BVR Air-to-Air Missiles Development

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.

It lets the pilot of the PAK FA decide whether to fight or to leave.

If he is fully fuelled and armed he can manouver to the side or rear of the the Su-35 staying out of sensor range and then creep up behind him and launch a couple of missiles at his rear.

Alternatively he could hold back and fire an R-37M and then wait 30 seconds and then fire another, and then wait another 30 seconds and fire a third missile. While the Flanker is manouvering and jamming and doing all sorts of things to deal with the first missile the second missile will be lining him up and if they both miss then the last missile will have a good chance for a kill too... and while this is happening the PAK FA could close in to launch an IR missile or leave the area.

Remember when trading missiles even if the Su-35 can detect the PAK FA at 100km, if they start trading missiles the missile seekers will have reduced range performance against a low RCS target so a BVR missile might blow past a PAK FA without detecting it.

Besides, a decent motor can overcome lack of lift from control fins to a degree.

Lack of aerodynamic surfaces means it will likely rely on hypersonic body lift... as it slows down there will be a dramatic loss in manouver performance because of a lack of control surfaces and of course because when there is no thrust the thrust vectoring is useless too.

No big deal however as IR WVR missiles are generally not used at ultra long range... 20km range targets are normally engaged with AMRAAM or similar.

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 what part of flight it intercepts it and from which direction. A manouvering low altitude missile would not be easy, but a cruising high altitude missile should be well within design parameters.

Of course scramjet Brahmos should exceed the mach 6 limit, but of course by then we will likely have seen the replacement for the R-37.

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.

The fact that the Mig-31/R-27 combo are described as being capable of engaging Mach 6 targets suggests a mach 3 missile should be well within engagement parameters.

Of course having said that a Mig-25 should be a relatively easy target for AAMs as its manouver capability is limited to 5gs, yet they can be difficult targets with a skillful pilot.

SOC wrote: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.

Yes thats going to be a tough ask , the entire Brahmos engagement of ~ 290 km gets over in 4.5 minutes , so any Mig-31 needs to be in the air at the right place and get the entire firecontrol solution ready for it and most certainly if the missile is travelling a low trajectory against background clutter and a speed of mach 2 at low level for brahmos it going to be difficult.

I think given adequate time and a volley of 2-3 R-37M per target it would have a better chance.

BTW how do they come to the conclusion that a Mig-31BM with R-37M can intercept a target travelling at Mach 6 , do they actually do such interception to prove it or its just a theory thing based on known facts ?

Austin wrote:PAC-3 is one of the singular most impressive weapon in history of SAM , in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM

Well, it did and it didn't take out 30 SRBMs. It hit something, but most if not all of the time (at least in 1991, meaning before the PAC-3) it failed to actually stop the warhead.

Austin wrote:Ability to intercept a small target like Smerch is impressive ,any idea which scud it intercepted ?

Don't know. Being an exercise, I don't know if they were augmented targets, or actual stock Smerch rounds, either.

Austin wrote:BTW how do they come to the conclusion that a Mig-31BM with R-37M can intercept a target travelling at Mach 6 , do they actually do such interception to prove it or its just a theory thing based on known facts ?

They can shoot at an old 5V55 round, they're retiring old ones and converting some to augmented targets for SAMs to fire at. Probably not too hard to program one to fly the right profile (it has the Mach 6 speed) and see if you can hit it. I have no idea if they've actually tried it or not, but an S-300P's 5V55 or 48N6 missile is about the only viable Mach 6 object they could fire at as far as I know.

GarryB wrote:First of all the R-27T and R-27ET don't have data links because they don't need them.

When they entered service BVR was a dream and no one in their right mind would fire on a long range target without properly checking it out first by closing to visual range.

The purpose of the IR guided R-27s was to allow low level launches against receeding targets.

The tracking and lock on range of most radars in fighter aircraft is limited by a number of factors and a low level target flying directly away from you is a particularly difficult target to get a lock on, let alone engage with an SARH missile.

The effective range of a SPARROW for instance against a low flying F-111 would probably be no better than 15-20km.

An R-27ET could probably double that range because of the extra fuel and the fact that the F-111 in AB presents an excellent IR target.

An SR-71 could also be engaged at long range because of its IR signature but most of the time the R-27T and R-27ET are carried as chase down weapons.

