Russian missiles - usage, bug, problems, advantages

[Weta43]

"When the system is under direct GCI control via datalink, a 6 bar elevation raster scan is used. This scan covers a sector of 40° in azimuth at ranges up to 30km, 30° at ranges of 30-55 km, and 20° above 55km within the scan limits given above. The distance to target and other useful information is supplied by GCI command, and the direction of the scan is automatically cued by CGI command towards the desired target. "

Doesn't that actually mean that the GCI points ("cues") the radar on the aircraft in the correct direction & selects the target, but it's still the MiG-29's radar that illuminates and guides the SARH missile.

 

I've never read that as "the SARH missile can be directed using a CGI radar source"

 

edit :

As you can see in the illustration, the intercepting aircraft's radar is being directed by GCI, but it's still the intercepting aircraft that has the target locked:

Also - That's the MiG-29 that's being discussed in that part of the guide, not the Su-27.

The Su-27's radar / HUD / HDD are not exactly the same (as you'll have seen in the thread about the MiG's HDD).

Edited October 30, 2015 by Weta43

[Alfa]

Doesn't that actually mean that the GCI points ("cues") the radar on the aircraft in the correct direction & selects the target, but it's still the MiG-29's radar that illuminates and guides the SARH missile.

 

Yes thats what it means :)

[Weta43]

Thanks :)

It wasn't really that sort of question though (just an oblique turn of phrase ;-)

[JunMcKill]

I still think the R-77 in DCS is underrated and lose speed too quick while in supersonic and subsonic.

 

Weight 175 kg (R-77), 190 kg (R-77-1)

Length 3.6 m (R-77), 3.71 m (R-77-1)

Diameter 200 mm

Warhead 22.5 kg HE fragmenting (R-77)

Detonation

mechanism

laser proximity fuze

Engine Solid fuel rocket motor (R-77), air-breathing ramjet (R-77-PD)

Wingspan 350 mm

Operational

range

80 km (R-77), 110 km (R-77-1)[1] >200km (K-77M)

Flight altitude 5–25 km (16,000–82,000 ft)

Guidance

system

Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing

 

Design characteristics

 

Conventional planar control fins are shaped like miniature wings. By contrast, grid fins are a lattice of smaller aerodynamic surfaces arranged within a box. Their appearance has sometimes led them to be compared to potato mashers or waffle irons.

 

Grid fins can be folded, pitched forward (or backwards), against the cylindrical body of a missile more directly and compactly than planar fins, allowing for more compact storage of the weapon; this is of importance where weapons are launched from a tube or for craft which store weapons in internal bays, such as stealth aircraft. Generally, the grid fins pitch forward/backward away from the body shortly after the missile has cleared the firing craft. In the case of the MOAB, grid fins allow the weapon to fit inside a C-130 cargo bay for deployment while the craft is in flight.[citation needed]

 

Grid fins have a much shorter chord (the distance between leading and trailing edge of the surface) than planar fins, as they are effectively a group of short fins mounted parallel to one another. Their reduced chord reduces the amount of torque exerted on the steering mechanism by high-speed airflow, allowing for the use of smaller fin actuators, and a smaller tail assembly overall.

 

Grid fins perform very well at subsonic and supersonic speeds, but poorly at transonic speeds; the flow causes a normal shockwave to form within the lattice, causing much of the airflow to pass completely around the fin instead of through it and generating significant wave drag. At high Mach numbers, grid fins flow fully supersonic and can provide lower drag and greater maneuverability than planar fins.

[Cik]

Doesn't that actually mean that the GCI points ("cues") the radar on the aircraft in the correct direction & selects the target, but it's still the MiG-29's radar that illuminates and guides the SARH missile.

 

I've never read that as "the SARH missile can be directed using a CGI radar source"

 

edit :

As you can see in the illustration, the intercepting aircraft's radar is being directed by GCI, but it's still the intercepting aircraft that has the target locked:

Also - That's the MiG-29 that's being discussed in that part of the guide, not the Su-27.

The Su-27's radar / HUD / HDD are not exactly the same (as you'll have seen in the thread about the MiG's HDD).

 

this is still a huge advantage though, because it allows a very large ambush advantage.

 

the snap-on and launch within RTR is theoretically very threatening.

 

it allows SARH to be moderately "stealthy" (though in most cases still less than ARH) because the aircraft can maneuver into a good shooting position without revealing it's existence.

[GGTharos]

I still think the R-77 in DCS is underrated and lose speed too quick while in supersonic and subsonic.

 

Maybe, but it's got short legs anyway according to RL reports. It's rocket motor is not as powerful as some of us through. Drag may still be too much, but it's going to be a draggier missile than even AIM-7 due to strakes and width. But maybe not much draggier :)

[Esac_mirmidon]

R-77 is now obsolete. The replacing models are right now seeing the light. RVV-SD and upgrades of this.

[ShuRugal]

Maybe, but it's got short legs anyway according to RL reports. It's rocket motor is not as powerful as some of us through. Drag may still be too much, but it's going to be a draggier missile than even AIM-7 due to strakes and width. But maybe not much draggier :)

 

Shouldn't the R-77 have a lower drag coefficient when outside of the transsonic region? I thought that was the point of the grid-fin? Of course, in transsonic, those things turn into great big saucepans due to wave-drag blocking up the grids...

[GGTharos]

The fins may have a lower drag coefficient under certain circumstances compared to planar fins, but not necessarily the entire missile. As the most basic measure you still have the diameter of the missile to contend with.

