Missile warhead sizes and their respective damage potential

[Cmptohocah]

I was wondering, since short-range missiles like R-73 & AIM-9 have relatively small (light) warheads, compared to let's say AIM-120, AIM-7 and R-27, does this mean that the damage they can do is less than the latter set of missiles?

Currently in-game it's a true/false situation: one hit-one kill kind of a thing. There are no real damage gradients when it comes to A2A hits, meaning that a hit of any of these is going to end up in a kill - at least for the Su-27/Mig-29/Su-25T.

I know that IRL all this will depend on the aspect, distance at detonation, aircraft size and construction and many other factors.

 

Now my question is: is the small warhead of the IR missiles some threshold which means that this amount is enough to bring down the largest of the Russian a/c Su-27? If so, why is more explosive/rods needed on the other missiles (like medium-ranged ones)?
Also, Soviet (Russian) engineers deliberately spaced the engines a part (Su-27/33, MiG-29) as much as possible, in order to minimize the chance of both engines getting shot out at the same time. Does this have any effect in DCS? From my experience it doesn't.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Cmptohocah
Corrected the R-77 to R-73

[bmbpdk]

You mean R-73 and AIM-9?

Many weapons gain their destruction power through fragmentation instead of a boom, so the size and weight of the actual warhead is often not the deciding factor.
And remember progress in the chemical composition of the warhead also increase the boom while decreasing weight and size.
Comparing numbers to numbers is always a bad idea, look deeper, look at the calculation instead of the results, theres always a reason for something, nothing happens without a reason and a purpose.

[dundun92]

8 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Currently in-game it's a true/false situation: one hit-one kill kind of a thing. There are no real damage gradients when it comes to A2A hits, meaning that a hit of any of these is going to end up in a kill - at least for the Su-27/Mig-29/Su-25T.

Warheads do have different damages tho, it's not a true/false. It also depends on the DM of the target; F-18 DM is like paper, pretty much anything will disable it, while F-15/F-16/F-14 DMs are a bit more rugged and will sometimes absorb missile hits. As an example, ive never got killed by a single R-60M in the F-15, it always took 2 or more.

[Cmptohocah]

8 hours ago, bmbpdk said:

You mean R-73 and AIM-9?

Many weapons gain their destruction power through fragmentation instead of a boom, so the size and weight of the actual warhead is often not the deciding factor.
And remember progress in the chemical composition of the warhead also increase the boom while decreasing weight and size.
Comparing numbers to numbers is always a bad idea, look deeper, look at the calculation instead of the results, theres always a reason for something, nothing happens without a reason and a purpose.

Yes, I meant R-73 instead of R-77 - thanks for the correction.

Without going into reasons why the warheads are more massive, it is apparent that the medium-range missiles have heavier warheads than their IR short-range missiles. My question was: "why is this the case?"

[Ironhand]

Weight considerations? Short-range missiles need to be fast and highly maneuverable. So that may be a part of the “why”.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Ironhand
Removal of a stupid statement

[Fri13]

Warhead size is as Ironhand says about the weight. So more weight is less range and maneuverability.

But warhead size and type as well effects your missile deadly radius.

 

In fact most missiles are designed so that they are not suppose to impact the target or fly straight at them, but fly next to or front of them and then blow up.

As the common warhead fragments spread is similar to the R-27 butterfly wings. They will spread in about +/-30 degree angle away from the missile centerline, and not forward of the missile. So you want the missile to fly paralel to the fighter or front of it sideways so when proximity fuse triggers, the fragments are spread on optimal large area on the target or front of the target so the target will fly to them.

 

Smaller your missile is, less fragments you can load to it, and as well smaller warhead you need for it.

Smaller your warhead is, less range you have for the area of effect.

So larger warhead you can blow up further distance, while smaller warhead you need to get closer on target.

 

Then comes the common use scenarios. Low or high altitude. As like thicker lower altitude air cause more drag, the thinner air higher does less. It means that where a missile warhead might have a effective range at 1000 meters about 15 meters, at 15 000 meters it can be 150 meters. This is purely the kinematic effect of the fragments as they can fly faster in thinner air and so on cause more serious damage on further distance.

But we return back to original problem, less fragments means more spread at longer range, so it becomes like a shotgun. If you are too close you are easily missing the target as you are required to be accurate. Firing from too far instead spreads the pellets so none of them hits the target. So you need to find the optimal range for the missile warhead where the missile should explode regardless fragments velocities.

