R-77-1(RVV-SD) vs MBDA Meteor. Which missile is better?

R-77-1(RVV-SD) vs MBDA Meteor. Which missile is better?

In air combat overall.

R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.

The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.

Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.

GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.

The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.

Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.

Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.

The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.

Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.

Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.

Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?

Ives wrote:

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.

The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.

Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.

Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.

Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?

No it is not. It is like AIM-120D, just a rocket engine.

Isos wrote:

Ives wrote:

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:R-77 is a medium range AAM... the R-77 SD has a range of 120km while the R-77M is supposed to have a range of just under 200km.

The Russian long range AAM is the R-37M with a range of 300km and likely the KS-172 with a range of 400km.

Their work on scramjet engine technology for the Zircon Anti Ship missile should lead to serious increases in performance of AAMs too.

Thats not really the intentions of russian air force. They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed. Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.

Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?

No it is not. It is like AIM-120D, just a rocket engine.

But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?

Sent from Topic'it App

But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?

Ramjet is clearly an advantage because the missile is powered at max speed all the way but R-77 is also very fast even if the speed goes down at then end.

No one can really compare them because no one has the real datas of both missiles. The advantage of R-77 is that it is cheaper and you can lunch more of them at a same target while those who use Meteor don't have full load of meteor with them.

Future R-77M should have dual pulse rocket motor so that it burns at the bigining and at the end for the interception so that it accelerate on the targetfor the interception.

Isos wrote:

But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?

Ramjet is clearly an advantage because the missile is powered at max speed all the way but R-77 is also very fast even if the speed goes down at then end.

No one can really compare them because no one has the real datas of both missiles. The advantage of R-77 is that it is cheaper and you can lunch more of them at a same target while those who use Meteor don't have full load of meteor with them.

Future R-77M should have dual pulse rocket motor so that it burns at the bigining and at the end for the interception so that it accelerate on the targetfor the interception.

But, let's say Meteor has any ECM against Khibiny-M with its DRFM?

Sent from Topic'it App

What?

The power required to even be able to counter a systems EW would be astounding. Meteor nor any other missile has that capability, especially in its current size.

miketheterrible wrote:What?

The power required to even be able to counter a systems EW would be astounding. Meteor nor any other missile has that capability, especially in its current size.

Well, many Meteor fanboys like saying, how it is inevictible and can destroy anything, even if it's alien spaceship, lol. For instance, on Quora, one NATO ass licker made the following statement:


“In this case the missile is almost 100% wasted"

That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Magic, in another word.

DRFM is a known quantity. Don't hold your breath over that the latest radar guided missiles don't have any kind of counter to it, though. Alternating frequencies, switching from active to passive repeatedly, using LPI radar modes, using HoJ modes…

And please, don't even go there with USS Donald Cook. A 10 kW transmitter cannot jam a 1 MW one from point blank range, and a jammer cannot shut down the whole Aegis system. Funny how even KRET said Su-24 can't carry the Khibiny. In short, tabloid nonsense.

Sent from Topic'it App

I'm fully aware how this stuff works, and physics. No, no missile of the size will be able to jam or counter an electronic warfare system operating at 15GHz and large amount of power output. LPI mode is a nice word or catch phrase but so long as it has a signal output, it can be jammed.

As well, basic electronics, especially solid state, can easily be fried by microwaves. So the whole Donald Cook thing is BS but jamming its systems with airborn radar is possible in either frying basic solid state components or best, to cause interference in its systems. Which in this case came disable a whole ship.

miketheterrible wrote:I'm fully aware how this stuff works, and physics. No, no missile of the size will be able to jam or counter an electronic warfare system operating at 15GHz and large amount of power output. LPI mode is a nice word or catch phrase but so long as it has a signal output, it can be jammed.

As well, basic electronics, especially solid state, can easily be fried by microwaves. So the whole Donald Cook thing is BS but jamming its systems with airborn radar is possible in either frying basic solid state components or best, to cause interference in its systems. Which in this case came disable a whole ship.

