K-100 the AWACS killer

[topol-m]

I found that Russia and India are developing a very long range Air to Air missile (K-100), designed to be an AWACS killer, but may well be used to supress all type of aircrafts, especially interesting will be the possibility of targeting bombers and the "high tech sparrow" F-22 of such great distance - of course with the use of a powerfull radar to detect it sooner as possible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_KS-172_AAM-L

Edited February 21, 2009 by Groove
Cutting out unnecessary sentence.

[Boberro]

Yesss and as usual they'll build few of them and alleluya like it was and is with R-77. :)

[p_o_d_2_2]

How would that missile be effective against F-22's? Its basically an air to air ARM right? That would make it a good weapon to use against AWACS, but since F-22's are not constantly radiating and when they are their radars are supposedly difficult to detect, wouldn't that make this missile practically useless?

Edited February 21, 2009 by p_o_d_2_2
spelling

[nscode]

Yes.

 

And even targeting the AWACS isn't as simple as it seams.

Edited February 21, 2009 by nscode

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yesss and as usual they'll build few of them and alleluya like it was and is with R-77. :)

They will build as many as they need. What's wrong with R-77? It can outmaneuver and outreach AIM-120 (not sure about latest AMRAAM's on range). Among other things, R-77 can be used to shoot Air to Air missiles down. It is not combat proven because there was no conflict involving R-77.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

As far as K-100, I'll believe in it when I see it launched.

[jpm1]

an air-to-air cruise missile cool

[topol-m]

How would that missile be effective against F-22's? Its basically an air to air ARM right? That would make it a good weapon to use against AWACS, but since F-22's are not constantly radiating and when they are their radars are supposedly difficult to detect, wouldn't that make this missile practically useless?

 

I mean using it with the help of ground radars and awacs to detect F-22s and guide fighters at them, thus allowing them to fire K-100 first due to its long range.

 

They will build as many as they need. What's wrong with R-77? It can outmaneuver and outreach AIM-120 (not sure about latest AMRAAM's on range). Among other things, R-77 can be used to shoot Air to Air missiles down. It is not combat proven because there was no conflict involving R-77.

 

Yeah, AIM-120 must be seriously modified especially in terms of maneuverability to be copmpetitive. The R-77s lattice work fins are a very effective decision allowing it to make a very high G turns. :joystick:

[Boberro]

They will build as many as they need. What's wrong with R-77? It can outmaneuver and outreach AIM-120 (not sure about latest AMRAAM's on range). Among other things, R-77 can be used to shoot Air to Air missiles down. It is not combat proven because there was no conflict involving R-77.

 

I didn't say it is something wrong with R-77s. They problem is in amount of them...

And I think it will be same with K-100 if they build it of course. Even if this missile will be good, so what if u have few of them (metaphor :)) ? = old missiles will be still basic payload.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Boberro

[GGTharos]

The lattice wings have zero to do with pulling g's - they have everything to do with supersonic drag reduction, but unfortunately they also act as airbrakes below certain speeds. As a happy bonus, they allow controllability at higher angles of AoA (also a draggy proposition).

 

They also require less force to use, which allowed the use of weaker electrical servos, IIRC. Then again, IIRC the Russians weren't terribly happy with those servos nor the fuze. I'm sure those have been upgraded by now.

As for out-ranging the 120 ... a bit maybe. ;) What's more important is that R-77 is probably a bit faster.

 

As for the K-100 ... it wouldn't be the first long range 'AWACS-killer' that Russia has come up with. It remains to be seen whether it could be effective at all, but even forcing the AWACS to retreat would certainly open up a hole.

Edited February 21, 2009 by GGTharos

[p_o_d_2_2]

I mean using it with the help of ground radars and awacs to detect F-22s and guide fighters at them, thus allowing them to fire K-100 first due to its long range.

 

Again, if it is an anti radiation missile, how would it be at all effective against an F-22? Even if you somehow detect the Raptor at range, this missile is not going to be able to track it unless the Raptor is radiating enough for the K-100 to see.

[topol-m]

Again, if it is an anti radiation missile, how would it be at all effective against an F-22? Even if you somehow detect the Raptor at range, this missile is not going to be able to track it unless the Raptor is radiating enough for the K-100 to see.

 

 

Man, not guided by the radar emission of the F-22 but guided by the radars (ground, air) detecting the F-22 by sending radio waves and these bouncing off the target, so by the time it takes them to return to the radar it can measure the targets distance, velocity, etc. (LoL did i have to explain how a radar is functioning)

[Acedy]

Again, if it is an anti radiation missile, how would it be at all effective against an F-22? Even if you somehow detect the Raptor at range, this missile is not going to be able to track it unless the Raptor is radiating enough for the K-100 to see.

 

I think this is a misunderstanding of the Wiki article, it says that there were rumours about a Russian anti-radiation a2a missile, but the K-100 is actually guided by inertia and active radar, so per definition it is not an ARM.

 

Man, not guided by the radar emission of the F-22 but guided by the radars (ground, air) detecting the F-22 by sending radio waves and these bouncing off the target, so by the time it takes them to return to the radar it can measure the targets distance, velocity, etc. (LoL did i have to explain how a radar is functioning)

 

Could you please stop talking in such a condescending tone?