 

And this makes lots of challenges in the long range engagements as you are not so accurate with the missiles as you are with short range. The radar resolution gets worse further you get from it, so your resolution might even drop to hundreds of meters class instead tens of meters and in optimal case in closer ranges in meters. This means that regardless you can track a target at long range, you are only going to get missile so close to it that we talk tens of meters if not even more. If the target does fly straight and at steady speed, it becomes easy to calculate the exact intercept point and so on explosion position for the missile to get optimal pattern for effect. But if the target change heading and speed etc, the calculations becomes at low resolution and your changes to get missile near the target becomes less likely, why you need a larger warhead to compensate for it.

 

So example launching a S-75 at the target on 15 000 meters altitude, you can have effective area for target destruction in 400-500 meters. Problem just was that after USA successfully sniffed the missile radio proximity fuse frequency, they managed to make ECM to jam it, making missiles either explode way too soon or fly past the aircraft. The missile was so huge and flew straight that fairly simple maneuvers allowed you to avoid getting near the proximity fuse and the warhead effect. But if you had good SAM crew, they knew when to blow the missile and use its destructive area of effect to kill targets even when going to "miss it".

 

But think about missile sizes like R-60. Very agile missile. Very small warhead. Extremely short fuse range etc. You didn't escape that missile and it was possible to be launched from far shorter ranges than AIM-9. Where AIM-9 required 5 seconds at 20 G acceleration to fuse the warhead it was about 2-3 km from the target. The sidewinder was really flying like a sidewinder moved on the ground, making the radical turns and that easily left situation that missile just didn't have turn capability for short ranges and no capability to destroy target as warhead didn't explode.

Now compare it to R-60 with 300 meters minimum distance and extremely agile (superseeded only by R-73 and AIM-9X time period).

And think about the advanced IRST systems on Soviet fighters, capability easily slave IR seeker to radar or IRST vertical search etc and it was deadly dog fighting missile regardless its small warhead size as parameters to launch the missile were more suitable for it.

 

Hopefully we would see in the future with the new damage system a better damage modeling from exploding aircrafts front of us and so on. As now you just fly through all the dirt and pieces in the air and suffer no damages from them. Like have a 500 g large metal piece or rock in your intake and you are fine...

 

 

[Cmptohocah]

Thanks for the explanation @Fri13. It actually makes sense and does align with "the greater the range, the heavier the warhead" pattern. I just never made the connection. Indeed we miss distance-dependent radar resolution in DCS.

[GGTharos]

More like bigger rocket -> bigger warhead, since you have the energy to propel it further.  There is a design Pk requirement which will drive some warhead parameters (eg. expected missile maneuver capability at a given TOF).

 

AAMs are designed to impact directly (and they do; thus the contact fuze to enhance the immense striking energy with the explosives), and the fuze is a backup, because quite often a maneuvering target can cause a large enough near-miss ... so a hit is defined in terms of something like a 10' miss distance or less.

 

A missile like the stinger has no TDD so it's contact only, and it's Pk is correspondingly lower.   While overall this is about weight savings because it has to be man-portable, you still have the rocket size -> fuze size situation (no prox fuze/TDD since the rocket motor is inadequate to handle even more weight).

 

If you consider the stinger's 1kg warhead, or a 20mm round's high explosive payload, you might figure that while realistically yes, a 7kg warhead vs a 40kg warhead is realistically different, the effect of it hitting might be practically the same with only a small Pk difference based on the same miss distance.

[Fri13]

17 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

AAMs are designed to impact directly (and they do; thus the contact fuze to enhance the immense striking energy with the explosives), and the fuze is a backup, because quite often a maneuvering target can cause a large enough near-miss ... so a hit is defined in terms of something like a 10' miss distance or less.

 

Otherway around. Proximity fuze is primary, impact fuze is backup IF it manages to impact target and penetrate deeper.

This is reason why huge efforts are put to design proximity fuses and change their designs to avoid counter measurement systems operations and to maximize the destruction of targets with new kind warheads fragmentations.

 

17 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

A missile like the stinger has no TDD so it's contact only, and it's Pk is correspondingly lower.   While overall this is about weight savings because it has to be man-portable, you still have the rocket size -> fuze size situation (no prox fuze/TDD since the rocket motor is inadequate to handle even more weight).

 

Stringer was meant to be cheap all-around weapon to be carried by soldiers everywhere, meant to be used for tail-shots only so you got strong engine plume visibility and better tracking capability, as well pilot limited capability to spot the launch as it was done from the rear hemisphere. The stringer successfully (when it did) entered often to jet engine itself and blow up whole aircraft as it was from the tail chase.