What exactly LPI mode is? How Khibiny-M can counter it?

Sent from Topic'it App

low probability of interception. It more or less runs underpowered.

Are you going to ask us ridiculous questions all the time or are you going to do some research?

How hard is it for you to figure out basic physics More Power > Less Power.

You blast something with radiation, you are going to destroy it. Let me tell you something, if you want to put this stuff to the test, stand in front of a 400MW radar and tell us how you feel afterwards. If you know what would happen, then take your cell phone and put it in front of a 400MW radar and see what happens.

Point is, EW systems jam the signals by blasting it with radiation at various frequencies. Noise more or less. And it can screw with the missiles guidance or even fry electronics (most solid state these days are well protected though from Radiation).

This is the most basic and simplistic method of mentioning it. There are others who are more knowledgeable and capable than me in mentioning it.

I remember reading some of GarryB's posts in the forum regarding long range anti air missiles but I cannot remember which post specifically. I vaguely remember the detail where Russian missiles will run out majority of its fuel when it's near the target. This means that they won't be burning when it nears the target compared to Meteor. So the targeted airplane will be less alerted through its missile warning sensors as the Russian missile don't have a big exhaust plume signature anymore.

However, it is important to specify the range of engagement here; R-77-1 will be able to catch the target by surprise below 50 km while Meteor doesn't (Meteor have this big burning plume at its butt at all times, being a ramjet). That tells you which can hit the target first since what you don't see or late to see, will kill you first. At long range, any missile will have low probability to hit. R-77-1 will run out energy at or near max range while Meteor doesn't. So R-77-1 won't probably hit the target reliably at long distances while Meteor can since it's still burning. But recall that Meteor will alert the target due to constantly burning engine so at long range, maneuverable target can find and consequently avoid Meteor.

Therefore Meteor is more to take out non-maneuverable ones like fuel tankers. This basically tells me that Meteor is a specialized missile to hit targets that cannot do evasive maneuvers while not particularly good at going for maneuverable ones. Compare this to R-77-1; it can take the target by surprise (little or non burning engine at end of burn phase) and while at long range where it is not terribly efficient, carry the same advantages of too late to be seen.

On electronics, I agree to miketheterrible. Any missile won't be able to simply jam airborne electronics carried by aircraft since the former is tinier than the latter. It is more apt to term it by spoofing where the missile momentarily fools the targeted electronics that it is not in the position the aircraft determined to be et al.

HoJ is also a buzzword; what if the target have a towed decoy that emits jamming waves or shoot jamming waves to the ground (ground bounce jamming) ? Then the missile will obediently go there and not hitting the actual target. But as laymen that don't have access to military data, we can only speculate which is best but I think my deduction is largely correct, by logic.

I think your mistake, Ives, was to rely on Quora which are mostly filled by Russophobes that seek to badmouth Russia in every opportunity (just read on how to break Russian IADS on Quora and you will see it) and then faithfully took MBDA advertising on Meteor; you don't usually see the above explanation on the pros and cons of ramjet missiles regarding air combat. Both R-77-1 and Meteor have their respective niche but they are not wonder weapons, not as the manufacturers like to claim when you start to think logically about it.

miketheterrible wrote:low probability of interception. It more or less runs underpowered.

Are you going to ask us ridiculous questions all the time or are you going to do some research?

How hard is it for you to figure out basic physics More Power > Less Power.

You blast something with radiation, you are going to destroy it. Let me tell you something, if you want to put this stuff to the test, stand in front of a 400MW radar and tell us how you feel afterwards. If you know what would happen, then take your cell phone and put it in front of a 400MW radar and see what happens.

Point is, EW systems jam the signals by blasting it with radiation at various frequencies. Noise more or less. And it can screw with the missiles guidance or even fry electronics (most solid state these days are well protected though from Radiation).

This is the most basic and simplistic method of mentioning it. There are others who are more knowledgeable and capable than me in mentioning it.

