Russian Air-to-Air missiles

In the KTRV pavilion, a new RVV-MD2 missile was indeed demonstrated, visually presumably a version of the RVV-MD."

They did say they wanted the R-74 version of the R-73 to have better seeker and improved performance and Lock on after launch capacity...

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.

What makes you think it can't shoot down incoming missiles?

With the most interesting, IMO, that it can acquire a target after being launched, that it can detect 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.

Its sensor wont have a 360 degree field of view... it will be able to be launched forward at a target behind the aircraft that allows it to use its thrust vectoring rocket motor to turn 180 degrees and find its target and then attack it.

The Americans call it LOAL or lock on after launch.

Something the AIM-9X does not have, which is why they need to extend their missiles out of their internal weapon bays on their stealth aircraft to find and lock their targets before they can launch their missiles.

The datalink connection means the missile should be able to use information from the launch platforms sensors to find its target itself and the pilot should be able to change targets if needed too I would suspect.

The LMUR is an IIR guided air to ground missile and we have seen video footage of it attacking some bridging equipment and as it approached a BMP-2 was crossing the bridge and the weapon operator clearly shifts the target crosshair to the BMP and hits that instead. The next part of the video is a second LMUR that hits the bridge with a burning BMP sitting on it that was hit by the previous missile.

The equivalent with this missile would be launching at an enemy aircraft and as your missile closes on the target another more urgent target appears which you can switch to.

Its range is given as 60km so despite its seeker range being given as 10km you can use your sensors on the aircraft to find targets at much greater ranges and launch the missile in the direction of the target till it can detect the target for itself... much like an Active Radar Homing missile would be used against targets it cannot lock on to before being launched.

Guidance: radio-correction, inertial guidance, FLIR self-homing, which is dual channel and can be in highest-readiness (cooled) for up to 12 hours

Which is essentially the same as for active radar homing missiles that are launched at targets way too far away for a seeker lock before launch, except obviously IR guidance in the terminal phase.

You detect a target and you launch this AAM with your aircraft transmitting the location of the target to the missile... it turns and accelerates towards the target and continues to fly towards the target till its seeker can get a lock with course updates from your aircraft transmitted by your datalink, and the dual link means it can send its IIR view of the world back to the launch aircraft so you can inspect its view and compare it with your view via your IRST and radar and select a target for it to engage automatically.

The sensors say they are limited to mach 2 targets, and the G loads on the brochure say 12 G

The target g load is 12 g, these missiles would have to pull rather more than 12 g to intercept a 12 g target.

g load is determined by speed... at walking speed you can't turn fast enough to get a 9g turn, g lock wasn't a problem till aircraft started going rather faster like they did in WWII.

as the air defense saying goes you need like twice the Gloads which is why the latest S-400 SAMs have 60Gs to deal with 30G maneuvering missiles

S-400 need 60g turning capacity because at the speed they move turning a few degrees per second generates a high g load on the missile.

and I already know the aim-120s will have higher G loads than any short-range missile trying to engage them. So maybe the K-77M was the APS concept that would have worked for the blackjack bombers.

The missile claimed to be the anti missile missile was the 9M100, which is used as a CIWS missile for Redut at sea and the shortest range point defence missile for S-350... it also has a two way datalink, but started with an IIR seeker but now seems to have an ARH seeker instead.

The K-30 was supposed to replace the R73 with a fully gimbled thrust vectoring nozzle and IIR seeker with an onboard digital library of 3D target models to allow fire and forget use where the missile senses the targets within its field of view and selects the most critical target to engage with a two way datalink with the launch platform in case the crew want it to hit something else.

BVR missiles have a lofted trajectory. They hit their target from the top. Fighters radar can't see them. It's a myth that they would use their own missiles to shot down enemy missiles coming directly from Vympel director who said that in an interview. Forget about it.

The speed they move at, they are rather hot and the IRST on most Russian fighters can see upwards at fairly high angles, and as you say it is a normal flight mode so it would be expected...

Maybe I will change my mind again that the RVV-MD2 can engage air to air missiles because current air to air missiles dont have A.I. to make decisions when to maneuver out of the way from an incoming air to air missile to going back to engaging the current aircraft since everything happens real fast.

The equipment on the aircraft will detect incoming threats... aircraft and missiles... long before the sensors on a missile would detect them... this missile has a datalink so it can be flown towards the approaching threats so it should be able to hit incoming aircraft or missiles which will be tracking the aircraft that launched them and will not be in a position to dogfight with the missile the target just launched. If it does want to dogfight then it has already lost because pulling 30g to evade the missile heading towards it will likely mean it wont be able to then turn back and hit the target it was attacking in the first place, so mission accomplished for the outgoing defensive missile.

Why not screw TOR on an IL-76? Has this ever been tested?

TOR is rather large and heavy... much bigger than the R-73 or this new missile, and is command guided so it requires a search radar and a tracking radar to find targets and then guide it towards tracked targets respectively.

They are working on mini self defence missiles with Active radar homing for very high levels of precision so artillery shells and artillery rockets can be engaged with direct hits using 3kg warheads to ensure the destruction of the incoming threat... such missiles will need to be carried in enormous numbers and be relatively cheap... but also accurate and able to hit very high speed threats... sounds like an excellent description of what bombers and fighters and ships and tanks need.

Not true R 37M proved itself during the war in Ukraine. There were several successful interceptions.

The only air to air missile that counts is BVR range missile. Medium range air to air missiles are of no use. Even in a close combat pilots can use BVR missiles is need be.

There are only two types of AAM... within visual range and beyond visual range... WVR and BVR.

