Air to Air Missile Flight Physics and Logics, Take two!

[Trident]

On the chinese thing, I'm certainly no expert there but I'm not aware of them developing an ARH based on the R-77. They are developing their own missiles (which may amount to the same thing given the context we're talking about here ;) ) however. I'm just not sure if your source is trustworthy.

[SwingKid]

The trouble is that the most reliable sources claiming that the R-77 (AA-12 "Adder") does use loft, also claim that the R-27R (AA-10 "Alamo", which was designed for use with Cassegrain-equipped fighters) also uses loft. I'm not sure this is the same kind of loft - it may be that Americans and Russians are talking about two very different things, e.g. the Lock On AIM-120 "not really loft" might be based on what Russian missiles actually do, as Russian programmers have had "loft" explained to them, instead of the dazzling high-altitude trajectories and fantastic ranges of the real AIM-120.

 

Then there are sites like this:

 

http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/r77.html

 

...which state the "first version" of the R-77 doesn't use loft (where the "second version" is a prospective ramjet-powered R-77M missile that Alfa is referring to, and really belongs in a totally separate comparison against the prospective ramjet-powered AMRAAM), without mentioning the Chinese claim at all. The page above also illustrates the different seeker heads available for the R-77. Note the comparative size of the unit incorporating foreign electronics - "light years ahead" indeed. :roll:

 

There isn't very much solid data out there, but what little I have seen and heard, all points to a marked technical inferiority of the R-77 to the AIM-120.

 

The AIM-120 also used a reduced-smoke propellant from its first version. I have not even heard of plans for this in the R-77.

 

If you don't believe me, I suggest posting a question on this topic in the Russian forum. There are some very knowledgeable people there who might provide better-informed opinions, based on conversations with VVS personnel, about why Russia's few R-77-capable MiG-29s at Kursk are no longer seen carrying R-77 pylons.

 

-SK

[Trident]

Good site, sounds legit. I have an open mind regarding this issue, so no worries. The chinese example just struck me as a 'dangerous' one to use :)

 

The size comparison is indeed very interesting, although the caption on the image seems to say something about improved transmitter components being at least partially responsible (well, as far as I could understand). It's also worth noting that the AIM-120, as per posts in this thread, also uses a significantly more compact guidance section in the C-version. Me thinks the primary reason for AGAT to use US chips was economic - COTS products are probably cheaper and more reliable (even with the Russian cost advantage).

[Weta43]

I agree this is a bit off topic, but I'm going to go back to it anyway because it seems to be a recurring theme through several posts on a number of threads.

Someone - I forget who - claimed that the AMRAAM must be a better missile because it had had an astronomical budget of American dollars thrown at it compared to the Rubles that were fed to the AMRAAMSKI

The amount of money thrown at the development of a product does not necessarily corelate to the effectiveness of that product.

Example 1: Consider space exploration: The Americans got to the moon first (though only just, the Russians had already landed sizeable robots on the moon & had a manned mission in preparation), and doing so helped drive their advances in electronics in the US, but the fact of the matter is Russia (or should I say USSR to avoid leaving out any contributors no longer falling under that flag?) built better boosters - the US tried for years to superheat the fuel in their rocket motors before combustion and failed, eventually deeming it "impossible". Russia, on a smaller budget, with crap computers, built motors which did just that & NASA now uses motors initially designed in Russia the 50's in it's launch vehicles.

At the time the russians could put a truck into orbit - but they needed to given their electronics.

Example 2: Money = success? Take the recent "Star wars" interceptor missile tests. There's been aa awful lot of US$ chucked at that system, for a good few years now, & I'm pretty sure it couldn't shoot down a cessna, never mind an ICBM. (maybe it will one day, but right now maybe it's a 120A?)

Example 3: Aerobatics -& here I'm a bit unsure - but my understanding of it is that for significant chunks of the time between WW2 & now, Russian planes dominated the aerobatics world. Simpler technology, but doing the job.

 

good science + sufficient money = successful design.

Inovation + good science + sufficient money = superior design.

If it were possible to corner the market in these, microsoft wouldn't have to keep buying up it's competitors, would it?

[GGTharos]

You're comparing apples to oranges big time here.

 

Here's how it breaks down:

 

Russia has always had better rocketry

Russia has and probably stilld oes have better jet engines (ie. ebtter suited to handling disrupted airflow)

 

The US has always had the upper hand in electronics

The US has lately had far more money to throw at things than Russia

 

The Star Wars interceptors would turn anything that flies into a flying scrap heap. Don't think that just because they can't complete an intercept at mach40 closure that they'll somehow miss your puny subsonic craft. SERIOUS apples to oranges comparison here though.

