AMRAAM and R-77 performance review
- Thread starter Awang se
- Start date
see my prev.
depending on the missile, it's the launch + 4-8 seconds that count. If the numbers aren't there, then it's success rate will drop accordingly.
missiles and planes have a common denominator in this issue - and no one has adequately articulated it yet (although you're close conceptually)
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Errr. Don't all -C variants have clipped wings & fins?
what versions with what fins
yeah could be all "C" models are clipped. some ambiguity the last year on what versions with what fins. fair enough.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
yeah could be all "C" models are clipped. some ambiguity the last year on what versions with what fins. fair enough.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
They don't help. Please address the main question. What conflict are we talking about. Without that the rest is irrelevant.
ok...suit youself
If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.
If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.
Obrescia your continuing attempts to dodge the simple question force me to assume that you know that there is no real life conflict where advanced flankers would be support by combat assets comparable to those that would support USAF raptors, and thus invalidating your entire conclusion (which is based on equal conditions).
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I've read this before somewhere but i cant put my finger on it. Did you copy it from someone else or pot the exact same thing somewhere else?
That is plainly crap. An F-22A could engage from its high altitude position, Advanced flanker could not engage from any position except in WVR. There is no reason an F-22A would not engage because of a sacrificing positional advantage, it could effectively engage without changing its position.
An engagement between an F-22A and an Advanced Flanker is as different to the BVR incapable Mirage vs Harrier as that is from the Battle of Britain.
dodge? u got a magic 5 ball?
The Gulf of Sidra incident, January 4, 1989; just about says all anyone needs to say on this subject matter. (Audio recording of engagement) Select download MP3 file
http://www.ka8vit.com/sd/shootdown.htm
The F-22 tactical use issues (never mind F-35, not even worth discussion) are:
1) Primary main weapon range / Newton’s second law of motion.
2) ECM detection of mid-course update transmission(s) for main weapon.
3) Thermal signature(s) platform & main weapon.
4) Daylight contrail(s) platform & main weapon.
5) Super-cruise only at high altitude.
Reason(s)
1) Despite claim(s) of an AIM-120D version, dimensions may be the issue. First, what is the amount of propellant possible in standard AIM-120 round? Second, FMRAAM (ramjet version) fitment inside F-22 weapons bay? The Europeans who were partnered on the AIM-120 program have since embarked on a more suitable weapon, the Meteor.
If the 'kinematics' augment is to be advanced by F-22 proponents as a key capability, to sweep the airspace of enemy fighters then there are several problems. They include: combined closure rate, maneuverability, airframe thermal heating due to air friction and hot exhaust exposure.
See:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html
Simplified Condition: Initial head-on frontal aspect intercept of Flanker (firing R-77M) by F-22 (firing AIM-120C). A flight of 4 to 6 Flankers flying at 500 knots, against flight of 4 Raptors flying in super cruise at 1500 knots. The combined closer rate of all aircraft would be 2000 knots (500 + 1500).
The 'kinematics' augment says that F-22 will use its faster speed to 'push' its AIM-120 missiles towards Flanker, If both opposing flights of aircraft fire their weapons, both attacker and defender missile range benefit from a head-on engagement via the closure rate. F-22 fires AIM-120C sooner but also effectively flies INTO Flankers R-77M (!) Missile range = launch aircraft speed + missile velocity + target speed. Raptor faces additional problems at higher speeds because of simple physics, Thermal airframe heating (IRST detection) and reduced maneuvering potential due to the limits of pilot G-loads. Flanker moving at 500 knots would have enormous advantage in defensive maneuvering (AIM-120 avoidance) and to turn and fire on exiting Raptor.
Whatever the remaining aircraft, they now flash past each other at approximate 2000 knots and initiate turns, Raptor now exposes it’s hot exhaust to Flanker as F-22 make a wide sweeping turn due to it 1500 knot speed/pilot G-limit. The engagement then starts all over again. Typically this involves into a classic tuning/maneuvering contest...the dogfight.
