Russian Air-to-Air missiles

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Range maters.

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

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

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

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

Range maters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range maters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When did HATO shoot down actual Soviet Fighters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes exactly.

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

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

LMFS wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any info if the conventionally R-77M is being serially produced and in service as of 2022?

This is from an 18 month old article, its just the Russian section. There are also Chinese and US/NATO sections.

Any comments?

Link https://sameerjoshi73.medium.com/east-vs-west-a-status-report-on-the-ongoing-air-to-air-missile-cold-war-ed2a1cb1323

A resurgent Russia bounces back

Russia’s air-to-air missile industry has been steadily bouncing back in the past decade. It was severely restricted by very limited internal investment post the collapse of the Soviet Union. Only the exports kept the missile complexes going. The Vympel R-77 (RVV-AE) NATO designation AA-12 Adder and the Russian equivalent of the AIM-120 AMRAAM, entered Russian Air Force (RuAF) service only around 2015 when it was available for export in the end 1990s. The RuAF has now widely deployed the advanced variant of the missile, the R-77–1 (RVV-SD) on its Sukhoi fleet. This has an engagement range of 100+ km with a redesigned active radar AGAT seeker and new fins. Russian Su-35s have routinely been seen with this type during practice intercepts of NATO assets in the Baltic zone, over the Black sea and Syria.


The R-77 also has a testbed ramjet version designated the R-77-PD. A more advanced version designated the R-77M or izdeliye 180, is being developed for Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 Felon low observable fifth generation fighter and the existing Su-35S Flanker-M. The missile features an under development AESA active seeker head and has a large solid state, dual pulse motor with conventional fins. A ramjet version of same designated K-77ME is also under development.

The K-77M is intended to match up to the AIM-120D and the PL-15, while the K-77ME is meant to take on the ramjet approach demonstrated on the MBDA Meteor. The targeted range of the R-77M will be between 130–150km.


For targets beyond 200km, the RuAF has inducted the R-37M (NATO designation AA-13 Axehead). The missile and its variants also have the names K-37, izdeliye 610 and RVV-BD. The R-37M is an updated version of the R-37 AAM, which was meant to be the primary armament of the MiG-31 Foxhound against stand-off targets like tanker and AWACS aircraft. Testing of the R-37 continued through the 1990s. In 1994, a trial round scored a kill at a range of 162 nautical miles (300 km). However, the program appears to have been dropped around 1998 on grounds of cost.


Work on the missile was restarted in late 2006 as part of the MiG-31BM program to update the Foxhound with a new radar and LR air engagement capability. In 2018, the R-37M finished its operational validation tests. It flies at is hypersonic (Mach 5+) speeds and has a range exceeding 300km. The range depends on the flight profile, from150 km for a direct shot, to 400 km for a cruise glide profile in the stratosphere. It may well also be carried by the Su-35 and the Su-57. The missile can be guided semi-actively or actively through Agat 9B-1388 active seeker. The R-37M is stated to have the ability to engage supersonic cruise missile carrying bombers like the B-1 Lancer, as well as the cruise missile projectiles. The weapon deployed on the MiG-31BM, offers a very unique long range interception capability to the RuAF, unbeaten by any air force in the world at present. A likely upgrade with an AESA seeker may happen in the near future.

Russia is also grappling with a need to replace its R-73/4 (NATO codename AA-11 Archer) within visual range (WVR) AAM for some time. Although a gamechanger when introduced in the 1990s with its massive off-bore sight lock on capability, the lack of an imaging infra red (IIR) seeker makes it very vulnerable to modern countermeasures. An improved version of the R-74, the K-74M izdeliye 750 has been developed, which features fully digital and re-programmable systems and an IIR seeker, intended for use on the Mig-35/29 and the Su-30/34/35 family. A further upgrade, known as the K-74M2 izdeliye 760, is intended for the Su-57 aircraft. This missile has reduced cross section to fit in internal weapon bays and will match the performance of the AIM-9X, ASRAAM and the PL-10. The K-74M has an effective range of 35km.