 

I'll also point out that the Russians aren'tr eally doing any ebtter in this department (but they like to claim to! One reason ehre is that they have wepaons designed specifically for theater anti-ballistic missile defense ... the US uses adaptations of the Patriot. The US is also testign dedicated theater anti-ballistic missile defense however, and their results are actually good, but you have to dig to figure that one out ... so the tech there is more or less equal, the systems CURRENTLY IN USE are not)

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

SK, I guess this little bit would prove some people wrong :roll:

 

O R-77 não tem limitação de disparo. A aeronave pode estar em qualquer atitude ou realizando manobras violentas. O Pk (probabilidade de acerto) é estimado em 70% contra caças.

 

I'm sure anyone can figure out what that last bit means.

 

Sooo... where's the AMRAAM superiority there? :roll:

 

O exercício mostrou que o R-77 tem alcance de cerca de 100km contra 75km do AMRAAM. Um dos motivos é o tamanho maior da fuselagem, com mesmo comprimento.

 

Oops. Another site saying rangeMAX for the R-77 is 100km? :roll:

[GGTharos]

Original AMRAAM range requirement is 40nm. Research it yourself. THat's 72 km ... newer AMRAAMs have even better range. Research that one yourself, too.

 

As for India, the AMRAAM was never SIMULATED in those exercises, and shots were 'limited' inside 20nm, to be used like AIM-7's. That isn't too hard to find, too! But again, you'll have to do your own research.

Maybe you should you should just start your own r77 fanboy thread. Quit polluting this one.

 

Actually, Dmut, you there? COuld you lock this? I think I'm going to correspond with SK in private, since I'm actually serious about the missile ballistics and other aspects of missiles insofar as LOMAC is conrned .. had enough BS from the above joker (and others) in this thread.

[SwingKid]

Original AMRAAM range requirement is 40nm. Research it yourself.

 

Source?

 

My impression is that loft is a relatively new addition even to the AIM-120 - and without loft, the AIM-120 is like a radar-guided Sidewinder.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

I don't think lofting is a new addition for -any- missiles, except possibly the old AIM-7 (because it was a beam-rider). The ballistics for these thigns were already figured out during the Nike era and with the introduction of the Phoenic, so I don't see why it wouldn't have been implemented in the 120 ...

 

Anyway, I don't have a link handy for you - it's not easy to find official USAF requiremenet documents ;) Sometimes, you might even have to pay money to get your hands on such things (through say, FOIA) ...

 

Either way, that is the original requirement for the AMRAAM, and this is reflected for th emost part in LOMAC - the 120 really needs -just- a little more oomph, and that's it. We're really nto talking much here ... probably 100kts more speed or slightly reduced drag, and the high to high or high to slightly lower range seems to match up then.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

Original AMRAAM range requirement is 40nm. Research it yourself. THat's 72 km ... newer AMRAAMs have even better range. Research that one yourself, too.

 

Prove it.

 

As for India, the AMRAAM was never SIMULATED in those exercises, and shots were 'limited' inside 20nm, to be used like AIM-7's.

 

And your point is? I only said that is there at the IAF site: rangeMAX for the R-77 is 100km, and R-27TE is 130km.

Funny how you bring the COPE up when it has NOTHING to do with it.

 

That isn't too hard to find, too! But again, you'll have to do your own research.

 

Yes, sun, I did. Even posted the link for IAF's site. And surprise! We have yet another one that says the same thing.

 

Maybe you should you should just start your own r77 fanboy thread. Quit polluting this one.

 

Funny. You're the one who claimed the R-77 is inferior, yet you never proved anything and only posted YOUR OPINION. A pretty moronic one.

[Weta43]

Hi GGTharos,

 

in reply to your reply...

 

"Don't think that just because they can't complete an intercept at mach40 closure that they'll somehow miss your puny subsonic craft."

 

It's not so much that they can't COMPLETE an intercept (which they've also never done), as much as the fact that - according to the NY Times - the last three trials have all failed to get off the launch pad... So at the moment unless my cessna was actually parked alongside the launcher and a missile happened to fall off - I'd feel pretty safe.

I don't really want to get into slagging off US millitary hardware because I think there's no arguing that some of it is the best available in the world (Though not all of it), but while I'm on about it I also read in an article in the same paper that a review of the effectiveness of the patriot system used in the 1st gulf war found they failed to hit or damage ANY of the missiles they were initially supposed to have shot down, but they did manage to bring down at least 2 friendly planes (From memory because someone failed to implement the system that keeps individual sections of the system aware of the battlefied situation. 2 seperate systems were having their radar interfere but couldn't tell because they weren't linked properly. Missiles were launched at these "ghost" returns & once in the air their seekers found the nearest targets to their expected target position - which happened to be allied planes, & took them down). Still as I said in my first post (actually my first reply ever in an online forum - so if I f*** up the etiquette my appologies) - I have no doubt that both the larger & the battlefield scaled system will eventually be made relatively effective. $ may not equal success, but persistance often does.