This whole this boils down to this. If F-22 press their attack, closure rates will be so high and air-air weapons malfunctions (missiles fly wide) such a regular occurrence (on both sides) that F-22 aircrews will be in a dogfight within moments after calling "fox-3" Against the advanced Flanker, this is truly a nightmare scenario.
R-77 See:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml
2) Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release. From here two (2) things could happen. First, the Threat Warning System triggers automatic release of expendables (chaff/flares). See page 41 'c'. Second, Flanker pilot then initiates a defensive 'beaming' or 'beam-turn' maneuver. See page 36-37 'c', page 97 ’d’.
3) IRST see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track
http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video
Flanker uses as primary system for gun firing solution. Development/advancement cycles for IRST systems would be orders of magnitude more frequent than F-22 airframes changes, combined with IR-versions of the R-77 (R-77M1) missile being the first problem. The second is Flanker radar (slaved to IRST). The IRST may see something and then point its main radar straight at F-22, (straight to ‘track’).
The canard equipped versions of the flanker is an astonishing aircraft.
Please see: (w/sound)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1o3rov7cB4"]YouTube - Su-37 presentation video[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0t_mPv6I4"]YouTube - Sukhoi SU-30 Flight Demonstration[/ame]
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000976.html
Beaten the F-15 time to clime records,
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Sukhoi Su-31.htm
4) Self-evident
5) F-22 low-bypass engines are the key to its high altitude super cruise capability. Low bypass engines require more use of reheat (afterburner) at lower maneuvering speed and/or altitudes. This is plainly evident, see:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUgPscDjf7U"]YouTube - F22 Langley 2007 Friday Evening Demo[/ame]
Also F-22 unusual 'speed-brake' control scheme may also reveal its true nature as an aircraft more akin to the Lockheed YF-12, than the plane it replaces, the F-15, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.
The Russians were forced to counter our superb F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Flanker appears to be able to that job (F-14 w/AIM-54 was a big maybe) very (very) well. Cope India was a nasty shock to air force brass. Yes the analysts tried to diminish the results, but they said the same thing about the cobra maneuver, (which the F-22 has been out copying). Now as we all know this maneuver was just a hint at Flankers jaw dropping agility – the analysts were wrong.
A astute observer may also notice things like published range for the F-16 and even the F-15 are always with drop tanks, the Mig-29 and Sukhoi are published without tanks.
The Mig-25 was designed to counter the North American Mach-3 XB-70, the B-58 Hustler and the B-52. There is some method to their madness. The Russians still have the Mig-1.44, Su-47 and a moving target called PAK-FA. Whether they build them or not is likely an issue of need rather than finances.
Mig-21 was designed to counter the high flying B-52. The Mig-31 was designed to counter the low flying FB-111 and B-1A.
The excellent range of Mig-31 and Flanker has to do with geography/history. Russia is the largest country on earth and it’s history has seen Genghis Khan to the Panzer Divisions.
All Flanker (and Mig-31) really need to do is scare off our AWACS, (Joint Stars) and tankers. Bottom line is the next war will likely start and end during the flight time of a KS-172.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L
The Flanker airframe has enormous growth potential typified by the Su-27M and Su-34. The Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) might just be….the most significant fighter aircraft since the Spitfire of WWII.
The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AMRAAM (AIM-120), and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyflash
One last comment. If Mr. Clancy's comments are correct: that a future opponent would need to indeed track every object down to say the size of an insect to 'see' the F-22 Raptor. Uh well, they'd just focus on "insect" sized object(s), flying in a straight line, line abreast of say about a mile separation, at high altitude, around 1.5+ Mach....
Those should be your F-22s.
The Russians appear to have thought through all these issues with the precision of a chess grand master.
Checkmate?
Note: China is in possession of large numbers of Flanker. Historically however the Chinese Air Force combat performance would best be described as abysmal.
- Olaf Brescia / Sacramento, CA
c) Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.
d) ...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.
e) Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.