A recent snap at the Vympel factory shows the presence of another AAM, which is distinctively shorter than the R-74. While no information is available on this type, it is believed to be a WVR development for the Su-57 platform and may be carried in the internal weapons bay. It is indicated by the red arrow in the photo below.
The R-77–1 (bottom), the R-74 (centre) and the unknown Russian AAM at the Vympel factory
A Su-57 armed with R77–1 and the R74 missiles

What is noteworthy is the rapid spike in China’s AAM development ability, which has unnerved the Russians to a great extent. Investments in Russian programs in the last decade have partially been spurred by China’s ability to fast track this vertical. Concerns that China will undercut the Russian AAM export market share, have proven to be correct. China is positioning its military hardware with its economic Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), tactically pushing its military hardware on third world nations at a cost effective price point . Prime examples of this effort is Myanmar, which has received Russian military aid in the past. While Russia does not have an economic might to put behind defence development initiatives the way China does, a resurgent nationalistic agenda in Moscow is helping the revival of next generation aerospace & defence programs to an extent. It is here, that the Sukhoi Su-57 development and upgrades to the MiG-31 and Su-35 fleet, will drive induction of more competitive AAMs in the near future geared to counter the NATO alliance. These will also more often than not, find their way to the export market dovetailed with sale of Russian fighter aircraft.

The Russians however seem to very well realise that unless they promptly scale up research in next generation AAM technologies, the capability gap between the West as well as China, will only keep widening — especially on the bang for the buck scale. That would crucially hit Russia’s profitable defence export market share.

Interesting point of view, but the Russians have not stopped developing air to air weapons and new sensors and antennas don't just fall from the sky... they need to be developed.

It is also important to avoid a fixation on range... there is no point developing 500km range AAMs if you can't reliably detect targets at that range or it makes the missile so big it can only be carried externally and therefore cost you your stealth to carry it.

No mention of new long range AAMs with multiple interceptor components either...

It also ignores the trend in land based radar that combine multiple different radar types to form a more effective radar system as also shown with the Su-57 and Su-35 with their Ku and Ka band radar combined with L band wing mounted AESA radar arrays which will be combined to get better radar performance than either system on its own could achieve.

SOSNA-R would also be a very capable air to air weapon as another example...

Thought this was interesting:

https://politpuzzle.ru/?p=2886&utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=17274&utm_content=4273026&utm_campaign=2607

New air-to-air missiles: a meeting with Shoigu showed the evolution of the concept of air combat.

7/05/2022 Army , Technologies , Yandex ZEN

In the foreseeable future, Russian Aerospace Forces fighters will receive medium and short-range air-to-air missiles.

This topic was raised at a conference call of the head of the Russian Defense Ministry Sergei Shoigu with the generals. According to the Minister of Defense, both the fifth-generation Su-57 fighters and other aircraft of this type will receive new shells. Such re-equipment will have to significantly increase the effectiveness of the pilots of the Russian Aerospace Forces in close combat with small targets such as reconnaissance and strike drones and aircraft with low radar visibility. The arrival of the first serial batch of missiles to the troops is expected this year.

According to Moskovsky Komsomolets, citing a military expert who wished to remain anonymous, in recent years Russia has made significant progress in the development of long-range aircraft missiles, which in itself is very good. However, the concept of air combat constantly requires development, and therefore there was a need to equip fighters with medium and short-range air-to-air missiles. And there are several reasons for that.

“One of them is the need to effectively destroy small, weakly maneuvering targets in the air, that is, drones. Although, of course, we have other means to fight drones - the same anti-aircraft systems, electronic warfare stations, ”the MK interlocutor emphasized.

Another reason is economic. Ammunition of this type is needed in order not to spend expensive long-range projectiles on the destruction of UAVs, the cost of which is much less. And the new missiles may come in handy already as part of a special operation in Ukraine, which still has the remnants of combat aircraft, including unmanned aircraft, the specialist concluded.