 

Later on now the Stingers does have a proximity fuse as missile is required to hit not just faster targets, but as well smaller ones like drones etc. All after more complex new seekers etc.

The stringer is a shoulder launched weapon, it weight is limited not by the rocket motor or such capability to fly heavier weights, but that soldiers need to carry multiple of them on the field, as extra to their normal weapon loadout. There every kilogram is crucial factor, and so on for business.

 

 

[Cmptohocah]

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

More like bigger rocket -> bigger warhead, since you have the energy to propel it further.  There is a design Pk requirement which will drive some warhead parameters (eg. expected missile maneuver capability at a given TOF).

 

AAMs are designed to impact directly (and they do; thus the contact fuze to enhance the immense striking energy with the explosives), and the fuze is a backup, because quite often a maneuvering target can cause a large enough near-miss ... so a hit is defined in terms of something like a 10' miss distance or less.

 

A missile like the stinger has no TDD so it's contact only, and it's Pk is correspondingly lower.   While overall this is about weight savings because it has to be man-portable, you still have the rocket size -> fuze size situation (no prox fuze/TDD since the rocket motor is inadequate to handle even more weight).

 

If you consider the stinger's 1kg warhead, or a 20mm round's high explosive payload, you might figure that while realistically yes, a 7kg warhead vs a 40kg warhead is realistically different, the effect of it hitting might be practically the same with only a small Pk difference based on the same miss distance.

Yeah, "potaito/potato". In general when it comes to A2A or SAM missiles, the greater the range the bigger the missile: R-73 -> R-27 -> R-33, AIM-9 -> AIM-120 -> AIM-54, etc.
After @Fri13's explanation it finally makes sense, at least to me, why this trend is true.

It also makes sense that smaller, more agile, short range missiles are much more precise to their (comparatively) larger counterparts, otherwise there would be no need to even have them: why invest in high maneuverability of an aircraft (MiG-29, Su-27/33, F-16, F-14) and short range missiles (R-73, AIM-9X), when long/medium range missiles can do the job? Not to mention having an a/c mounted cannon. Vietnam, F-4 is a great example. Of course, there are many other factors at play, but in general there is a clear pattern.

 

[Cmptohocah]

On 12/30/2020 at 7:28 PM, dundun92 said:

Warheads do have different damages tho, it's not a true/false. It also depends on the DM of the target; F-18 DM is like paper, pretty much anything will disable it, while F-15/F-16/F-14 DMs are a bit more rugged and will sometimes absorb missile hits. As an example, ive never got killed by a single R-60M in the F-15, it always took 2 or more.

True, I can't really tell for "blue" planes, but:

- Su-27/33, MiG-29 and Su-25T all go down with a single A2A shot. No matter the aspect, missile type or any other factor. Su-27/33 and Su-25T can still fly after taking a stinger/strela shot. Don't have the data on the MiG.

- MiG-21 requires 2 hits with an IR missile (SAM or A2A)

- Mi-8 goes down after a single IR missile hit (SAM or A2A)

[GGTharos]

34 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

It also makes sense that smaller, more agile, short range missiles are much more precise to their (comparatively) larger counterparts

 

It may make sense to you but it is incorrect after the 70s - I'm talking AAMs only though.  It isn't entirely unusual to expect hit-to-kill against a non-maneuvering target, and miss distances against maneuvering targets are going to be small as well - the more modern the missile, the more the miss distance shrinks.  Sparrow/R-27 are probably the last family of missiles where maybe you could expect to out-maneuver them with a modern enough plane and a high enough pull under the right circumstances, and I don't believe that this applies to modern missiles any more.  Unless they're slow, they can flat out out-turn and hit anything that you can fly.  There are nuances, you can do things to them to increase miss distance but I don't believe it has to do only with aerodynamics, but rather other effects like seeker settling and guidance time constants etc, all of which is tighter and faster on newer missiles.

 

Quote

otherwise there would be no need to even have them: why invest in high maneuverability of an aircraft (MiG-29, Su-27/33, F-16, F-14) and short range missiles (R-73, AIM-9X), when long/medium range missiles can do the job?

 

Because SRMs may have a lower LTE, the smaller warhead means the missile is safe for the shooter at a shorter distance, and because they are designed to expand the short range WEZ laterally.   It isn't accuracy as much as the effective shot envelope.   SRMs will generally have a shorter minimum range because of all of this, and wider WEZ to the sides.