Whether the F-22 (F-35) should enter service is largely academic. Our 'teen' airframes are wearing out.
The Gulf of Sidra incident, January 4, 1989; just about says all anyone needs to say on this subject matter. (Audio recording of engagement) Select download MP3 file
http://www.ka8vit.com/sd/shootdown.htm
The F-22 tactical use issues (never mind F-35, not even worth discussion) are:
1) Primary main weapon range / Newton’s second law of motion.
2) ECM detection of mid-course update transmission(s) for main weapon.
3) Thermal signature(s) platform & main weapon.
4) Daylight contrail(s) platform & main weapon.
5) Super-cruise only at high altitude.
Reason(s)
1) Despite claim(s) of an AIM-120D version, dimensions may be the issue. First, what is the amount of propellant possible in standard AIM-120 round? Second, FMRAAM (ramjet version) fitment inside F-22 weapons bay? The Europeans who were partnered on the AIM-120 program have since embarked on a more suitable weapon, the Meteor.
If the 'kinematics' augment is to be advanced by F-22 proponents as a key capability, to sweep the airspace of enemy fighters then there are several problems. They include: combined closure rate, maneuverability, airframe thermal heating due to air friction and hot exhaust exposure.
See:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html
Simplified Condition: Initial head-on frontal aspect intercept of Flanker (firing R-77M) by F-22 (firing AIM-120C). A flight of 4 to 6 Flankers flying at 500 knots, against flight of 4 Raptors flying in super cruise at 1500 knots. The combined closer rate of all aircraft would be 2000 knots (500 + 1500).
The 'kinematics' augment says that F-22 will use its faster speed to 'push' its AIM-120 missiles towards Flanker, If both opposing flights of aircraft fire their weapons, both attacker and defender missile range benefit from a head-on engagement via the closure rate. F-22 fires AIM-120C sooner but also effectively flies INTO Flankers R-77M (!) Missile range = launch aircraft speed + missile velocity + target speed. Raptor faces additional problems at higher speeds because of simple physics, Thermal airframe heating (IRST detection) and reduced maneuvering potential due to the limits of pilot G-loads. Flanker moving at 500 knots would have enormous advantage in defensive maneuvering (AIM-120 avoidance) and to turn and fire on exiting Raptor.
Whatever the remaining aircraft, they now flash past each other at approximate 2000 knots and initiate turns, Raptor now exposes it’s hot exhaust to Flanker as F-22 make a wide sweeping turn due to it 1500 knot speed/pilot G-limit. The engagement then starts all over again. Typically this involves into a classic tuning/maneuvering contest...the dogfight.
This whole this boils down to this. If F-22 press their attack, closure rates will be so high and air-air weapons malfunctions (missiles fly wide) such a regular occurrence (on both sides) that F-22 aircrews will be in a dogfight within moments after calling "fox-3" Against the advanced Flanker, this is truly a nightmare scenario.
R-77 See:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0261.shtml
2) Flanker will most certainly be equipped with a Threat Warning System that listens for Raptors AIM-120 mid-course update (data burst transmission) after F-22 weapon release. From here two (2) things could happen. First, the Threat Warning System triggers automatic release of expendables (chaff/flares). See page 41 'c'. Second, Flanker pilot then initiates a defensive 'beaming' or 'beam-turn' maneuver. See page 36-37 'c', page 97 ’d’.
3) IRST see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track
http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video
Flanker uses as primary system for gun firing solution. Development/advancement cycles for IRST systems would be orders of magnitude more frequent than F-22 airframes changes, combined with IR-versions of the R-77 (R-77M1) missile being the first problem. The second is Flanker radar (slaved to IRST). The IRST may see something and then point its main radar straight at F-22, (straight to ‘track’).
The canard equipped versions of the flanker is an astonishing aircraft.