Now my take from all this is:

• new medium range and short range air to air missiles are about to be put into production and service.
  
• designed for 5th gen and existing 4th gen fighters.
  
• optimised to engage targets with small RCS signatures like drones including at shorter ranges
  
• arriving this year.
  
• low cost missiles for use against targets that do not pull high g to evade missiles like drones or cruise missiles or unaware enemy aircraft
  
• Intended to be low cost and also presumably be able to be carried in greater numbers because of the smaller size and reduced dimensions and weight of the new weapons.
  

So maybe air launched TOR missiles with command guidance and perhaps terminal IIR seekers, or perhaps the 9M100 missiles and some medium ranged weapons perhaps based on TOR or S-350 9M96 missiles that are already being mass produced for ground forces?

The main Russian threat to Western "stealth" is launched into serial production

Information has appeared on the Web about the launch of a new air-to-air missile, so far referred to as "Product 180", into mass production. This missile was created on the basis of the R-77 (RVV-SD), taking into account the development of stealth aircraft of a potential enemy.


The predecessor of the "Product 180", the R-77 missile is considered the best means of combating generation 4 and 4+ aircraft, but it has somewhat lost its relevance against fifth generation fighters. Work on the "Product 180" in the design bureau "Vympel" began 12 years ago. This summer, the final tests of the rocket were carried out. For test launches, Russian fifth-generation Su-57 fighters were used.

The main feature of the "Product 180" can be considered the presence of a guidance system with an active phased antenna array (AFAR). It provides high accuracy of the missile and makes it impossible to hide any modern fighter or bomber built using stealth of technologies.

The rocket is equipped with a solid propellant engine and is capable of accelerating to Mach 4. The electronic systems of the "Product 180" work effectively in conditions of active radar interference and make it difficult to suppress the missile with air defense systems. Western publications noted last year that the Izdeliye 180 could become the most effective air-to-air missile in the world and provide an advantage in the sky for Russian aircraft.

https://en.topcor.ru/29373-glavnaja-rossijskaja-ugroza-zapadnym-stelsam-zapuskaetsja-v-serijnoe-proizvodstvo.html

The specs for the missile state it is designed to hit targets pulling up to 8g, so that would include most fighters.

Helicopters and heavy aircraft can't pull more than 4 or 5g...

GarryB wrote:The specs for the missile state it is designed to hit targets pulling up to 8g, so that would include most fighters.

Yes! And the R-37 is travelling at hypersonic speed and yet pulling those high Gs

S-400 missiles are bigger and yet can hit any target. R-37M isn't that bigger than r-77-1 or buk. So...

Since it is travelling at mach 4 or mach 5 it doesn't need to pull at very high G's. The target is almost immobile, a simple correction of less than 10° is enough to blow it up.

Isos is right. The speed plus the size of warhead means that an aircraft has little time to react and any reaction would need to be extreme to change its trajectory far enough away not to set off the proximity fuses. If the warhead goes off the aircraft is a goner.

Yes! And the R-37 is travelling at hypersonic speed and yet pulling those high Gs

Supersonic missiles pulling 10g can be dodged by pulling less than 2g, because the faster you move the less you have to turn to pull g.

A WWI biplane can't pull more than 3-4 g because they simply don't fly fast enough... whereas in an SR-71 flying at mach 3 the aircraft is incapable of turning 180 degrees while staying inside the state of California, because the faster you go the more g you pull for a give turn rate...

If you turn at 10 degrees per second at walking speed you wont even notice the g forces of the turn... just like sitting in a car in a carpark driving at 5km/h you can turn 180 degrees and the people in the car are not thrown around by the g force of the turn. Turning 180 degrees on a motorway doing 120km/h however will move you in your seat and might generate a couple of gs.