 

"I'll also point out that the Russians aren't really doing any ebtter in this department "

 

You're probably right - I wouldn't know. But I agree that since the centralised State stopped owning the entire economy, the millitary in the states of the ex USSR do seem pretty strapped for R&D money.

 

On the currently in use point. How many SU33's were ever built ? Enough for 1 carrier wasn't it? & where's that carrier now?

 

I think part of what I was getting at (besides $ not equalling sucess) was that if the AIM120A was as good as the AIM120C, then why spend more money developing the "C" (?).

Simply saying the AMRAAM was American & had more money thrown at it than the 77doesn't automatically make it a better missile ( I also want to say first hand accounts from loyal pilots who've fired the "A" & the "C" version, but never the 77 do not prove that one missile is better than the other.).

For me - if the "A" is more contemporary with the notional setting of this game, why not model the "A" (- unless there isn't enough data to do so - which would be a good excuse.)

[SwingKid]

Anyway, I don't have a link handy for you - it's not easy to find official USAF requiremenet documents ;) Sometimes, you might even have to pay money to get your hands on such things (through say, FOIA) ...

 

Either way, that is the original requirement for the AMRAAM,

 

Whether you can give me a link or not - are you saying that you have gotten this information from official USAF requirement documents? I don't need to see the data myself, I just want to where you got it, for comparison to my own (admittedly questionable) sources that say the opposite.

 

I understood that range was not an intial requirement for the AMRAAM - rather, it was required to be carried on AIM-9-capable hardpoints of the F-16, to be low-smoke, to use a boost-sustain motor, and other compromises that actually reduce range. I don't think anyone higher-up was expecting a longer-ranged missile, at least not from an initial requirement perspective. From miniZAP I would guess the 40 nm range figure refers to much more recent, loftable variants only.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Hmm, I don't have all the answers for you ... my info is second hand from someone who claims to have seen said docs (And I have no reason to not believe this) ... also got no reason to believe that the AMRAAM couldn't be lofted since its inception ... it's a pretty basic way to increase range, so why not use it?

 

As for range, I'll speculate a little: There is an AIM-7 variant out there which apparently easily out-ranges the AMRAAM. However, as we know, the 7 is a much bigger missiles in pretty mcuh all respect. I think that the 'range not being an issue' is more in reference to that ... ie. that they were willing to compromize some range to have the other features.

 

This could potentially imply that very few, if any, long ranged missiles are particularely successful at long ranges.

[SwingKid]

Boy, would I ever have liked to be a fly on the wall for THAT conversation! :)

 

I've suspected for some time that the AIM-7M outranged the AIM-120, but was never able to confirm it - that was one of the motivations for miniZAP actually - and most sources claim the opposite. I have trouble believing the AIM-7M can beat 40 nm though.

 

One of my reasons for being suspicious about the original AMRAAM being loftable is that the F-16 MLU1 manual dated 1998 says nothing about it at all (despite containing a full description on AMRAAM employment), whereas the MLU2 manual from 2000 goes on about it for several pages, describing how all the HUD symbology has been changed to accomodate it. An F-15 manual from the late 90s also lacks any mention of loft, but the F/A-18 "Vigilante" video dated September 2004 demonstrates an AIM-120B being lofted from (apparently) Raero.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

Oh no you dont....you are not getting off that easy mate... :lol:

 

Please state what you know about the ARH seekers available for "the R-77" and why you think the seeker technology is inferior to that of "the AMRAAM".

 

I have heard this claim one too many times D-Scythe....and every time I ask for data to back it up, it turns out that who ever makes the claim has zero specifications to back it up.....neither for the AMRAAM nor for the R-77.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

 

JJ, I never said that the seeker tech in the R-77 was inferior. You've misread my post. I merely stated that the AIM-120 had enjoyed far more updates/upgrades to its flight/intercept algorithms than the R-77 (software updates, for the most part). And I'm saying because of that, the AIM-120 should be more deadly in the game. I never made the question of R-77 vs. AIM-120 an issue.