[topol-m]

Could you please stop talking in such a condescending tone?

 

 

Lol i didnt want it to sound condescending, but as far as i can tell p_o_d_2_2 doesnt feel offended i dont see how you do. :thumbup:

[Vault]

I mean using it with the help of ground radars and awacs to detect F-22s and guide fighters at them, thus allowing them to fire K-100 first due to its long range.

 

Does any Russian hardware (SAM/EW/AWAC) even have any type of datalink network that's capable of the handing target data to the missiles guidance computer?.

 

 

Yeah, AIM-120 must be seriously modified especially in terms of maneuverability to be copmpetitive. The R-77s lattice work fins are a very effective decision allowing it to make a very high G turns. :joystick:

 

The R-77 trades huge amounts of its potential energy for high alpha. I think from a logical point of view that the combat unproven R-77 is good in the short to meduim range of it's WEZ. In the long run I highly suspect the lattice fins of creating large amounts of drag.

 

How can you compare a combat proven missile against an unproven missile?, What makes you think that the AIM-120 needs to be "seriously modified especially in terms of maneuverability to be competitive?". Posts that are primarily indiscriminate comments and technological verbal attacks by fanbois on proven hardware are just plain stoopid. 35 International countries use the AMRAAM as their primary MRAAM!. Yes that's right 35 countries!. They can't all be wrong.

[GGTharos]

No, but maybe you could explain how those magical radars will track an all-aspect stealth aircraft and datalink all that data back to the missile.

 

Sounds like you have zero understanding as to how any of this stuff works - it's okay, we were all like this at one time or another - you know, clueless. Now a bunch of us know better.

 

For example, we have a pretty good idea that barring very, very recent systems, and perhaps even with those - the datalink signal for the missile needs to be generated onboard the launching aircraft, even when firing on a data-linked target.

 

Data links are not necessarily real-time, and radars that have a better chance of seeing a stealth aircraft are typically not accurate enough for guidance, nor terribly sophisticated when it comes to datalinking their data to a fighter. Typically.

 

Care to try your explanation again?

 

Man, not guided by the radar emission of the F-22 but guided by the radars (ground, air) detecting the F-22 by sending radio waves and these bouncing off the target, so by the time it takes them to return to the radar it can measure the targets distance, velocity, etc. (LoL did i have to explain how a radar is functioning)

[GGTharos]

Don't diss the R-77. AFAIK no US pilot would. It may have its issues, but so did the 120. It's a dangerous missile and you don't want it flying in your general direction, or on a CATA to your path ;)

 

The R-77 trades huge amounts of its potential energy for high alpha. I think from a logical point of view that the combat unproven R-77 is good in the short to meduim range of it's WEZ. In the long run I highly suspect the lattice fins of creating large amounts of drag.

 

How can you compare a combat proven missile against an unproven missile?, What makes you think that the AIM-120 needs to be "seriously modified especially in terms of maneuverability to be competitive?". Posts that are primarily indiscriminate comments and technological verbal attacks by fanbois on proven hardware are just plain stoopid. 35 International countries use the AMRAAM as their primary MRAAM!. Yes that's right 35 countries!. They can't all be wrong.

[Vault]

Don't diss the R-77. AFAIK no US pilot would. It may have its issues, but so did the 120. It's a dangerous missile and you don't want it flying in your general direction, or on a CATA to your path ;)

 

I didn't diss the R-77 re-read what I posted. Because of the larger surface area of the lattice fins I stated that I think that the R-77 missile would perform very well in the low to medium envelope of the R-77's WEZ. In the far range envelope of the R-77's WEZ, I suspect that the drag created by the huge surface area of the R-77's lattice fins would diminish energy which in turn will reduce the amount of alpha the missile can pull.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Vault

[topol-m]

 

How can you compare a combat proven missile against an unproven missile?, What makes you think that the AIM-120 needs to be "seriously modified especially in terms of maneuverability to be competitive?". Posts that are primarily indiscriminate comments and technological verbal attacks by fanbois on proven hardware are just plain stoopid. 35 International countries use the AMRAAM as their primary MRAAM!. Yes that's right 35 countries!. They can't all be wrong.

 

I`m not stating just my opinion, i`ve read a lot of articles comparing R-77 and AIM-120 (not just of russian origin but also of western) and in most of them it is pointed that R-77 is superior in several aspects. And while the Aim-120D is a big improvement with 50% increased range, the R-77M1 is in development and it will have 100% range increase (aprox. 175km) which is way beyond amraam`s. You say combat prooven, well its not the only way to compare pieces of technology, you see US and Russian ICBMs are not used in combat, also F-16 has seen a lot more combat than F-22 but that doesnt stop us from comparing them.

 

No, but maybe you could explain how those magical radars will track an all-aspect stealth aircraft and datalink all that data back to the missile.

 

Sounds like you have zero understanding as to how any of this stuff works - it's okay, we were all like this at one time or another - you know, clueless. Now a bunch of us know better.

