So what's the real performance of R-73

[nscode]

Some debate was started in another thread about the R-73's flare resistance and seeker quality.

 

Don't know about resistance, but I'll tell you that the standard field test for the seeker is to see if it will track a cigarette at 300m :)

Yes, that doesn't tell us anything useful either. But it's so damn cool :)

[159th_Viper]

....I'll tell you that the standard field test for the seeker is to see if it will track a cigarette at 300m :)....

 

 

Sending a R-73 up the Tail-Pipe of an unsuspecting, Dozy Sentry on Guard Duty negligently Lighting up a Fag in the Witching Hour..............

 

 

Priceless :D

[GGTharos]

I think it performs good :D

[mvsgas]

Some debate was started in another thread about the R-73's flare resistance and seeker quality.

 

Don't know about resistance, but I'll tell you that the standard field test for the seeker is to see if it will track a cigarette at 300m :)

Yes, that doesn't tell us anything useful either. But it's so damn cool :)

:huh::blink:I don't want to sound gullible but, I guess I am. Is that really how they test the seeker on a R-73?

[Pilotasso]

R-73 has not TVC modeled ingame. I also not so sure if its so fast IRL either. Thats why it overshoots targets more often than it should.

[RvETito]

For those that can't quit smoking- there's an effective way to deal with it. Fox 2! :D

[GGTharos]

The overshoot is a seeker modeling issue in LO (guidance model), the lack of TVC prevents it from having an expanded short-range attack envelope. Keep in mind that the missile itself should not necessarily be able to keep up with high-g out-of-plane jink/ortho roll. But the important thing here is that it has to be out of plane.

Under 'normal' circumstances where drastic TVC maneuvering is not necessary I could see it going far, but when a hard TVC turn is made initially into the target, you've just burned a second's worth of fuel on that turn, and that's the amount of fuel that you will NOT be using to accelerate the missile.

[S77th-konkussion]

Some debate was started in another thread about the R-73's flare resistance and seeker quality.

 

Don't know about resistance, but I'll tell you that the standard field test for the seeker is to see if it will track a cigarette at 300m :)

Yes, that doesn't tell us anything useful either. But it's so damn cool :)

 

 

And- in an Siberian blizzard- it might find it. :D

[S77th-GOYA]

Speaking of the other thread, why is it closed?

[RvEYoda]

Well one bulgarian mig29 pilot I talked to told me that during

a weapons test, his archer was able to aquire and lock onto a

"flare-type target" as soon as he got within about 35 km. Of course, I don't know

how much range that would mean vs a normal fighter target. 35 km with an

older export version archer probably means that RL ET can be quite deadly head on ;).

[GGTharos]

Must have a been a very, very nice, clear day ... now just imagine what -else- that missile could lock onto ...

[Pilotasso]

Well one bulgarian mig29 pilot I talked to told me that during

a weapons test, his archer was able to aquire and lock onto a

"flare-type target" as soon as he got within about 35 km. Of course, I don't know

how much range that would mean vs a normal fighter target. 35 km with an

older export version archer probably means that RL ET can be quite deadly head on ;).

 

You dont know wich seeker the ET has.

 

Further more you dont fly with afterburner aiming forward. ;)

[GGTharos]

I believe the typical head-on heater range has been traditionally fairly short, save for very clear, dry days at high altitude perhaps ;)

[RvEYoda]

I believe the typical head-on heater range has been traditionally fairly short, save for very clear, dry days at high altitude perhaps ;)

 

Probably,

 

I have a dutch friend who studies aerospace engineering and sometimes

get's to play with some military stuff. (Oh thats right, he says "I don't play with

military stuff, i test them!" on vent)

 

Once they mounted some new EOS-like system on their "faculty cessna"

(bastards) and easily tracked an F-16 head on from 10 nm, the F-16

was apparently barely military(no burners). (sry for writing 35 km earlier in THIS post,

got my numbers messed up, checked again with my source. The 35 km is correct for the other post.)

 

This is a pretty big piece of equipment, but as we see this was not a very classified

piece of hardware afaik. I'm pretty sure you could probably get it up around the 20s using

the "latest and greatest", and the falcon is a pretty small plane....

 

I would not be too surprised if newer model heaters could achieve around half this range.

This is part of my basis for thinking that ETs should be fairly deadly head-on (of course they have

to be much closer than amraam range;)), Pilotasso.

 

But the more complex the optics become (for range), the less resistant to

maneuvering and other stuff I guess they become, so the tradeoff might be something

less powerful in other ways, just speculation.