 

The AIM-120 has been updated through successive versions at least 9 major times since its introduction into service; moreover, it is likely that each production batch/block (I think 15-18 in total so far?) produced by Hughes then Raytheon incorporated minor software and hardware changes and improvements that we are likely unaware of. The current version, the AIM-120C7, is a major update and latest result of the AIM-120 P3I program. Seeing as most Su-27s in RuAF service are not able to even fire the R-77 yet (last I checked, Su-27SM updates have been proceeding slowly), I don't see the problem in stating that the AIM-120 has enjoyed more software updates than the R-77 has.

 

So again, what do I not know what I'm talking about?

[GGTharos]

I would imagine that it's possible that the original lofting technique involved the pilot memorizing a short table, and having no actual symbology for it - not much different from Russian piltos having to time their missiles.

Then someone came around and whacked teh software devs over the ehad and told'em to put the lofting in already. Also, it may have been that those sections were classified (possibly revealing certain valuable info?)

 

Although naturally, this may not be the case. Still iw ould suspect that the missile was -always- meant ot be used lofted, given that even orignally it was assumed to use a datalink for MCU's. If you don't loft it you get rather poor range performance and the datalink's enarly pointless, IMHO.

 

As for the AIM-7M ... I heard that it's claim to fame came from a specific rocket motor which was not used on other models, but I've lno other info on that subject than this.

 

It's entirely possible that this version was the original precedent for the reasoning on compromizing the 120's range.

[wsoul2k]

Man this things are getting very confuse.....someone can help me plz....

 

OK here we go:

 

1-Whats is the Model of AIM-120 modeled in Lock on ?

 

Model A

Model B

Model C

 

2- What model is compatible with lock ERA/TIME A,B or C

 

3- What is the distinc BASICS caracteristics for each model like:

Min and Max Range\Speedy\loft capable

 

4- What is the Min and Max Range to the R-77 modeled in Lock On 70km or 100km?? because no one here can shot it at 100 Km

if the range modeled is 100Km should be a Missile Flight Physics problem ?? like to much drag or anything else???

This question can be used to AIM-120 if the range modeled is not correct

 

 

If we still with posts like this "I think", "I Guess", "It should be because its so common or basic" we will get to no where :(

 

Like SK say we need sources......with this we can TRY i say TRY figure it out the MOST NEAR real possible...because this kind of information is very restricted

 

With sources we can compare info or verify if the source is good or no.

 

An example SK say it read in f-16 manual no loft capabilitie in the first model to the AIM-120....i think this is a good source....and very confiable....WE dont need him to post a picture from his Manual

 

we are all here trying to improve this SIM.. lets try help each other

 

and GG dont ask to close the tread lets try figure out this kind of info so we can get back on the topic in some way it is related ok :)

 

 

cya

 

and sorry for the poor english

[GGTharos]

1. A or B, definitely not C, IMHO.

 

2. There's no 'ERA' ... Lockon lives in a fantasy timeline.

 

3. I'd tell you, but then someone would have to kill me. ;)

 

4. there have been 100km shots witht he R77 that hit..well, maybe closer to 90km. It's not really a problem .. it's as it should be and the shots were performed in a manner that would indeed allow you to shoot that far.

 

Well, guess what. We can only 'guess' and 'think' ... we can't actually KNOW classified data since it's...well, classified. And SK knows this, too.

 

And read what SK wrote AGAIN. He said NOTHING about the 120 not being loft-capable. He jsut said that the manual didn't DESCRIBE any lofting capability for the 120, so that elad him to assume that it may not be. This is a logical and fair conclusion, but I disagree with it for my own reasons.

 

Yeah, most of us are interested in making the sim mroe realistic in some ways ... for me, I want the missile physics and some fixing up of the missile homing physics ... specifically to simulate the differences between high-low and low-high shots and clutter modelling for low-level target interception.

[wsoul2k]

1. A or B, definitely not C, IMHO.

 

Agree...so we should have A or B fisics modeled aswell....and some people claim it is not the true....i really dont knoe SK can u verify this with the Devs ?

 

2. There's no 'ERA' ... Lockon lives in a fantasy timeline.

 

So in this Fantasy timeline near 90 rigth ...what model was in REAL Use?

 

3. I'd tell you, but then someone would have to kill me. ;)

 

You don let any other options.....so Kill me but let me know :wink:

 

4. there have been 100km shots witht he R77 that hit..well, maybe closer to 90km. It's not really a problem .. it's as it should be and the shots were performed in a manner that would indeed allow you to shoot that far

.

 

I mean in Lock on no in real life,,,,,I never see someone who can shot it even at 90 KM (in game) is something wrong ?

 

Well, guess what. We can only 'guess' and 'think' ... we can't actually KNOW classified data since it's...well, classified. And SK knows this, too.

 

No... we can try find some kind of sources valuable or not we can discuss...Like web info or books etc...