From 20km away a target is a tiny speck you can barely see but the radar in the nose of an R-37M can detect you precisely and as it closes distance at a rate of over 1km per second it will follow your movements very precisely... in the last two seconds before impact that missile is covering over 1km so imagine you suddenly become away you are under attack and you pull hard on the stick of your aircraft... what sort of change in direction do you think you can achieve in 2 seconds that will get you out of the blast radius of a missile carrying a 50kg HE warhead?

As you start to rapidly slow down the missile will see this as it comes it and it will start to turn to compensate so the tiny difference in your position for interception that you can create will be compensated by a tiny manouver by the incoming missile... it might not make direct contact with your aircraft, but it will get close enough to shred you plane with fragments... it is designed to destroy heavy bombers and tiny cruise missiles so a fighter is not too strong or too small to hit.

Obviously there is no such thing as a missile that hits every time, but they are very capable and dangerous these days.

S-400 missiles are bigger and yet can hit any target. R-37M isn't that bigger than r-77-1 or buk. So...

Bigger missiles generally rely on bigger warheads.... S-400s have very large warheads... 150kgs or so, and BUK has about a 60kg warhead too.

R-77 is about 180kg all up weight, while R-37 is about 500kg and is closer in weight to a Kh-31.

A heavier missile requires more force to turn and is therefore less agile, but Active Radar Homing missiles have a very good, very precise view of the target and can track manouvers in real time and react faster and are more likely to get direct hits... it is why the Russians are working on mini self defence missiles to shoot down artillery shells and rockets.

Since it is travelling at mach 4 or mach 5 it doesn't need to pull at very high G's. The target is almost immobile, a simple correction of less than 10° is enough to blow it up.

Very true, and several Soviet and Russian missiles use smart fusing where as the missile gets to its closest distance to the target the tracking system determines the nature of the target and its position in relation to the SAM and sets off detonators in the warhead to direct the fragments and blast towards specific parts of the target.

For instance if the target was an incoming Scud missile the SAM would direct its fragments to the nose of the target to try to destroy the warhead of the incoming threat.

What a drag i was expecting higher overloads and higher speeds so it could have been used like a missile APS to engage other air to air missiles from the Su-57s 360 degree radar, infrared and UV coverage.

Edit: so many news articles have said 2,500 meters per second while google translate on the image provided by arrow says 2,500km/hr.

thegopnik wrote:What a drag i was expecting higher overloads and higher speeds so it could have been used like a missile APS to engage other air to air missiles from the Su-57s 360 degree radar, infrared and UV coverage.

Edit: so many news articles have said 2,500 meters per second while google translate on the image provided by arrow says 2,500km/hr.

It gives "скорость атакуемой цели", i.e. velocity of the target to be attacked, as 2500 km/h. The velocity of the missile itself is not given, but it's definitely going to be a lot more than 2500 km/h.

Another graphic also has some interesting info (apparently it's from a brochure):


With the most interesting, IMO, that it can acquire a target after being launched, that it can detect attack a target even 180° off axis and that detection range with its FLIR sensor of an F-15-type target at maximum thrust is about 10 km.

Edit: and one detail I missed at first: it says "time of guided flight" = 38 seconds, which, with a range of 50 km, suggests at least 1,315 m/s velocity, so almost Mach 4 at least. And let's also remember that this is basically an export version (designation RVV-MD is not for domestically used products, but export products, so the domestic version will be better).

Edit2: and some more details:

• Guidance: radio-correction, inertial guidance, FLIR self-homing, which is dual channel and can be in highest-readiness (cooled) for up to 12 hours
  
• Warhead: mass is 8 kg, it has a triple fuse (contact, laser, radio)
  
• Flight controls: as you can see in the images in Arrow's link, it has aerodynamic and gasdynamic flight controls
  
• Deployment: on fighter aircraft (both internal and external pylons), attack aircraft and combat helicopters with possibility for adaptation to foreign aircraft types