Please see: (w/sound)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1o3rov7cB4"]YouTube - Su-37 presentation video[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0t_mPv6I4"]YouTube - Sukhoi SU-30 Flight Demonstration[/ame]
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000976.html
Beaten the F-15 time to clime records,
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
http://www.air-races.com/aircraft/Sukhoi Su-31.htm
4) Self-evident
5) F-22 low-bypass engines are the key to its high altitude super cruise capability. Low bypass engines require more use of reheat (afterburner) at lower maneuvering speed and/or altitudes. This is plainly evident, see:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUgPscDjf7U"]YouTube - F22 Langley 2007 Friday Evening Demo[/ame]
Also F-22 unusual 'speed-brake' control scheme may also reveal its true nature as an aircraft more akin to the Lockheed YF-12, than the plane it replaces, the F-15, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12
If Raptor is to be flown at high altitudes and high speed vs. Advanced Flanker a situation similar to what occurred in the early stages of the Falkland conflict could emerge. Argentine Mirages stayed at high altitudes while Royal Navy Harriers remained at medium altitudes (neither side content to give away his advantage) in what is best described as a series of 'non-engagements'.
The Russians were forced to counter our superb F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. The Flanker appears to be able to that job (F-14 w/AIM-54 was a big maybe) very (very) well. Cope India was a nasty shock to air force brass. Yes the analysts tried to diminish the results, but they said the same thing about the cobra maneuver, (which the F-22 has been out copying). Now as we all know this maneuver was just a hint at Flankers jaw dropping agility – the analysts were wrong.
A astute observer may also notice things like published range for the F-16 and even the F-15 are always with drop tanks, the Mig-29 and Sukhoi are published without tanks.
The Mig-25 was designed to counter the North American Mach-3 XB-70, the B-58 Hustler and the B-52. There is some method to their madness. The Russians still have the Mig-1.44, Su-47 and a moving target called PAK-FA. Whether they build them or not is likely an issue of need rather than finances.
Mig-21 was designed to counter the high flying B-52. The Mig-31 was designed to counter the low flying FB-111 and B-1A.
The excellent range of Mig-31 and Flanker has to do with geography/history. Russia is the largest country on earth and it’s history has seen Genghis Khan to the Panzer Divisions.
All Flanker (and Mig-31) really need to do is scare off our AWACS, (Joint Stars) and tankers. Bottom line is the next war will likely start and end during the flight time of a KS-172.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L
The Flanker airframe has enormous growth potential typified by the Su-27M and Su-34. The Advanced Flanker Series (canard/thrust vectoring) might just be….the most significant fighter aircraft since the Spitfire of WWII.
The Europeans tested the non-mid-course-update version of AMRAAM (AIM-120), and its kill probability dropped below that of their existing Skyflash weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyflash
One last comment. If Mr. Clancy's comments are correct: that a future opponent would need to indeed track every object down to say the size of an insect to 'see' the F-22 Raptor. Uh well, they'd just focus on "insect" sized object(s), flying in a straight line, line abreast of say about a mile separation, at high altitude, around 1.5+ Mach....
Those should be your F-22s.
The Russians appear to have thought through all these issues with the precision of a chess grand master.
Checkmate?
Note: China is in possession of large numbers of Flanker. Historically however the Chinese Air Force combat performance would best be described as abysmal.
- Olaf Brescia / Sacramento, CA
c) Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Combat- Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad; Osprey Publishing, 2004.
d) ...And Kill MiGs, Air to Air Combat From Vietnam to the Gulf War (3rd), Squadron/Signal Publications, Lou Drendel.
e) Air War South Atlantic - Ethell, Jeffrey L.; Price, Alfred - New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1983.
no it's just F-22 marketing
If the F-22 was a "force multiplier" (new marketing term) why did the USAF try to buy over 700 of them? There are no real differences, just more tech w/F-22 vs. Flanker. You can’t put afterburning engines in a stealth airplane without complicating other factors and like basic physics. I wrote that original big post & done alot more reading than listed.
ok how bout Iran?
Ok if some need a PC-Sim Game framework for your worldly views, fair enough.
Iran.