Oh common, bruv. I am actually nice to you, why you so angry? What is simple for you, can be hard for me. And vice versa, what is easy for me can give a hell of a problem for you. I just want to ask people, who know stuff about the topic. That's why internet exist really.

Sent from Topic'it App

Ok, I apologize.

Essentially its all about physics. And well, we also need to take a lot of stuff said as salt because the Russians won't give full details of their goods for obvious reason. Most of what is posted is export. Even radar like Irbis-E and alike.

Enera wrote:I remember reading some of GarryB's posts in the forum regarding long range anti air missiles but I cannot remember which post specifically. I vaguely remember the detail where Russian missiles will run out majority of its fuel when it's near the target. This means that they won't be burning when it nears the target compared to Meteor. So the targeted airplane will be less alerted through its missile warning sensors as the Russian missile don't have a big exhaust plume signature anymore.

However, it is important to specify the range of engagement here; R-77-1 will be able to catch the target by surprise below 50 km while Meteor doesn't (Meteor have this big burning plume at its butt at all times, being a ramjet). That tells you which can hit the target first since what you don't see or late to see, will kill you first. At long range, any missile will have low probability to hit. R-77-1 will run out energy at or near max range while Meteor doesn't. So R-77-1 won't probably hit the target reliably at long distances while Meteor can since it's still burning. But recall that Meteor will alert the target due to constantly burning engine so at long range, maneuverable target can find and consequently avoid Meteor.

Therefore Meteor is more to take out non-maneuverable ones like fuel tankers. This basically tells me that Meteor is a specialized missile to hit targets that cannot do evasive maneuvers while not particularly good at going for maneuverable ones. Compare this to R-77-1; it can take the target by surprise (little or non burning engine at end of burn phase) and while at long range where it is not terribly efficient, carry the same advantages of too late to be seen.

On electronics, I agree to miketheterrible. Any missile won't be able to simply jam airborne electronics carried by aircraft since the former is tinier than the latter. It is more apt to term it by spoofing where the missile momentarily fools the targeted electronics that it is not in the position the aircraft determined to be et al.

HoJ is also a buzzword; what if the target have a towed decoy that emits jamming waves or shoot jamming waves to the ground (ground bounce jamming) ? Then the missile will obediently go there and not hitting the actual target. But as laymen that don't have access to military data, we can only speculate which is best but I think my deduction is largely correct, by logic.

I think your mistake, Ives, was to rely on Quora which are mostly filled by Russophobes that seek to badmouth Russia in every opportunity (just read on how to break Russian IADS on Quora and you will see it) and then faithfully took MBDA advertising on Meteor; you don't usually see the above explanation on the pros and cons of ramjet missiles regarding air combat. Both R-77-1 and Meteor have their respective niche but they are not wonder weapons, not as the manufacturers like to claim when you start to think logically about it.

Well yeah, on Quora there are lots of halfwits, but some writers are quiet good.

Sent from Topic'it App

They already said that a ramjet r77 wasn t needed.

They did, but did that mean they were no longer looking at jet engines or that instead of ramjets they were looking at scramjets offering much better performance for a very similar design.

Most ramjets are limited to around mach 4-5, which is very similar to the peak speed of solid fuelled rockets.

Scramjets offer mach 8 plus speeds and much greater burn times.

Targeting something further than 400 km is really hard specially now with stealthier planes. Even awacs with their big radars would have issues for targeting such target. The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

The thing is that new designs seem to combine sensor options... an IIR seeker can passively look for targets continuously, while a radar antenna can both detect emissions and also be used to scan for targets too.

These missiles are intended to defeat force multipliers like JSTARS and AWACS and tanker aircraft as well as bombers at max range well away from any escorts.

A combined passive radar homing with IIR and ARH would allow a very long range shot at an AWACS aircraft if that aircraft used its radar... as the missile approached and the target detected it and turned off its radar the missile can switch to IIR guidance because such a large radar will give off lots of heat even after it is turned off.