[GGTharos]

Like I said. Clear day, nothing else in the background ... is why EOS systems and heaters like look-up shots. When there's nothing else out there, it's easy to track a target ;)

[nscode]

But the more complex the optics become (for range), the less resistant to

maneuvering and other stuff I guess they become, so the tradeoff might be something

less powerful in other ways, just speculation.

 

 

Doesn't have to be that way. When you make the step from single element (photoresistors, phototransistors,..) to CCD, you get both range and resistance. In fact, the only thing that will spoof those is a curtain of flares.

[RvEYoda]

Doesn't have to be that way. When you make the step from single element (photoresistors, phototransistors,..) to CCD, you get both range and resistance. In fact, the only thing that will spoof those is a curtain of flares.

 

Normally I would not include those in what I would call optics, more like electronics, just

a matter of personal taste.

What I was referring to was the moving parts, let's say lens-setup (if using some sort of zoom setup

for example, if this is even applicable). I also did say I was just speculating

on that part ;). Point taken, but at the same time, should not all modern missiles be using CCD-setups?

[Groove]

I collected some fact from my book(s):

 

R-73 / AA-11 Archer:

 

weight: 105 kg

 

warhead weight: 7,4 kg

 

length: 2900 mm

 

diameter: 170 mm

 

It was chosen over Vympels K-14 which was a Aim-9L copy.

 

wing span: 510 mm

 

minimum range: 300 meters

 

maximum range: 30 km

 

 

 

Interesting is the R-73M which was developed to be shot rearwards. Modifications towards the normal R-73: Exhaust cover and a additional brake motor. Additonal 30 cm longer and 10 kg heavier.

[Vekkinho]

I believe that R-73M is solely defensive heater designed to be launched against deep six bandit that's in guns range. If we suppose EOS seeker's having trouble acquiring a target head-on, because it's facing cold part of the target and consider a speed missile has to fight against (launched backwards from a platform travelling 350kts) than it's effectivness would be seriously compromised. Effective range of R-73M doesn't really matter here as distance to target keeps decreasing so additional 30cm of it's length might present additional booster for acceleration.

 

During the merge this missile wouldn't bring any good as the distance to target keeps increasing so I really see no point in designing such a missile.

 

But, ARH rearward missiles might be a better call. At least it's harder to spoof, IRL chaff can't spoof radar missile that travels head on to you, and RCS of a fighter within guns range is pretty big so lock should remain solid throughout the flight.

 

Su-47 Berkut was designed to have a rearward facing radar in it's righthand tailcone, dunno what happened to it i.e. did it ever come to life but IMHO it was far better idea than a R-73M or any IR missile of this philosophy.

 

Guess Firefox time is still a far future but Clint isn't getting any younger!

[GGTharos]

First and foremost...why are you letting a bandit get on your tail?

Secondly, why are you firing a heater with your own hot exhaust in plain view for that heater (thus compromising guidance to some degree) and third, since you weren't going to let him get on your six anyway, why are you wasting valuable pylon space with any sort of rear-firing missile?

[Vekkinho]

Let's say I got jumped by a fighter using EOS so the only warning of his presence are tracers instead of RWR!

[GGTharos]

It's a little too late. ;) What are you going to do, your guns jink, or way for the required eternity that the seeker needs to lock on?

[Groove]

The idea of this missile was to be slowed down before the rocket kicks in. The range is stated to be 13 km max. So obviously its a sort of last possible defence against a fighter on your 6. Simply uncage the seeker and shoot and hope.

[RvEYoda]

First and foremost...why are you letting a bandit get on your tail?

Secondly, why are you firing a heater with your own hot exhaust in plain view for that heater (thus compromising guidance to some degree) and third, since you weren't going to let him get on your six anyway, why are you wasting valuable pylon space with any sort of rear-firing missile?

 

I both agree and disagree.

Your argument tends to lean towards the same

idea that was brought up when the guns were removed

from the phantom, somewhat "Why put something in there

that we hope we won't need?"

 

There is always going to be a time when an allied aircraft gets someone on his six,

whether sacrificing 1 pylon for 6oclock-shots or not will improve or reduce overall statistical

efficiency of the airframe in combat, that is another question...

 

of course, if this missile doesn't work anyway, there is no point in mounting it :P

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

R-73M interesting "facts":

The seeker is twice as sensitive as the original R-73.

R-73M can lock the targets that are within 180 deg. of its seeker field of view.

R-73M can pull up to 50G.

All existing R-73’s can be upgraded to R-73M standard.

 

Source: “Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons since World War Two” by Yefim Gordon