AMRAAM and R-77 performance review

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Totoro]

I don't believe stated Pk values are relevant, as there are many variables in the play which can change things a lot. For example, while it may be that a r-27 has greater precision and, coupled with its larger warhead, might be more lethal than a r-77, the carrying aircraft has to be illuminating the target all the time, until impact. In real war conditions that may not be so easy and may put the aircraft in great danger. So in actual combat r-77 might prove to be more useful.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I was looking at this 2 reports by Janes, one in 2000 and the other more recent and I thought I should post some of my thoughts on this subject based on this 2 reports.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw000904_5_n.shtml

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw3025.html

From this 2 articles, it appears to suggest that the R-77 remains the same basic design at least for the export markets to date. Sinodefence write-up on the R-77 suggest at least that seeker range has been extended to 25km.

This is confirmed in Rosboronexport's arms catalog which features the basic RVV-AE for sale (launch-range 50km vs fighters and 80km vs bombers).
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/airf0rces_cataloque.html
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_118-121.pdf

Its rather illuminating when Rosboronexport cites the export R-27 as having a better pk than the R-77. No wonder the R-27 remains the main A2A missile for the Su-30 and Mig-29s (judging by the R-27 sales from Ukraine).

Looking at the seeker capabilities for the R-27, its ~20-40km for a 5m2 RCS unit. That's not going to work for any stealth aircraft such as the F-35 or F-22.
http://www.rusarm.ru/cataloque/air_craft/aircraft_107-110.pdf

In comparison, as one reviews the development of the AIM-120, it is clear that the Americans have poured significant resources to improving the missile. Mass production has reached the C-7 version. Development is mid-way to the D version.

Based on current unofficial web-sourced estimates, the C-5 version should already out-distance the R-77. At Mach 4, the C-5 also out-runs the R-77. Not to mention that current Aim-120 versions has several ECCM features as well as a very sensitive seeker.

I had suspicions of such, as there has been little reported in the way of R-77 upgrades over the last 10 years, and the lack of interest from the VVS says a fair bit about the current capabilities of the missile IMO. Its also not surprising that the R-27 is still the main BVR missile of the VVS and Russian export customers, its a lethal SARH missile and in every way a contemporary to the AIM-7M. In the Long burn variant outranges the AIM-120C5, the only issue is you have to support the missile throughout all of its flightpath, and single target capability. It provides the VVS with a significant BVR capability, and in many ways a well developed and capable SARH missile is more useful than a rather immature ARH AAM.

Remember the R77 is a bigger missile than the AIM-120 and the fact that the latter outperforms it in terms of Kinematics and range is significant. the biggest difference (and biggest improvement in the AMRAAM series) is seeker/guidence/datalink performance. ECCM has moved in leaps and bounds since the mid 90's and the fact that more advanced versions of the R-77 indicates that it will be a fair way behind the AIM-120D when it reaches IOC. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether the R-77M eventuates and if it does what capabilities it provides beyond a ramjet engine.

 

[Surfinbird]

The R-77 is very vulnerable to countermeasures by the ALE-55. The R-27 being SARH should be less vulnerable to terminal seduction though when analysed by the west after the fall of the Cold War was shown to be not as effective as once thought. Either way the best hope for a user of Russian fighters is to get close with the R-73. No good against the F-35 but at least gives them a ‘chance’ against current aircraft though perhaps not their pilots with the huge differential in flight time and tactics between first world western nations and the potential threats.

 

[Feanor]

Well for one, we have to distinguish between high-readyness formations with over 100 annual flight hours, and second rate formations with well under 40. Second off, I do believe that most Russian fighters have a decent 'chance' as you put it. Not all current fighters are carrying advanced BVR missiles. Not to mention that unless we're talking about the FSU, Russia would be on the defensive and thus benefit extensively from friendly GBAD, and AEW.

 

[weasel1962]

Re

Deleted

 

[Surfinbird]

If the Iraqis can down an F-18 with a AA-6, anything is possible.