 

For example, we have a pretty good idea that barring very, very recent systems, and perhaps even with those - the datalink signal for the missile needs to be generated onboard the launching aircraft, even when firing on a data-linked target.

 

Data links are not necessarily real-time, and radars that have a better chance of seeing a stealth aircraft are typically not accurate enough for guidance, nor terribly sophisticated when it comes to datalinking their data to a fighter. Typically.

 

Care to try your explanation again?

 

GGTharos, i perfectly know how stealth works, thats why i said "powerfull radars to detect it" , i understand that its not detected at the same distance that conventional aircrafts are, but also i`m not in the group of people that still believe "stealth" aircrafts are completely invisible for radars. Also i`ve never stated that the russians are using K-100 with such radars that datalink the date to them, in my first post im saying: "...the possibility" of using this type of guidance. That just a theoretical assumption about how this missile can be used more effectively. So dont be hasty again to presume that i "have zero understanding...". I hope i`ve not violated the rules of the forum.

[GGTharos]

Assumptions without knowledge to back them up aren't terribly useful. Using 'more powerful radars' doesn't mean anything - it's wishful thinking. It means you need a bigger powerplant for one, and who knows what else to accommodate that much energy. A funny thing nonetheless - the F-22's stealth was designed 'with current and future threats' in mind.

 

So far about the only thing I could find the R-77 being 'superior' in is AoA and supersonic drag; this might increase its range compared to the AMRAAM on a straight ballistic shot, but all missiles maneuver and ... the R-77 is just draggier. ;)

 

The R-77M1 is irrelevant. Not only it isn't in service, it isn't even anywhere near being in service. I figure the Russians will replace the R-77 outright when the time comes, but I might be wrong on that one.

[morsmortis]

If and when they test the YAL-1 against fighters, (if it is sucuessful) it will make this missile "blah", because the YAL-1 will most likely loiter with AWACS/JSTARS/Refuelers with a kill range of up to 600km. Of course I am being just as speculative with the YAL-1 shooting down planes as the Russians are with the K-100 deploying sucessfully.

[Wilde]

Assumptions without knowledge to back them up aren't terribly useful.

 

No offence, but his doubts concerning stealth effectiveness aren't any more assumptions as your faith in it.

[Force_Feedback]

Some radar bands, stealth (ie, severely reduced detection range), in other wavelengths, it's not (or barely).

As for data-linking, well, the Soviet Union did much more extensive datalinking in the late eighties, and all weapon systems are designed to be able to communicate with eachother. In that aspect (commonality) the 'Russians' (don't know about current Russian designs, as Link 16 etc is getting more and more advanced, and the Soviet system may not. For costs/commonality reasons) always have had datalinks.

 

Still, firing one missile from 400km away is just as effective as saying 'I'm going to shoot you in 3 minutes, you're sooo dead!'

[GGTharos]

Some radar bands, stealth (ie, severely reduced detection range), in other wavelengths, it's not (or barely).

 

Incorrect. The detection range is significantly reduced across all bands. Ie. a low-freq radar that was watching you a 2000km will now be watching you at 200. RCS reduction works -best- in the range band it's designed for, yes, but it still reduces RCS across the board.

 

As for data-linking, well, the Soviet Union did much more extensive datalinking in the late eighties, and all weapon systems are designed to be able to communicate with eachother. In that aspect (commonality) the 'Russians' (don't know about current Russian designs, as Link 16 etc is getting more and more advanced, and the Soviet system may not. For costs/commonality reasons) always have had datalinks.

 

This is a common misconception. While datalinks on some fighters weren't far developed they could/should have been, the west didn't skimp on those in any case.

 

Still, firing one missile from 400km away is just as effective as saying 'I'm going to shoot you in 3 minutes, you're sooo dead!'

 

Yup :P But it can be effective to get an important asset out of the game for a short time at least.

[Vault]

As for data-linking, well, the Soviet Union did much more extensive datalinking in the late eighties, and all weapon systems are designed to be able to communicate with eachother.

 

I read this great article on Russian IADS used by the Iraqi defence in operation Desert Storm it's widley agreed upon that it was the most advanced Russian based IADS outside of the Warpact featuring mainly Russian hardware with RF and landline uplinks. The Iraqi IADS lasted about 2 hours into ODS.

 

I`m not stating just my opinion, i`ve read a lot of articles comparing R-77 and AIM-120 (not just of russian origin but also of western) and in most of them it is pointed that R-77 is superior in several aspects. And while the Aim-120D is a big improvement with 50% increased range, the R-77M1 is in development and it will have 100% range increase (aprox. 175km) which is way beyond amraam`s. You say combat prooven, well its not the only way to compare pieces of technology, you see US and Russian ICBMs are not used in combat, also F-16 has seen a lot more combat than F-22 but that doesnt stop us from comparing them.

 

The R-77 is not superiour in several aspects. One of the negative factors of the R-77 is its RCS and I'm curious to see if they drop the trademark lattice fins when Russia release the LO PAK-FA. It would be illogical to use a missile with a huge RCS on a LO fighter.