Now a pilot woud know easily where is the plane that targeted him and would have a lot of options to escape if he is 400km away. And remember that those numbers of max range are just for the public and that range depends on lot of factors. Armies that buy air to air missile will have much more detailed informations about that.

How?

This is never one on one.

The target pilot might be flying over a city and a radar scan from 400km away paints his aircraft... does he assume he is under attack? There will be hundreds of other radar scans from all sorts of different aircraft all the time from different directions and different aircraft... some from his own air force or an allied air force and some from enemy aircraft and even ground radar.

He wont detect a launch from 400km and the radar that scanned him at 400km might not be the aircraft that launches the missile. Either way he could turn and fly parallel to the radar signal and find that an aircraft 200km was passed his location details and launches a missile at him from a different direction... as it approaches he will detect it, but "pulling 9gs and dodging a missile" is really easy on a movie but when these missiles are moving at 6 times the speed of sound it is not so easy. These missiles wont be visible 1 second before impact as they will be 1.5km away... and the distance you can turn or move in 1 second is tiny even if you did know exactly when and where to move these missiles have adaptive warheads.... ie the fragments are directed at the last milisecond at the target like a claymore mine. I would expect the warhead in the R-37m is the same 47kg warhead as the R-33...

Isn't K-77M ramjet, though?

I thought the R-77PD was the ramjet model and the R-77 just had a bigger rocket motor...

But overall, which one is superior, Meteor or R-77-1? Doesn't ramjet gives more advantages?

Ramjet offers several advantages and also some disadvantages.

Being powered throughout flight gives more energy and allows the missile to manage its flight profile better to enhance range and terminal performance.

It can also potentially flame out and is also a significant IR source throughout its flight.

The main point is that scramjet has all the benefits of a ramjet but offers much higher speed performance.

But, let's say Meteor has any ECM against Khibiny-M with its DRFM?

No body who knew the answers to those questions could answer on the internet.

I remember reading some of GarryB's posts in the forum regarding long range anti air missiles but I cannot remember which post specifically. I vaguely remember the detail where Russian missiles will run out majority of its fuel when it's near the target. This means that they won't be burning when it nears the target compared to Meteor. So the targeted airplane will be less alerted through its missile warning sensors as the Russian missile don't have a big exhaust plume signature anymore.

Solid fuelled rockets can't be throttled and can't be turned off or up.

small short range missiles generally have a high energy solid fuel.

They don't burn from one end of the tube to the other because that puts the end of the tube under high pressure and heat and would need to be made thick and strong and heavy.

If you cut through a rocket motor and look at the open end you will see a hole down the middle... in high speed missiles the hole is star shaped to increase surface area. The rocket fuel burns from the centre out to the outer edge of the missile tube so the unburnt fuel supports the walls of the missile until all the fuel is burned.

Fast burning high energy fuel generates a lot of thrust but only for a very short time, meaning a missile accelerates up to its top speed and then coasts to the target. Because there is no more fuel if the target keeps going straight the missile will eventually intercept it with minimal changes in flight so little energy lost.

If the target starts changing altitude and direction and speed then the missile must change its flight course repeatedly to aim for all the new intercept points. Each change will reduce energy more and if it keeps doing this it will run out of speed and fall from the sky.

Modern missiles are not like aeroplanes and don't have wings to keep them in the air, they have control surfaces to manouver but at lower speeds these tiny surfaces wont have much effect and the missile just falls.

A long range missile often has two fuels... a high energy fuel and then a lower calorie lower energy longer burning fuel. The high energy fuel accelerates the missile and allows it to climb to the colder thinner air where there is less drag. The high energy fuel burns for maybe 2-3 seconds, while the lower energy fuel just overcomes drag but might burn for few minutes extending range greatly and reducing the loss of speed that would have been caused by simply coasting.

