Missiles range comparison

[topol-m]

for topol-m's defense, there was a timeframe where the R-73 was considered the best short range missile around.

 

I like Kopp's articles, although he clearly is not unbiased.

 

Hehehe Groove i never thought you could defend me, usually you are just punishing me. :)

[LaRata]

Oh but if we start to compare them in terms of maneuverability, speed, Gs, etc. it will be endless.

 

_Sorry for my eng. is not perfect.

 

_I only try to say Not only one parameter make one missile better than the other ... :(

 

_Range and other technical for the missile are important, including the Pilot ...

 

 

LaRata

[GGTharos]

There's equations used by the military to predict ballistic missile ranges out there. They probably aren't even too hard to find. Get'em and do the math yourself ;)

 

Well thats what im gonna do until someone proves they are all wrong, and i mean with PROOFS, or at least someone from Vympel Design Bureau comes to these forums and says what he knows about this problem, though unlikely.

[GGTharos]

_F-14 using NOT Operational AIM-54 in Real Combat ???? No Hit in Real Combat was credited to the AIM-54 in US NAVY.

 

No, they were using poorly maintained AIM-54Cs.

 

_AIM-120 and AIM-54 Fail to Hit The Mig-25`s in Real Combat. No Air To Air Missile are Perfect ...

They were launched from max range to shoo the MiGs away. The 25's turned and ran. I don't see anything surprising in the results here.

 

_Range for US Missiles are not easy to find. Including in their official WebPages :( ...

There is very solid data on AIM-9L ballistics for example, but you have to buy the research article. For AIM-120, there was at least a HUD video showing useful range information for AIM-120A on F-16 HUD. There is a lot of footage like this for AIM-9.

 

_Range do not make any Missiles better to other missiles ...

 

LaRata

No, smarts and maintenance do though range always plays a large role.

[Vault]

for topol-m's defense, there was a timeframe where the R-73 was considered the best short range missile around.

 

I like Kopp's articles, although he clearly is not unbiased.

 

The cold war era R-73 was the best missile Groove, LOL Groove, Dr Kopp being biased now that's unimaginable, he's not the biggest fan of the F-35 is he! but that's because he can't have what he wants, the F-22.

[Pilotasso]

Current generation missiles have a major weakness: all their ranging DLZ drop dramaticaly as soon as the target changes aspect. So in one moment you have a "shoot cue" next thing you know the targets turns to one side or runs away and your just wasted a missile.

 

Thats what hapaned in Iraq where Mig-25's managed to out run all the ordnace. Admirably as it may seem their defiance, they didnt stood their ground either. Efectively beeing unsuccessfull in their mission.

 

Missiles like the meteor extend their no escapes zones so far away that targets will have much less possiblilty of escape. Two way datalink reduces the chances of inertial estimated target position error and speeds up seeker aquisition by minimizing search times, increasing the suprise and stealth factor.

 

AIM-54's and AIM-120A's age is long gone gents.

[Vault]

I'm sorry but Kopp is clueless, and I'll leave it at that.

The reduction in fin area alone significantly increases range already. The ASRAAM might be able to get a little extra oomph because of the same thing, but tiny little control surfaces do NOT bode well for max range maneuvering.

 

FYI: Same sensor, at least as of '98: http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-98-045.htm

 

I guess that Eugene Fleeman a US missile designer for the USAF for 35 years also got it wrong, he backs up every word of Dr Kopp. Those tiny control surface's result in low drag and lower AoA than the AIM-9X but they give you what the AIM-9X doesn't, the capability of the "first shot".

[Pilotasso]

NATO has made many wrong assumptions over the years regarding radars and missiles perfomance of russian and asian hardware. Usualy overestimated (not under)

[nscode]

Don't know about R-73, but the MiG-21bis manual I have is very clear about what the stated R-60 range means. Basically, it's a head on shot, where the cumulative speed of you and the target is >1500 km/h and you have a hight advantage. Also, the manual is very clear that you have piss poor chance of hiting anything with that kind of shot (an afterburning bomber maybe?)

Edited March 24, 2009 by nscode

[topol-m]

I guess that Eugene Fleeman a US missile designer for the USAF for 35 years also got it wrong, he backs up every word of Dr Kopp. Those tiny control surface's result in low drag and lower AoA than the AIM-9X but they give you what the AIM-9X doesn't, the capability of the "first shot".

 

 

Hahaha, man you made my day. Nice find.

