwork and displayed in early 90's , probably the newer one will take advantage of more modern solid fuel and seeker.

I would think the improvements in technology and materials, and the transfer of "ramjet" design efforts to "scramjet" design efforts... if we look at the ramjet designs in Russia... the SA-6 was replaced by the SA-11, then the SA-17 and now a vertical launch model based on the naval VLS variant... they are all solid fuelled rockets.
The two remaining fields where ramjet missiles are used are the ARM in the form of the Kh-31 and the Anti ship missile in the form of the Kh-31 and Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos.

The future directions for the Kh-31 is enlargement to increase range, and in the Oniks/Y/B is scramjet propulsion to increase speed.

Now if the R-77PD is for internal carriage in a PAK FA then increasing its bulk to add fuel to extend range will be difficult.
To change from a ramjet to a scramjet will be difficult and expensive, but the result will be a far better BVR missile.

The K-74M program is very interesting , its agile and sensitive enough to hit a AAM would mean to me that it would be used as a primary weapon against BVR missile , for WVR weapon depending on the engagement zone it would have too short a time to intercept it but BVR missile most likely.

Keep in mind they are talking about the K-74M2, which is no where near service.
The K-74M will likely be revealed in the next 2-3 years as the base model Morfei.
If it can be used as an anti AMRAAM/AIM-9X missile then you would want it to be as small as possible so you could carry more than the enemy currently carries AAMs.

If you have 8 R-74M2s in your weapon bay and the target F-35 has 4 AMRAAMs, then he will be down to guns and you will be a missile armed fighter... also with guns.

More important it means that an Su-35S could operate in the vicinity of stealth aircraft as being a thrust vector capable missile with a datalink it should have 360 degree interception capability and of course the Su-35S should be able to carry plenty while its wing mounted array scans for datalink signals from the launch aircraft to the missiles they fire.

If K-74M even ends up having a range of R-73 i.e. ~30 km then the anti-missile missile is possible , with two way datalink a LOAL is on the cards as well.

Note it says twice the lock on range of the R-73... it is talking about seeker performance, not flight range.

To extend flight range simply put the seeker on an R-77M...

I wonder what kind of AAM are under development we will have to wait and see.

They have pretty much outlined them as the K-74 to replace the R-73 at short range, R-77M with a more powerful rocket motor to replace the R-77, and R-77PD as a new missile between the R-77 and R-33 class weapons, and of course the R-37M to replace the R-33.

The next missiles are likely to be fully optimised for internal carriage and will likely not be revealed till the PAK FA is ready for service.

The book mentions R-37M maximum "kill" range at 280 km and along with modernised Mig-31BM can intercept target with maximum speed of Mach 6.

That is likely based on that test in the 1990s where the missile flew 300km to hit a target. Clearly they have taken 280km as a conservative figure based on that test result.

neither was even only aware to be under missile attack Very Happy Very Happy , (is important to note that ,to the contrary ,anytime a similar aircraft was aware of an attack and attempted any type of avoiding measures BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically , all of that without any involvement of any ECM system !!

Air combat 101... it is the attack you don't see coming that is the most likely to kill you.

Imagine it to be a sniper attack... the further away the target the more likely you are to miss if the target is moving... except for most sniper attacks the bullet flight in in the order of 3-5 seconds, whereas BVR missiles can spend minutes getting to their distant targets.

Mindstorm wrote:It refer probably to the maximum range at which, in tests, it achieved an hit ; that has nothing to do with the maximum engagement range of the same missile.

The known maximum range in which a hit is achieved in a test for R-37 is 300 km , I really do not know how R-37 differs from the newer R-37M.

But in one of his book on Mig-31 Yefim Gordon mentions that the 300 km range is for AWACS/JSTARS of target when it comes to intercepting manouvering targets like fighters its range will be practically reduced to 150 km.

Even more interesting is that this publication don't take into account the two Mig-25 avoiding 2 AIM-120A in 6 January 1999 over the Souther "no fly zone" (the two 2 MIG-25s in question always the 6 January 1999 avoided also 3 Sparrows from 2 F-15C and 2 Phoenix from 2 F-14s !!! )

That simply shows the current BVR (and not restricted to American BVR ) can be avioded by manouvering based on pilots pure instinct or eye ball as his Situational Awarness was not good due to lack of sensors

neither was even only aware to be under missile attack [/b], (is important to note that ,to the contrary ,anytime a similar aircraft was aware of an attack and attempted any type of avoiding measures BVR missiles have failed to reach theirs targets almost systematically , all of that without any involvement of any ECM system !!

Awareness being under attack in today fighter comes from the following

360 * ESM coverage to know he is under attack by RF source like BVR missile ARH/SARH types
DAS/MAWS for 360 * coverage to cover passive missile like IR guided/R-73 types or Singer types

then you add to the equation like SP EW suite , Jammers specially modern DRFM types and then finally Chaffs and Flares and finally towed decoys

A typicaly BVR or WVR missile will have to get through all this plus the target will be manouvering to actually hit the aircraft.