 

Shouldn't the R-77 have a lower drag coefficient when outside of the transsonic region? I thought that was the point of the grid-fin? Of course, in transsonic, those things turn into great big saucepans due to wave-drag blocking up the grids...

[ShuRugal]

The fins may have a lower drag coefficient under certain circumstances compared to planar fins, but not necessarily the entire missile. As the most basic measure you still have the diameter of the missile to contend with.

 

according to a quick Google, the AIM-7 and the R-77 both have a 200mm diameter.

[GGTharos]

My bad then :)

 

In that case, I don't really know. The AIM-7 has a lot of fin, but the 77 has a lot of strake.

 

IMHO the important thing for the R-77 grid fins is that you need less torque to turn, so you can use smaller motors.

[ShuRugal]

IMHO the important thing for the R-77 grid fins is that you need less torque to turn, so you can use smaller motors.

 

that makes sense.

[Nerd1000]

My bad then :)

 

In that case, I don't really know. The AIM-7 has a lot of fin, but the 77 has a lot of strake.

 

IMHO the important thing for the R-77 grid fins is that you need less torque to turn, so you can use smaller motors.

 

The strake should be better on the wave drag front (less drastic changes in cross-sectional area compared to a triangular fin). The main trade-off is higher induced drag at subsonic speeds, but that's sort of irrelevant for an A2A missile anyway.

[JunMcKill]

What I dont get it is, if the R-77 is so bad missile, why the newest Russian flighter have it in Syria? look at 00:54, in the second video in 00:38

 

riWPvlILTJA

 

gpVEWipSx5k

 

:)

Edited April 28, 2016 by JunMcKill

[aleman_mza]

Russian are stupid I think, they should play DCS and learn more. :lol:

[aleman_mza]

What I dont get it is, if the R-77 is so bad missile, why the newest Russian flighter have it in Syria? look at 00:54

 

 

:)

 

 

Russian are stupid I think, they should play DCS and learn more. :lol:

[Esac_mirmidon]

You are really judging a real RVV-SD missile perfomance with how the R-77 works in DCS?

 

Really?

 

And the SD has nothing to do with the old R-77

Edited April 28, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[GGTharos]

R-77 or RVV-SD? Can you tell the difference?

 

If the R-77 is such a great missile, why wasn't it deployed 20 years ago when it came to be? :)

 

What I dont get it is, if the R-77 is so bad missile, why the newest Russian flighter have it in Syria? look at 00:54, in the second video in 00:38

[JunMcKill]

You are really judging a real RVV-AE missile perfomance with how the R-77 works in DCS?

 

Really?

 

I'm judging the R-77 perfomance in DCS indeed! slow speed too quick while in supersonic and transonic.

[JunMcKill]

R-77 or RVV-SD? Can you tell the difference?

 

If the R-77 is such a great missile, why wasn't it deployed 20 years ago when it came to be? :)

 

Maybe is more Expensive? or the russian have a lot of R-27ER in stock with no use? lot of answers! What I can tell you is that russian are not stupid to take their best aircraft with a bad missile in a war zone

Edited April 28, 2016 by JunMcKill

[pepin1234]

My bad then :)

 

In that case, I don't really know. The AIM-7 has a lot of fin, but the 77 has a lot of strake.

 

IMHO the important thing for the R-77 grid fins is that you need less torque to turn, so you can use smaller motors.

 

 

After see you were like 10 years misinforming this forum saying that R-77 is not in Russian inventory and the pilots never have use it in training. Also this forum is plenty of your post saying the R-77 was build only few of them. You tried to convince this community about the Mig-29S don't carry the R-77. Let's not mention what you say about R-27...

 

After this you gonne keep saying all your "trustworthy" history?

[Esac_mirmidon]

You know the difference between them.

[JunMcKill]

You know the difference between them.

 

There is not too much technical doc online about the RVV-AE, Wikipedia says a range of 80km for the standard R-77, it means about 50km of effective range

 

FAS.ORG says 50km range

 

The designer says this:

 

Performance: Launch range, km:

 

max, in front hemisphere 80

min, in rear hemisphere 0,3

Target engagement altitude, km 0,02-25

Warhead weight, kg 22,5

Launch weight, kg 175

Missile dimensions, m:

 

length 3,6

body diameter 0,2

wing span 0,4

control plane span (in-flight position) 0,7

 

Ground-based Missile's performance:

Engagement zone, km:

 

range 1,2...12

altitude 0,02...9

course parameter 8

[Esac_mirmidon]

I'm talking about the old R-77and the relative new RVV-SD.

[JunMcKill]

I'm talking about the old R-77and the relative new RVV-SD.

The information I posted is the old one, the new RVV-SD is this one:

 

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

 

Performance:

Launch range, km:

 

maximum to the front semi-sphere up to 110

minimum to the rear semi-sphere 0,3

Flight altitudes of the targets being hit, km: 0,02 to 25

Launch weight, kg. max. 190

Overall dimensions, m:

 

length 3,71

diameter 0,2

wing span 0,42

rudder span 0,68

 

Based in Russian Aviation, the one deployed in Syria is the old one (80km range), and already tested, if you can see, can intercept any target flying up to 3,600 km/h, it means that the R-77 can reach a speed of Match 4:

 

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2016/2/8/4963/

 

But in the second article is a mistake, they described the R-27ET with the data of the R-27ER, LOL!

Edited April 28, 2016 by JunMcKill