I hate to put another comparison to the on going rivalry between east and west equipment, but here we go. I heard so much about the AMRAAM during the Gulf war and balkan conflict, but i heard less about the R-77, which is said to be comparable to AMRAAM. I would like to know if anyone has the record of their use and how they perform in those record. TQ
AMRAAM and R-77 performance review
- Thread starter Awang se
- Start date
AMRAAM's delta control surfaces are less efficient than the R-77's "lattice" controls. This results in bleeding a bit more energy in manouvres. Its a dated design.
The R-77's fuselage/body strakes enhance body lift with a reduced "cost" in parasite drag.
Russian missiles are exceptional, design enhancements such as:
body strakes
lattice controls
inverse canards
simple but effective thrust vectoring
To date, in combat sequences, the AMRAAM has had 100% kill rate
The Russians offered to develop and share data on a longer range R-77 if Australia purchased SU-35's.
The Russians have alsways been excellent missile designers.
The US are making generational leaps, but its a bit hard to say how they compare against current Russian designs.
The all aspect sidewinder 9x is rumoured to be a far superior short range hitter though.
The R-77's fuselage/body strakes enhance body lift with a reduced "cost" in parasite drag.
Russian missiles are exceptional, design enhancements such as:
body strakes
lattice controls
inverse canards
simple but effective thrust vectoring
To date, in combat sequences, the AMRAAM has had 100% kill rate
The Russians offered to develop and share data on a longer range R-77 if Australia purchased SU-35's.
The Russians have alsways been excellent missile designers.
The US are making generational leaps, but its a bit hard to say how they compare against current Russian designs.
The all aspect sidewinder 9x is rumoured to be a far superior short range hitter though.
There is a new version of AMRAAM that is a surface to air version of the package.
Its been called CLAWS (Complementary Low Altitude Weapon System)
The principle purpose is to provide a rapidly deployable, high fire power, all-weather, stand-off air defense system capable of defeating threat aircraft and UAV's beyond the range of currently fielded MANPADS.
Its mounted on a HUMVEE with an intergrated quintuple AMRAAM launcher.
Am not sure whether there has been any change to existing thrusters.
Its been called CLAWS (Complementary Low Altitude Weapon System)
The principle purpose is to provide a rapidly deployable, high fire power, all-weather, stand-off air defense system capable of defeating threat aircraft and UAV's beyond the range of currently fielded MANPADS.
Its mounted on a HUMVEE with an intergrated quintuple AMRAAM launcher.
Am not sure whether there has been any change to existing thrusters.
Londo Molari
New Member
thats basically a jeep that has 4-8 AMRAAMS in a launcher behind it. Its basically a low-cost, medium range, mobile SAM site.
But theres also another version of the AMRAAM in development, that has ramjet propulsion. It will increase its range by a factor of atleast 1.5.
The R-77 already has a Ramjet version.
But theres also another version of the AMRAAM in development, that has ramjet propulsion. It will increase its range by a factor of atleast 1.5.
The R-77 already has a Ramjet version.
The Ramjet is not an AMRRAM. It is not an interation of the Sparrow.
The CLAWS is mounted on a HUMVEE for POC evaluation. Its irrelevant what hardware/vehicle its on. The issue is that you have one of the most effective AAM's now a mobile SAM.
That requires a little more technology that just welding it to an overgrown weapons ring.
It not just a 21st century version of the Chaparal etc...
eg, the system has to:
Integrate with the Expeditionary Air Defense System (EADS)
Integrate with a Remote Terminal Unit (RTU)
Integrate with ground based data links
work in with a separate fire control system that acts in isolation of SEAD
data acquisition, weapons launch; integrate with cues from all available Marine Air Command and Control System (MACCS) sensors e.g. CWAR, AN/TPS-59, CEC/JCTN.
That is a little more involved that reacting from an onboard FCS system in a jet fighter...
The CLAWS is mounted on a HUMVEE for POC evaluation. Its irrelevant what hardware/vehicle its on. The issue is that you have one of the most effective AAM's now a mobile SAM.
That requires a little more technology that just welding it to an overgrown weapons ring.
It not just a 21st century version of the Chaparal etc...
eg, the system has to:
Integrate with the Expeditionary Air Defense System (EADS)
Integrate with a Remote Terminal Unit (RTU)
Integrate with ground based data links
work in with a separate fire control system that acts in isolation of SEAD
data acquisition, weapons launch; integrate with cues from all available Marine Air Command and Control System (MACCS) sensors e.g. CWAR, AN/TPS-59, CEC/JCTN.