I would say tough ask

GarryB wrote:The question becomes is ramjet state of the art because Meteor uses it, or will they decide that it is worth the effort and money to go for a scramjet design?

Ramjet is preferred choice because for equal range it offers much better NEZ compared to solid fuel missile because of its burn all the way propulsion.

It offers low weight and low volume. Ramjet is worth having it for BVR missile.

its a pity that russia having a lead in ramjet propulsion didnt follow through it for what ever reasons.

designs in Russia... the SA-6 was replaced by the SA-11, then the SA-17 and now a vertical launch model based on the naval VLS variant... they are all solid fuelled rockets.

Solid fuel offer higher interception altitude beyond much were ramjet is effective , SA-11/SA-17 one of the goal was to intercept Lance type BM , so solid fuel was better due to higher interception altitude.

The two remaining fields where ramjet missiles are used are the ARM in the form of the Kh-31 and the Anti ship missile in the form of the Kh-31 and Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos.

Typically makes sense , they should follow it up with BVR misile with ramjet propulsion , its good choice for intercepting air breathing targets at medium and low altitude with effective NEZ/Energy management in the end game.

Keep in mind they are talking about the K-74M2, which is no where near service.
The K-74M will likely be revealed in the next 2-3 years as the base model Morfei.
If it can be used as an anti AMRAAM/AIM-9X missile then you would want it to be as small as possible so you could carry more than the enemy currently carries AAMs.

actually the current western missile with similar concept is ASRAAM , it has FPA seeker and uses Thrust Vectoring see no reason why it cant intercept AAM , I think it was advertised as capable of doing so , even the German IRST-T WVR missile.

Russia is just playing catch up game here.

Note it says twice the lock on range of the R-73... it is talking about seeker performance, not flight range.

Yes i am aware of what they are talking about

To extend flight range simply put the seeker on an R-77M...

And R-77-PD makes sense , to have the same missile with ARH/SARH and FPA seeker , they used that with R-27 too , not sure why they didnt follow up with R-77.

Hopefully we are not far from a dual mode seeker made from IIR/ARH.

They have pretty much outlined them as the K-74 to replace the R-73 at short range, R-77M with a more powerful rocket motor to replace the R-77, and R-77PD as a new missile between the R-77 and R-33 class weapons, and of course the R-37M to replace the R-33.

To add to that they are working on new LRAAM for PAK-FA as was reveled but that would be the last missile to come , I hope the Ramjet missile news is true.

I think you are speculating on Morfei , I can bet it will be a new missile with much wider role.

Air combat 101... it is the attack you don't see coming that is the most likely to kill you.

Very true , unfortunately that would happen in most scenearios where SA is close to zero for being under attack.

For IAF ( Indian Air Force ) I can say all aircraft including the old Mig-21Bison has ESM so they wont be surprised by BVR shots involving RF seeker ,but most aircraft lacks MAWS and MKI or the MMRCA would be the first to get it.

actually the current western missile with similar concept is ASRAAM , it has FPA seeker and uses Thrust Vectoring see no reason why it cant intercept AAM , I think it was advertised as capable of doing so , even the German IRST-T WVR missile.

Russia is just playing catch up game here.

Austin ,someone lately has designed and produced an outstanding revolutionary missile ,named it ASRAAM, and replaced with it that true abomination having previosly the same denomination name ?

ASRAAM was initiated in the 1980's by Germany and the United Kingdom, but the two countries were unable to agree on the details of the joint-venture. Germany left the ASRAAM project in the early 1990s, and in the spring of 1995 initiated an improved version of the Sidewinder, the IRIS-T (Infra Red Imagery Sidewinder-Tail controlled) built by Bodensee Geraetetechnik GmBH (BGT). This decision was largely motivated by new insights into the performance of the Russian AA- 11 Archer missile carried by the MiG-29s which Germany inherited during reunification. The Luftwaffe concluded that the AA-11's performance had been seriously underestimated -- the AA-11 turned out to be superior to the Sidewinder AIM-9L in all respects: homing head field of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of designation, and target lock-on. The Germans concluded that the ASRAAM demonstrated a serious lack of agility compared to the Russian Archer.

In January 1995 British Aerospace Dynamics, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England, was awarded a letter contract with a ceiling amount of $10,933,154 for foreign comparative testing [FCT] of the ASRAAM Missile. After several modifications to the scope of the FCT, the program assessed four ground-to-air sorties, 19 air-to-air captive carry sorties, four programmed missile launches, eight static warhead tests, and four rocket motor case tests. The resulting assessment was that the ASRAAM (as is) could not meet the AIM-9X operational requirements in high off-boresight angle performance, infrared counter-countermeasures robustness, lethality, and interoperability.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-132.htm


Now i have not time for elaborate , at return from work i will continue...