Assumptions:
1. Present in-the-news scenario on Iranian nuke program.
2. Massive bombardment by USAF/US-Navy planned after this year’s election, but before inauguration.
3. Russia furious about Missile Defense in Poland. France/Germany also against.
4. Direct foreign insolvent in hostilities, (not officially acknowledged); in Iranian markings/colors.
Iran would have Russian stationed personnel, SAM operators, and planes/pilots (like Korean War / Sinai Mig-25 flights / Iran-Iraq wars), clandestine support probable from France/Germany/Iraq. Russian flown Mig-25 flew in Egyptian markings over the Sinai Peninsula during early 70s.
Ok if some need a PC-Sim Game framework for your worldly views, fair enough.
Iran.
Assumptions:
1. Present in-the-news scenario on Iranian nuke program.
2. Massive bombardment by USAF/US-Navy planned after this year’s election, but before inauguration.
3. Russia furious about Missile Defense in Poland. France/Germany also against.
4. Direct foreign insolvent in hostilities, (not officially acknowledged); in Iranian markings/colors.
Iran would have Russian stationed personnel, SAM operators, and planes/pilots (like Korean War / Sinai Mig-25 flights / Iran-Iraq wars), clandestine support probable from France/Germany/Iraq. Russian flown Mig-25 flew in Egyptian markings over the Sinai Peninsula during early 70s.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The F-119 DOES in fact have a reheat function...
going real fast
yes my point is: enough thrust to cause thermal heating of the airframe due to air friction and all the other issues (more w/stealth) you have going real fast.
Are you referring to the burn time of the motor? Most missiles arrive unpowered so they are working with whatever they got out of those few seconds of burn time plus a little help from gravity at the end of a ballistic trajectory. Missiles only have so much useful energy from the burn time. Planes being powered assuming they know they are being shot at can exploit this. At least until about 2012...see my prev.
depending on the missile, it's the launch + 4-8 seconds that count. If the numbers aren't there, then it's success rate will drop accordingly.
missiles and planes have a common denominator in this issue - and no one has adequately articulated it yet (although you're close conceptually)
-DA
YES
The first 4-7 seconds are thrust - the rest of the flight including manouvre is based on energy.like jet fighter combat - energy is the key to engagement. if the engagement loop is too long, if the red platform has superior flight behaviour under power, if red team has better energy management, then any missile going terminal running on energy will be at risk.
all the fancy stats in the world don't change that simple but significant impediment.
it's an energy war in the end
Last edited:
I wonder how tactics will change once METEOR and equivalents start proliferating. Besides the obvious method of avoiding detection, I expect to see some very sophisticated countermeasures and anti-missile defenses making their way into tactical platforms otherwise the attrition is going to really get out of hand. Sustained thrust AAMs will also open up some very interesting hybrid seeker possibilities.YES
like jet fighter combat - energy is the key to engagement. if the engagement loop is too long, if the red platform has superior flight behaviour under power, if red team has better energy management, then any missile going terminal running on energy will be at risk.
al the fancy stats in the world don't change that simple bug significant impediment.
it's an energy war in the end
-DA
Standardized?
Does anyone know if there exists a standardized (industry standard) platform launch speed-altitude for published air-to-air missile range specs that is not classified? My understanding is that the max-range spec is understood to be for a head-on aspect approaching non-maneuvering target (at what speed/altitude?).
Does anyone know if there exists a standardized (industry standard) platform launch speed-altitude for published air-to-air missile range specs that is not classified? My understanding is that the max-range spec is understood to be for a head-on aspect approaching non-maneuvering target (at what speed/altitude?).
So we're looking at Russian Su-27SM aircraft over Iran? They're barely capable against F-15C's. And given 40 flight hours annually that Russian pilots get, it would be a turkey shoot. Old radars, barely updated avionics, worn out airframes, and poorly trained pilots would all make the situation you describe a disaster. Not to mention that the Su-27SM can hardly be considered an advanced flanker.