Aircraft need maneuverability primarily to bring an opponent into their WEZ first given a fair fight, or avoid a WEZ.  But as you can probably easily see, the WEZ of SRMs has gone through a significant expansion - take the HMS on the MiG/Su, this allowed a maneuverable aircraft to bring an opponent into a WEZ so much faster than with maneuverability alone.

Fighting something equipped with the new 9X/IRIS-T's/ASRAAMs etc, your BFM maneuvering plans and restrictions become so much tighter if you don't want to risk a hit.  Conversely as the offensive ship, it's so much easier for you especially if you begin with an advantage - look at the F-35's .. they're not designed to dominate in BFM.  They'll do fine, but they're probably not that competitive against say an F-16 or MiG-29, but in the end they're going to get in unseen and shoot first, plus the sensor equipment and WEZ capability make them hard to ambush.

 

Quote

Not to mention having an a/c mounted cannon. Vietnam, F-4 is a great example. Of course, there are many other factors at play, but in general there is a clear pattern.

 

IMHO it's a terrible example for the gun.  The gun pod was mounted for A2G more than A2A, and what proved to work better is training for BFM and missile engagement envelopes.  The gun was necessary only in a tiny amount of engagements, training enhanced missile Pk a lot and the gun has rarely ever been used since.  Nevertheless it's there in modern fighters too because it covers a specific WEZ and well, 'just in case' not to mention if you want to strafe something on the ground.

 

Also looks like the gun too follows specific design needs:  Low amount of large rounds typically used for A2G (25, 30mm guns - see F-35, Mirage) and dedicated A2A fighters using the 20mm vulcan.  I'm not saying this is a rule, because the GAU-8 is a thing and the Su/MiG do their own thing as well.  But, you're not really expected to use the gun in A2A.  You train for it but the vast majority of combat is concluded with missiles.

Edited January 2, 2021 by GGTharos

[Fri13]

15 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

True, I can't really tell for "blue" planes, but:

- Su-27/33, MiG-29 and Su-25T all go down with a single A2A shot. No matter the aspect, missile type or any other factor. Su-27/33 and Su-25T can still fly after taking a stinger/strela shot. Don't have the data on the MiG.

- MiG-21 requires 2 hits with an IR missile (SAM or A2A)

- Mi-8 goes down after a single IR missile hit (SAM or A2A)

 

Let's see what the future new damage modeling bring out. The DCS has since start lacked behind in combat part of the game because lack of lots of different simulation features like fragmentation where aircrafts has been just with few large zones where to take a hit from sphere modeled damage. Good example is Vikhr missile that has dual-warhead capability. First primary one is a tandem-HEAT warhead designed to penetrate armors, bunkers etc. But pilot can activate the secondary warhead as well before launch that is fragmentation sleeve and as well activate the proximity fuse instead impact. This makes huge difference where you get about 5 meter detection range (10 meters diameter) to blow fragmentation sleeve vs require a impact. And it changes the whole effectiveness of that missile just by getting it to explode on target instead just fly 30 cm of fuselage etc.

And when fragmentation modeling comes to play, it is not single damage point but everything front of the fragmentation "fan" or "arc" (if you will) to long distances and for multiple impact points. And then combine it with a new damage model where damage is calculated by velocity of each impact point as does the fragment (can be a individual bullet too) fly through to another part or does it "stop there". 

 

So in future it is not anymore a large fictional damage "sphere" as High Explosive effect, but there should come very tremendous effect to get more systems damaged, all kind malfunctions overtime etc. So even if you don't lose a wing or just die, your aircraft can become so badly damaged that Game is Over even if you could land it.

 

I wish that in future they will as well apply this new damage modeling for the repair system. In a single player it is OK to have time speed up etc to wait aircraft being repaired, but in multiplayer a 3 min repair is just not really sensible. In reality you just might have pilot to jump on another aircraft (like if they would return from one sortie and then they switch aircraft that is ready and loaded for another sortie) but the new system should calculate inflicted damage as resources and time to repair it. And then utilize this capability in dynamic campaign to calculate success etc. As it is critical thing in the ground units, like blow up a 2 wheels from a BTR and it is operational to withdraw from combat or fight that last moment, to survive for another day fighting with repairs. So you would be awarded properly with points from stopping enemy vehicle even if you got only a mobility kill. Dropping 250 kg bomb 30-100 meters off the vehicle and disable it is good job, compared to even today that requires a direct hit. Changes would be huge for the combat part where it is not 1 or 0 kind flagging but causing damages and threatening someone to take damage that will render them incapable to fight are what combat is about.