Very Interesting Mindstorm Thanks.

In some arms magazine that i read it was mentioned ASRAAM was very agile missile but with a short range , since it lacked control surface to generate lift like Python or R-73

Lets say hypthetically a PAK-FA meets Su-35S in a one to one combat armed with similar A2A weapon.What advantage would stealth give to PAK-FA ?

If we consider the average RCS of 0.3-0.4m2 for PAK-FA and 3-5 m2 for Su-35 with weapons then it gives an advantage of early detection for PAK-FA and first launch of BVR missile , ofcourse the ESM of Su-35 will warn of such BVR launch and it would take evasive measure.

When it comes to Knife Fight WVR combat then all the stealth advantage is negated , so the aircraft with better flying qualities like accleration , turn rate , T/W ratio etc and pilot with better tactics will win the day. In that there is nothing to choose between PAK-FA and Su-35S when it comes to close combat.

Austin wrote:Lets say hypthetically a PAK-FA meets Su-35S in a one to one combat armed with similar A2A weapon.What advantage would stealth give to PAK-FA ?

The PAK-FA can fire an R-77 or somethign similar before it's detected.  As it closes in on the target, the target has to go on the defensive.  That makes a follow-up WVR IR AAM engagement significantly more favorable to the PAK-FA, if the BVR AAM is avoided.

Or, you use your LO airframe to stay out of Su-35S sensor range, and maneuver behind it.  Then fire a BVR IR-guided AAM straight up it's ass.  Something like an R-27ET will never "go active" and betray its position by emitting.  Your DAS or DIRCM may get a hit from the motor, but it's still a very sneaky and potentially successful way to go about things.

Austin wrote:In some arms magazine that i read it was mentioned ASRAAM was very agile missile but with a short range , since it lacked control surface to generate lift like Python or R-73

ASRAAM has decent range, as well as LOAL capability.  One quoted max range is 18 kilometers.  Sure, not what you might get from an R-73, but still a solid figure.  Besides, a decent motor can overcome lack of lift from control fins to a degree.

Lets say hypthetically a PAK-FA meets Su-35S in a one to one combat armed with similar A2A weapon.What advantage would stealth give to PAK-FA ?

Absolutely none.

If we consider the average RCS of 0.3-0.4m2 for PAK-FA and 3-5 m2 for Su-35 with weapons then it gives an advantage of early detection for PAK-FA and first launch of BVR missile , ofcourse the ESM of Su-35 will warn of such BVR launch and it would take evasive measure

Yes ,surely Su-35S would have a wide chances to avoid potential BVR shoots from PAKFA/FGFA (at least taking in consideration the medium range AAM now operatives worldwide ), but naturally PAKFA/FGFA having a far lower RCS could capitalize the significant stand-off advantage in detection ranges to move around the radar field coverage of SU-35S's squadron ,at supercruising flight regimes ,for attack it at high supersonic speed from a "blind" vector and evade immediatily for repeat the process some dozen of seconds later ( that is the typical tactic with LO/VLO aircraft and that at which anyone refer when allude at theirs capability to attack without that its opponents even realize the shooter's position of the incoming missiles) or ,in offensive missions, a PAKFA/FGFA could even simply avoid completely the engagement to complete its mission wiuthotu even begin the engagement .
Those are the advantages offered by "stealth" in real world.

When it comes to Knife Fight WVR combat then all the stealth advantage is negated , so the aircraft with better flying qualities like accleration , turn rate , T/W ratio etc and pilot with better tactics will win the day. In that there is nothing to choose between PAK-FA and Su-35S when it comes to close combat.

In WVR PAKFA/FGFA will litterally eat an SU-35S for breackfast !!! Austin PAKFA's prototype ,under a strict aerodynamics standpoint, is today and by far, the most advanced and complex aircraft at world ,it will literally leave into dust SU-35S in pratically any cardinal parameters (without even taking into account the incomparably more advanced avionic suit ,purposely developed for it and optimized exactly for its structure and its capabilities.
Even only a comparison would be totally unfair for SU-35S.

Austin wrote:BTW what is the possibility of a R-37M and modernised Mig-31 intercepting a Mach 3 Brahmos/Yakhont ? The R-37/Mig-31 is described as capable of intercepting target with a maximum speed of Mach 6.

Depends on if the upgraded Zaslon can find it (which I'm sure it can) and guide a missile accurately enough to get close for intercept. The faster the target is approaching (because you aren't firing at a Mach 3 target in tail-chase), the smaller your margin for error is insofar as putting the missile where the seeker can uncage and acquire the target. Honestly I doubt it would be outside the capability of the system, but it wouldn't be as "easy" as firing at an E-3C or U-2, which are significantly slower.