Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Both are likely classified info :( Especially the first one.

 

The R-74 will likely have a better seeker and more powerful motor, but we're talking incremental rather than radical update.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted

We've no information about R-33, but R-27R allow to re-lock the target if lock miss was short.

With Best Regards!

Daniel Tuseyev

Il-2: Battle of Stalingrad and Rise Of Flight projects manager

Posted
Both are likely classified info :( Especially the first one.

 

The R-74 will likely have a better seeker and more powerful motor, but we're talking incremental rather than radical update.

 

. . . . Haven't they already built an upgraded R73, with better seeker and more powerful motor?

 

R73M?

 

 

Don't know if the Russkies have gone onto IIR seekers for their A2A weaponry yet - that's the big difference with the ASRAAM and AIM9X.

Maneuvrability you can only take so far - thrust vectoring, new aero package, yadda yadda yadda . . . . the new seekers allow longer lock distances, NCTR from an IR-guided weapon, and much better countermeasure-rejection capability. All good stuff.

 

Bigger boost motor is also handy - apparently that caused a few headaches when designing the AIM9X. Having your new missile based on an airframe designed fifty years ago is a minor drawback . . . respect to the Merrikans for having done it.

Posted

... NCTR with a missile? Not likely unless you know osmething about image recognition technology that I don't ... of course maybe I'm imagining too complex a situation.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted
... NCTR with a missile? Not likely unless you know osmething about image recognition technology that I don't ... of course maybe I'm imagining too complex a situation.

 

I'm pretty confident I've read that with Modern Technology , you can use the image generated by the IIR seeker to indentify the target.

 

No, I don't know exactly how it works . . . . but I'm sure I've read it somwhere.

 

 

(BGP leaves on ten-year quest to find where he's read it . . . . )

Posted
(BGP leaves on ten-year quest to find where he's read it . . . . )

 

( . . . . And returns, marvelling at Google . . . . )

 

This implies that you can do it . . . . need more research to work out how:

 

 

 

"The IR sensor usually operates in wavelength bands. Historically, the approach has

evolved from a single-band (such as 8 to 12 microns), single-pixel detection process to a dual-band

(e.g., 8-12 and 1-3 microns), single-pixel detection process, through single-and dual-band,

imaging detection and recognition processes. If the IR's function is simply as an aid in detection to

reduce false alarm rates, a simple, single-pixel detector may be implemented. If, on the other hand,

the IR sensor is required to play a major role in the more sophisticated NCTR functions of the

munition, then an imaging IR seeker must be implemented."

 

Copyright 1990 Horizon House Publications Inc.

Journal of Electronic Defense

 

July, 1990

 

http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/autonomous-weapons/articles/target-recognition.txt

Posted

I think it only implies that this technology would enable such recognition, but from what I've seen of the technology itself, we may simply be speaking about counter-measure rejection capability based on image rather than actual recognition of the aircraft type base on the image ... I could be wrong, technically speaking the image provided will be relatively free of clutter and silhouetting might produce an adequate match. I reccomend looking at face recognition technology though if youw ant to see how bad the recognition rate is, and when we say 'face recognition' we're talking about detecting a face, not recognizing a specific person's face.

 

But there are ways to simplify the problem sometimes and perhaps these guys have come up with something.

 

Hm, I just read the NCTR part of that article. Pretty much describes what I thought was happening ... I'm not sure how the missile would help here, since the IIR seeker couldn't really ID the aircraft from very far, so the Mk1 eyeball still wins (I have a video taken throuhgh an AIM-9X's 'eye' ... the resolution of that weapon isn't exactly the best, and it doesn't appear to have any telescoping capability)

 

Of course if it's employed so that it veers off any friendly targets if it realizes it's homing in on one, that's always good, too. Right now, IMHO, and only IMHO, 'cause obviously I don't really know, there's no IIR missile that can, on its own, perform NCTR, and I've not heard of any onboard software for any aircraft that could use the missile's seeker to do the same.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted

To Han

It wasn’t me who created English version of the topic but when a saw it existed I just decided to express my reasoned opinion for the people know why have I started this discussion (Ufff, what an ugly construction…).

Agitation is not my way. I do not work on TV :)

Posted

I understand. You got your reason across clearly.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted
Both are likely classified info :( Especially the first one.

 

The R-74 will likely have a better seeker and more powerful motor, but we're talking incremental rather than radical update.

 

. . . . Haven't they already built an upgraded R73, with better seeker and more powerful motor?

 

R73M?

 

 

Don't know if the Russkies have gone onto IIR seekers for their A2A weaponry yet - that's the big difference with the ASRAAM and AIM9X.

Maneuvrability you can only take so far - thrust vectoring, new aero package, yadda yadda yadda . . . . the new seekers allow longer lock distances, NCTR from an IR-guided weapon, and much better countermeasure-rejection capability. All good stuff.

 

Bigger boost motor is also handy - apparently that caused a few headaches when designing the AIM9X. Having your new missile based on an airframe designed fifty years ago is a minor drawback . . . respect to the Merrikans for having done it.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. :oops: I was actually refering to the R-90? a thrust vectoring short range missile that will enter testing soon.

Thank you for the help, this is what I know (from memory, based off of a Portuguese website. I don't speak Portugueses Btw.):

 

There have been various mid-life upgrades on the production run (very minor) and there are two detonator types from different factories.

The R-74 is the export version and differs slightly from the others.

 

There is also a rear-ward firing version for self-defense. It uses an extra small solid fuel booster to bring it to a halt and then the main engine cuts in.

Its range is limited due to the fact that its main engine starts while the missile has no forward velocity, but since the enemy is closing it is like a head on shot. Maximum range in such a situation is 10-12kms.

Easily forcing an enemy to break off attack at a minimum.

It produces a big plume of smoke.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...