The west are talking about long range and super long range without really going too much into what that means...

The west thinks AMRAAM is the longest range missile in the world and the only one with greater range is the Meteor, but the R-37 and R-37M exceed the ranges of both systems, and the new Izd 810 does even better.

Which missiles did R37M intercept? wrote:

It intercepted highly maneuverable fighters over very long distances. It's a big feat. The US doesn't even have a missile of this class. The R-37M, like the R33/R33S, can also intercept cruise missiles.

Which missiles did R37M intercept?

Which ones didn't they intercept?

WVR missiles are useless. BVR missiles are the real deal They can be used for both WVR and BVR conflict.

Hilarious because up until the 1990s the west held exactly the Opposite view... Sparrows were shit and Sidewinders were the standard tool of the fighter ace.

But that was until they got their hands on East German MiG-29s with R-73s and got their arses handed to them every time by German pilots in training and all of a sudden the two programmes on the back burner... AMRAAM and ASRAAM shifted from something they did because they thought it might be useful into AMRAAM being critical for the future of HATO aircraft because if HATO aircraft had to fight with Soviet aircraft that had R-73 then they knew they would lose.

WVR missiles are probably over powered to the point where BVR missiles are essential because getting into WVR would be suicide.

BVR missiles had terrible kill probabilities... Sparrow was something like 4% kill probability against a fighter aircraft... which is probably comparable to the kill probability of using unguided rockets to be honest.

It is said that the missile has 60° off axis target acquisition, but the seeker field of view is probably wider.

The field of view is not important if it has thrust vectoring and a two way datalink... think of it as an ARH missile... it is lock on after launch so you could fire it at a target behind you.... the missile is launched from the pylon or ejected from an internal weapon bay and the rocket motor starts up... if the target is behind it will turn 180 degrees to where it expects the target to be meaning when it looks the target will likely be at or near its centre of view and it will accelerate towards the target until it hits it.

So firing the missile at high of bore sight close to 90° will significantly reduce the missiles PK.

Its flight range will be dramatically reduced if it has to turn 180 degrees to chase a target but I really don't think the missile performance will be effected too badly.

Having the LOAL capability and appropriate sensors on the plane (like Su-57 has) that can provide the mid-course guidance, the Pk of the missile is increasing at high of bore sight, especially since the RVV-MD2 has energy to spare with its max range of 50 plus km which is probably one the best in the class.

The thrust vectoring rocket motor also means it can engage targets that are very very close... minimum range is 300m for the target, but with thrust vectoring once it is clear of the launch aircraft it can turn harder than the air stream over its conventional control surfaces would normally allow and more importantly keep its nose and therefore sensor pointed at the target at all times.

The R-37M, like the R33/R33S, can also intercept cruise missiles.

The R-37M is intended to kill a range of different targets, unlike the R-33 and can hit targets pulling 8g.

Slashing attacks from high altitude coming down at mach 6... you wouldn't be able to see the missile when it is 1km away and it would take less than a second to hit you from that distance so odds are you wouldn't see it coming.

200km range is bullshit. The R 37M has a range of over 300 km. Already the older R 37 was tested for 300 km. Neither NATO nor anyone else has a missile of this type. The nearest is probably METEOR with a range of 200 km?

200km is the range the export model missile RVV-BD is able to fly to hit its target, the R-37M launched from a MiG-31 at above 15km altitude at mach 2.5 will probably reach targets at double that distance.

More importantly the 200km is for small manouvering fighter type targets manouvering at up to 8g... this export missile could probably tag big slow aircraft like inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS and JSTARS and HALE and MALE drones at a greater distance simply because they are less manouverable so their future position is easier to predict with accuracy.

Interesting they are pushing the sale of these missiles... suggests its replacement is likely ready for Russian service.

Now that Egypt is joining BRICS one of the rules of BRICS is to not impose unilateral sanctions on other countries, which means Egypt would not be able to comply with US Laws regarding military purchases even if they wanted to...

So currently in VKS R-37M can carry about 100 Su 35S and about 100 MiG-31BM. A total of about 200 machines

And also MiG-35 and MiG-29K and Su-34.

You bring up a good point in that the enemy can be clever and not play by your rules, but equally you can return the favour with a built in home on jamming signal mode where if it cannot find its target it can just switch to homing on the source of the jamming.

Another alternative is that these missiles fly the vast majority of their flight path on what is essentially autopilot... it could remain on auto pilot while the launch aircraft locates and identifies the sources of jamming and might launch separate missiles to engage those targets and then scan to find the original target with its much bigger and rather more powerful and sophisticated nose mounted and wing mounted radar... the combination of the large nose mounted AESA radar and wing mounted L band AESA radar should be able to reacquire a large slow target like a bomber or refuelling aircraft or indeed an MPA and redirect the outgoing R-37M to head in its direction till it is much much closer to the target where the jamming will be less effective and get its lock for the kill.

You will notice that the Russians putting jammers and decoys in their land attack missiles like cruise missiles and Iskander missiles results in a very high effective PK rate for their missiles and I would suggest that comes from their half century decades experience of expecting to attack US aircraft carriers which are the only western targets with proper layered air defence networks worth a damn. This led to them developing and putting into service not just better anti ship missiles but also integrating better air defence systems for their ships and for use on land and also making their attack missiles better.

They are designing their air to air missiles to engage stealth aircraft, which means very tiny signals lost in a background of noise, which makes it rather better able to deal with targets using jamming too as a bonus.

The irony is that the west is going to have to go back to investing in jamming which was counter productive for stealth aircraft because it revealed their location at a time when they were trying to hide.