 

And read what SK wrote AGAIN. He said NOTHING about the 120 not being loft-capable. He jsut said that the manual didn't DESCRIBE any lofting capability for the 120, so that elad him to assume that it may not be. This is a logical and fair conclusion, but I disagree with it for my own reasons.

 

Yes i was meaning this.....i get the same conclusion as him get...

 

Yeah, most of us are interested in making the sim mroe realistic in some ways ... for me, I want the missile physics and some fixing up of the missile homing physics ... specifically to simulate the differences between high-low and low-high shots and clutter modelling for low-level target interception.

 

 

Im interested in anything that bring Lock on as near as possible to real life.....if this mean we have to get an r-77 with 5km range it is ok to me :P

 

cya and tks again for the fast reply btw you dont sleep man ?? :D

[SwingKid]

OK here we go:

 

1-Whats is the Model of AIM-120 modeled in Lock on ?

 

Model A

Model B

Model C

 

I think this is a good place to start.

 

The version in Lock On has the shape of an AIM-120B, but is for some reason named "AIM-120C". I prefer to think of it as a B.

 

2- What model is compatible with lock ERA/TIME A,B or C

 

Well, there is some debate about what Lock On's "era" actually is, but I think B is the best choice. The C with clipped wings is really intended for the F/A-22 and is still going through different versions of development, while the B is still in use even today. The A did not last very long. So I think B is the best choice.

 

3- What is the distinc BASICS caracteristics for each model like:

Min and Max Range\Speedy\loft capable

 

This is a tricky question because ever since the B version appeared in 1994, the AIM-120 is now reprogrammable. So, an AIM-120B that could not loft yesterday, maybe it will be able to loft tomorrow. Certainly, I saw in the video that in 2004, an AIM-120B was lofted. I think that because of the reprogrammability, the characteristics of existing AIM-120B and AIM-120C from the same time period are practically identical.

 

4- What is the Min and Max Range to the R-77 modeled in Lock On 70km or 100km?? because no one here can shot it at 100 Km

if the range modeled is 100Km should be a Missile Flight Physics problem ?? like to much drag or anything else???

This question can be used to AIM-120 if the range modeled is not correct

 

I think that because of a lack of information, the programmers simply make AIM-120 and R-77 equivalent in Lock On in every characteristic. I'm not sure. It's difficult to discuss an absolute max range because it depends on altitude, etc. - it's easier to talk about relative performance, comparing the two missiles. And I am not really an expert on what the missiles in Lock On are doing because the programmers are constantly changing it - after I make a big series of tests one day, a few weeks later it seems everything has changed. It is one of those things that gets endless requests for changes when new information becomes available. We will only be sure when you have the final product in your hands. That's why I usually only express opinions about real missiles, or miniZAP - things that my limited knowledge doesn't become obsolete so quickly. :wink:

 

-SK

[Kula66]

Ok, my read ... isn't it turning 90degs to the enemies course? Which isn't necessarily your 3 or 9?

 

Again, no. A beaming target turns 90 degrees to the illuminating radar beam - which is always a straight line between the target and the illuminating fighter - NOT the illuminating fighter's course or aspect.

 

-SK

Ok for SST radar modes where the physically radar locks onto the target, stops sweeping - but what about TWS where the radar dish keeps moving ? James

 

PS> I may be showing my ignorance here SK ... thanks for keeping with it!

[Kula66]

My impression is that loft is a relatively new addition even to the AIM-120 - and without loft, the AIM-120 is like a radar-guided Sidewinder.

 

-SK

I think we can all agree that the AIM-54 nas been lofting for years! James

[Kula66]

Having played w/the 120's extensively today, the good news is that we have more range now. Bad news is that the AI is dodging them by a jink one way then the next at over 10miles.

Agreed, you get a 'LA' at much greter range headon ... 25miles ... but these seem easily dodged .... even shot from 15miles seem to be easy to evade.

 

James

[SwingKid]

Ok for SST radar modes where the physically radar locks onto the target, stops sweeping - but what about TWS where the radar dish keeps moving ?

 

Was there something wrong with my reply to this on page 4?

 

-SK

[Kula66]

SK,

You didn't mention TWS on page 4 ...

 

Ok, I can understand that if you lock a target STT, you radar 'antenna' follows the target, so if you turn 90degs-ish to that beam you disappear!

 

Now the lock breaks, the antenna starts scanning left to right in search mode ... at this some point during the sweep of the ant, the target is not at 90 to the beam and would simply reacquire. The antenna of a radar operating in TWS mode that doesn't follow the target, but keeps scanning would only momentarily loose track .... this doesn't happen in LO.

 

James