Now to the two way datalink... the effectiveness of any radar is effected by distance to the target. Having a two way datalink is like having a video pod for the Kh-59M (AS-18 Kazoo). It means that when the missile gets to the target area it can send back data so that the launch aircraft might decide to change the designated target for the missile.
For instance if fired a a radar return... as the missile closed with the target it detect within it field of view the weak IR signature of an F-22 shaped aircraft.

Imaging IR missiles store 3D IR signatures and can identify a range of aircraft based on this database.

If you fire a missile at what you think is an F-16 and on its way to the target it sees to its side what clearly appears to be an F-22 then using a 2 way datalink you could command the missile to turn and engage the F-22... which is a higher priority target.

It is really mainly useful for ramjet or scramjet powered missiles that can throttle up or down because a rocket powered missile is just coasting and trying not to burn up too much energy on the way to its target area.

And AWACS or plane 3rd can share guided missiles that supports two-way datalink in order to attack high-priority targets than if it is a B2:

Which are the Russian and Chinese counterparts to AIM-120D ?

Hannibal Barca wrote:and what about our counterparts in Russia....

In reality the near counterpart product is Изделие 170-1, but it represent in reality only a provisional solution because the domestic plans, now in work, for the new medium range AA missile aim to way higher ,totally new level, technical requirements by part of MoD.

Mindstorm wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:and what about our counterparts in Russia....

In reality the near counterpart product is Изделие 170-1, but it represent in reality only a provisional solution because the domestic plans, now in work, for the new medium range AA missile aim to way higher ,totally new level, technical requirements by part of MoD.

So it is at best equal with what USA has right now. Not good enough!

So it is at best equal with what USA has right now. Not good enough!

Why?

R-37M... in its export version called RVV-BD has a flight range of 300km and 200km in its export version... if China buys Su-35 they will most likely buy RVV-BD as well...

Why are we supposed to believe that an R-37 can reach targets 300 km away, but the AIM-120D could never reach 180km?

And when does one seriously expect to see China taking delivery of R-37? Seriously...

Because this is what both sides report. But of course they may report fake numbers, I also don't believe that american inferior engineers can reach 180km.
Even 50km would be a miracle for them.

Of course, both companies from both countries can report what they want, the true range figures will remain classified. So I don't see why people on this website get so upset by what any American officer reports - one way or another.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Because this is what both sides report. But of course they may report fake numbers, I also don't believe that american inferior engineers can reach 180km.
Even 50km would be a miracle for them.

Are you kidding me?
If you think the AIM-120D cant reach 180 km or even 50 km because of its "inferior" engines, what proves to you that the Russian missiles would be so perfect?

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:Because this is what both sides report. But of course they may report fake numbers, I also don't believe that american inferior engineers can reach 180km.
Even 50km would be a miracle for them.

Are you kidding me?
If you think the AIM-120D cant reach 180 km or even 50 km because of its "inferior" engines, what proves to you that the Russian missiles would be so perfect?

I think double to tripple the launch weight for R-37 gives you a little hint how R-37 can have further range than AIM-120 of any model.

R-37 has a flight range of 300km because it was tested to such a range during early testing of the MiG-31M. The aircraft didn't have its operational radar fitted and had to use an Su-30 flying closer to the target to pass target information back to the launch aircraft.

The result was a missile flight range of 300km to the intercepted target.

Have not seen or heard similar information about AMRAAM in any model.

The RVV-BD has also been offered for export already... do you think the Chinese will buy the Su-35 but will decide not to buy RVV-BD missiles for it?

If you think the AIM-120D cant reach 180 km or even 50 km because of its "inferior" engines, what proves to you that the Russian missiles would be so perfect?

it is smaller and lighter than R-77 so I would expect range would be similar... which means it is not 180km... even the 350kg R-27E don't travel that far...

How capable is the Meteor in pulling Gs? Does the ramjet enhance maneuverability significantly in the turn factor? For example the AMRAAM can pull 30 Gs max and probably turns tightest at Mach 3 speed. The AIM-9X Sidewinder can pull 60 Gs etc.US tested Have Dash II was capable of 50G maximum maneuver capability

jet engines offer the advantage of continuous power to compensate for energy bleeding off in hard turns, but there is always the risk of a flame out.

Ramjet engines are compromises and have their place, but a scramjet design would make the concept much more attractive as the speed increases dramatically, while the negatives do not...