Very simply a large missile with all high energy fuel might burn for 6 seconds but it wont travel much faster than the same missile with high energy fuel that burned for 2-3 seconds. More importantly a large missile with high and low energy fuel might have 3 second of high energy fuel to get it up to speed and then a low energy fuel that burns for 10-15 seconds and maintains speed much much longer.

For 200km plus range shots neither rocket will have fuel still burning when it gets to its target, but the missile with the long burn fuel will arrive much earlier and be travelling much much faster when it gets to its target.

The ramjet and scramjet design means fuel and throttle can be managed to maximise flight performance. It can still climb and coast but it can also save fuel for the terminal phase.

The tiny control surfaces and lack of anything like a wing to keep it airborne means it must maintain a supersonic flight speed to be able to manouver and just stay in the air, but with throttle control it still has that option, whereas the solid rocket motor has no such option.

Of course a missile is a high speed slash attack weapon.. the very idea they might turn 180 degrees and have another attack is just silly... the radius of a supersonic turn with such a small missile would be enormous, and the chance of reacquiring the target is also silly.

It is important to point out that the large rear grid fins of the R-77 allow tight turns with much lower chance of a stall, which means at a given flight speed an R-77 can turn harder than the meteor... note an Su-26 aerobatic aircraft can pull +11 and minus 9 g but not at 100km/h.

Therefore Meteor is more to take out non-maneuverable ones like fuel tankers. This basically tells me that Meteor is a specialized missile to hit targets that cannot do evasive maneuvers while not particularly good at going for maneuverable ones. Compare this to R-77-1; it can take the target by surprise (little or non burning engine at end of burn phase) and while at long range where it is not terribly efficient, carry the same advantages of too late to be seen.

Good point... it is the same as the comparable R-37M which is intended for use against tankers and AWACS and JSTARS and cruise missiles and bombers.

Both R-77-1 and Meteor have their respective niche but they are not wonder weapons, not as the manufacturers like to claim when you start to think logically about it.

Scramjet performance is superior to ramjet performance the same way a turbojet and turbofan is better than a turboprop at high speed flight.

Solid rockets are fast, but are coasters... a ramjet offers comparable performance but early attempts were clumsy with external solid rocket boosters.

Modern Russian ramjets like the Kh-31 and KUB (SA-6) use an internal solid rocket motor that when it burns out leaves an internal void that is used for a ramjet motor to operate.... making it much more compact and efficient.

A scramjet model offers even higher speed with no top speed limit.

Expect scramjet motors to be used in all sorts of areas like AAMs, SAMs, APFSDS rounds for tanks, etc etc.

A combined Scramjet with onboard slush hydrogen and oxygen and you could take off from a conventional runway and climb and accelerate to orbital speed and then leave the atmosphere and visit the space station and then return and land...

Isos wrote:The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

Anti ECM capabilities of missiles ? Can you please elaborate on what these anti ECM capabilities of missiles are ? Thanks.

jhelb wrote:

Isos wrote:The anti ecm capacities of the missiles are more important than very long range.

Anti ECM capabilities of missiles ? Can you please elaborate on what these anti ECM capabilities of missiles are ? Thanks.

That's a whole science actually. When the missiles turns on its radar the target will try to jamm it. There are lot of ways to jam missiles, you have to look on open sources for that, you can easily find the ways of jaming a signal and it is not just by parasiting the frequency on which the radar is runing on.

The missile, to be dangerous, must be able to go through the jaming, like shifting frequency rapidely or have a backup passive mode that will detect the jaming and home on it. Those technologies are in constant change because it is simply maths and data processing.

A 400km missiles with bad processing and really simple electronics won't be a real danger to modern fighter even bombers.

Actually this thread is biased because you can't compare two missiles, you have to compare R-77 against western jamming capabilities and METEOR against Russian ones.

Even if on paper one is better than the other, if the you can't protect your Aircraft against the misiles and the oponent can protect his against your better missile he will win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Electronic_jamming

Those are exemples of jamming methodes. You can be sure that Vympel or MBDA are working on new ways to jam and to counter jaming.