That is a little more involved that reacting from an onboard FCS system in a jet fighter...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It's funny that everytime Russia releases a new piece of equipment it's superior to anything made anywhere else. It's always faster, long ranged, more accurate, higher tech and amazingly also much much cheaper and yet just about every time Russian versus Western Equipment comes into combat the Western equipment the Russian equipment comes off second best. Something doesn't quite add up here. If the Russian equipment is so good why does it fail so regularly? And how can they consistently outdesign Western Countries when their research and development budgets are so poor? Are their designers so much more brilliant then anyone elses, or just their marketers?
I've worked on some electronic warfare projects. Russian missiles are held in high regard. Their AAM's, SAM's, MANPADs and Theatre weapons are well regarded. Their aircraft on the other hand, although good in design are somewhat of dubious build quality. The Indians are discovering this with the Su-2x, Su-3x series. The germans noted it when they took over the old East German assets. The americans purchased 21 Mig 29's some time ago and found similar probs.Aussie Digger said:
In a recent blue-orange eval between USAF F-15's and Luftwaffe Mig 29's the US commander commented that the Migs could be bested, but that the quality of the German pilots meant that there was no guarantee - they gave them a run for their money. Indian Pilots are good, they have strong focussed training, very similar to the Brit methods.
The "give" is that in combat, in a full on war, that there would be significant probs with attrition with russian/chinese equipment. It gets back to their battle doctrine of believing that overwhelming numbers would carry the battle, so equipment was expendable, didn't have to last etc...
The Gulf War(s) changed all of that "Cold War" thinking. Hence the dramatic shift by China to re-evaluate battle doctrine, and remix their force structure.
I've also seen some Chinese technology up close, they suffer from significant build quality issues. eg their cabling is absolutely bloody awful. It is no way competitive against a US Milspec, or the Euro internal specs. They have a way to go.
Most western military people I deal with have a healthy respect for Russian technology such as missiles and 4th gen aircraft.
As I said in another topic, russian aircraft and missiles using Israeli technology are a devestating combination - They become the capability that the russians intended to make but couldn't. Hence the closer liason between Israel and India, China and India, France and some former Warsaw pact nations.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
Actually, the RMAF pilots find out that their R-27 that they use onboard their Migs are inferior compare to the Sparrow that they use in their F/A-18D. A few years back in the FPDA (Five Powers Defence Arrangements) exercise, the RMAF Migs give the RAAF F/A-18A pilots an unpleasant surprise when the Migs were able to "defeat" The RAAF "Bugs" in the simulated combat. personally, i think the battle is not in equal term since the Bugs only use Sparrow while the Migs got the RVV-AE. I think it is because of this that the RAAF decide to acquire some AMRAAM and the JHMMCS capability for their bugs, since the Migs already has this capability.
You're right about why we went to AMRAAMs.. It's a good thing we're allies..Awang se said:
Yes, I hope that both of our countries politicians can stop their arguing and get back to being better friends.Awang se said:
Skyflash and Meteorshamayel said:
Er ! isnt the Skyflash SARH.Also u forgot the SD10.I wonder how it would compare with the AIM120 & the A-A12.Upon taking a closer look one can see that the SD-10 shares design features with both western and eastern missiles(the tail control surfaces seem to be inpired by those of the Alamo).Also there was an active radar homing variant of the A-A 10 but I doubt if it ever entered production. :?
There are some russian design elements now entering western missile designs, eg lattice fins.umair said:
The difference between missile "build" capability seems to be rapidly diminishing.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
I think the problems not lies on the missiles, but on the aircraft. The russian do make their missile good but they don't share the the same attitude toward their aircraft. i think The problem is, the West have a better avionics and thus, better ECM capabilities. this ECM reduce the effectiveness of even the best of missile. The russian aircraft have a poor ECM capabilities and this make them vulnerable to the inferior western missile. at least that what i think.Aussie Digger said:
There are two issues to use use a missile:Awang se said:
Rail or hardpoint mount - physically not an impossibility assuming that the fram can load bear the missile without compromising structural integrity and flight characteristics of the launch platform.
Software - software needed to interface the missile to the fire control system, radar system etc...
fundamentally, get those two right and you have a functioning unit.
IIRC the russians were prepared to port the "Alammo" to work with other Australian aircraft if we decided to get the SU-3xx series to replace the Hornets.