In 1991. It ain't the 90s no more no matter how much I keep listening to Ace of Base! Plus it was a tail chase with a MiG-25 behind a F/A-18C suffering from a fundamental breakdown of the US situational awareness system. Context is everything my good man, everything.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Surfinbird]

Ahh you presume too much. It was the breakdown in SA that lead to the MiG-25 getting in such a superior position on the Hornet. I never said it can’t happen, of course it can. But it’s not something that happens every day!

Let me spell out the engagement scenario to you: a fighter jet that can only make Mach 1.8 tops with another than can cruise at Mach 2.5 coming up in very close behind it with even a 1960s SARH missile is pretty much a set piece. There is not much an aircraft without a turd and with the limited 1980s tactical fighter EWSP can do. Even if you could spring that situation on a contemporary Super Hornet it would have the turd and EWSP so would have a chance of jamming the attack.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chrom]

I had suspicions of such, as there has been little reported in the way of R-77 upgrades over the last 10 years, and the lack of interest from the VVS says a fair bit about the current capabilities of the missile IMO.

Russian MoD shown amazing lack of of interest to most of new weapons. However, this doesnt says anything about capabilities, but rather about lack of funds and corruption.

Its also not surprising that the R-27 is still the main BVR missile of the VVS and Russian export customers, its a lethal SARH missile and in every way a contemporary to the AIM-7M.

It is not surprising, but not because SARH, PK or ECCM capabilities. The reason is much more simpler - only few aircrafts in VVS capable to launch R-77, and even these which can appeared only in last 2-3 years.

In the Long burn variant outranges the AIM-120C5, the only issue is you have to support the missile throughout all of its flightpath, and single target capability. It provides the VVS with a significant BVR capability, and in many ways a well developed and capable SARH missile is more useful than a rather immature ARH AAM.

New PESA radars can guide several SARH missiles at once.

Remember the R77 is a bigger missile than the AIM-120 and the fact that the latter outperforms it in terms of Kinematics and range is significant. the biggest difference (and biggest improvement in the AMRAAM series) is seeker/guidence/datalink performance. ECCM has moved in leaps and bounds since the mid 90's and the fact that more advanced versions of the R-77 indicates that it will be a fair way behind the AIM-120D when it reaches IOC. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether the R-77M eventuates and if it does what capabilities it provides beyond a ramjet engine.

Who knows... later 80x radar technology still wasnt battle-tested against any ECM.

 

[Feanor]

I disagree. Some equipment is being produced in a serial production run quite successfully, if in albeit rather modest numbers. There is definetly someone interested in re-arming the Russian Army. I think your second point, in regards to there being few platforms capable of using it, is closer to the mark.

 

[tphuang]

new PESA radar maybe able to guide several SARH missiles at the same time, but you still have to keep it locked-onto the fighter the entire time. Which is something that you don't have to worry about for too long if you fire an ARH missile from 30 km out.

 

[Surfinbird]

Dude, the advantage of using an electrically scanned radar to illuminate a SARH missile is in the terminal phase. Anyone building a SARH guidance system these days should be using interrupted continuous wave (ICW) technology so the seeker does not need launch to hit illumination. This enables the illuminator to time manage, sharing targets, or be obstructed and be silent for a time.

In the terminal phase PESA/AESA actually gives your SARH a chance against a manoeuvring target. Unless the designating aircraft is carrying a giant illuminator, like the AEGIS Mk 99, then there is no way a mechanical gimballed illuminator at 100 NM is going to keep a 7G manoeuvre fighter within its beam.

This kind of AESA/ICW illumination was the basis of the GD/Westinghouse proposal for the Phoenix replacement in the late 1980s. It had a pod with a forward and aft looking illumination radar for aircraft without an AESA build in and a 400 lb missile with a range of around 200 NM. The advantage of terminal illumination is you’re not trusting the active homing missile seeker’s head to decide whether it’s about to hit the fighter or a decoy.

Of course with the right computer grunt and radar like the Super Hornet Block II with AESA, F-22 and F-35 you can achieve something similar to this with an AMRAAM by communicating to the missile about which target is the fighter or its decoy while the missile is in its terminal phase.