[Vault]

Don't know about R-73, but the MiG-21bis manual I have is very clear about what the stated R-60 range means. Basicly, it's a head on shot, where the cumulative speed of you and the target is >1500 km/h and you have a hight advantage. Also, the manual is very clear that you have piss poor chance of hiting anything with that kind of shot (an afterburning bomber maybe?)

 

nscode is there any chance I could get a copy of that MiG-21bis manual please?

[nscode]

Sure,

http://www.avijacijabezgranica.com/Tehnika/vtupl17/index.html

 

but it's in Serbian... Serbo-Croatian, to be precise ;)

[Vault]

Sure,

http://www.avijacijabezgranica.com/Tehnika/vtupl17/index.html

 

but it's in Serbian... Serbo-Croatian, to be precise ;)

 

:megalol: Now I wish I understood the Serbo-Croatian language. Thanks for the effort though.

[GGTharos]

Hey, where there's an agenda, there's agendees ;)

 

I guess that Eugene Fleeman a US missile designer for the USAF for 35 years also got it wrong, he backs up every word of Dr Kopp. Those tiny control surface's result in low drag and lower AoA than the AIM-9X but they give you what the AIM-9X doesn't, the capability of the "first shot".

[RedTiger]

Hey, where there's an agenda, there's agendees ;)

 

Why people always think its a good idea to quote and cite the most agenda-filled sources, I'll never understand. Did they miss a day in class that I didn't? Agendas are a no-no. When sorting out the truth, they're bad. It means that there's a motive to influence and convince, any 'facts' are simply a means to an end. If they get the 'facts' straight, its incidental and a happy accident. And what's more, agendas stink. You can smell them mile away! :D

Edited March 25, 2009 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

Fleeman is pretty respectable in any case, I haven't seen where he 'backs up every word' for Kopp ... the Australian AF sure doesn't.

[LaRata]

Also if someone is interested there is a nice article where a lot of the myths surrounding western design missiles and their success are busted.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#1

 

_Nice Site ... A lot of information ... :)

 

_At the start R-73 was Superior ... To any NATO standart ??

 

 

 

_Russian AAM ... Not all in Service ...

 

 

_More Rusian Data ...

 

 

_Python 4 ...This move have been prove in real combat ???

 

[GGTharos]

_Nice Site ... A lot of information ... :)

 

_At the start R-73 was Superior ... To any NATO standart ??

 

A lot of crappy information. Not because it's all incorrect, but because correct + incorrect are mixed. First and foremost, take the ranges he attributes to russian missiles and cut them in half. That is their actual useful range. Missiles launched from orbit don't count ;)

 

As for the archer - look at the employment envelope. This is why it was superior. You could launch it farther off-bore, and probably at a smaller minimum distance thanks to TVC.

Edited March 25, 2009 by GGTharos

[Vault]

Fleeman is pretty respectable in any case, I haven't seen where he 'backs up every word' for Kopp ... the Australian AF sure doesn't.

 

It's in his book called tactical missile design. Fleeman confirms all the same specification and aerodynamics that Dr Kopp uses in his Article.

[LaRata]

A lot of crappy information. Notbecause it's all incorrect, but because correct + incorrect are mixed. First and foremost, take the ranges he attributes to russian missiles and cut them in half. That is their actual useful range. Missiles launched from orbit don't count ;)

 

As for the archer - look at the employment envelope. This is why it was superior. You could launch it farther off-bore, and probably at a smaller minimum distance thanks to TVC.

 

 

_ Any Site That show the correct performance of Missiles. Russian and The NATO ???

 

LaRata

[Teknetinium]

Dose ET support datalink?

And if New Radars can hold lock whit no lock giving away, Semiactive missiles could get useful. U would not even know that ER was guided in ur face ;)

Edited March 25, 2009 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Why that sounds like a book I'll have to buy, though I don't know which specification and aerodynamics you're referring to. Do be more specific please.

 

It's in his book called tactical missile design. Fleeman confirms all the same specification and aerodynamics that Dr Kopp uses in his Article.

[GGTharos]

No. You have to look for aircraft manuals.

 

Suffice it to say however, if you have missiles in a similar missile class and guidance type, their range performance will be similar - not the same, but similar.

 

_ Any Site That show the correct performance of Missiles. Russian and The NATO ???

 

LaRata

[GGTharos]

You know it doesn't. No datalink signal is generated by that WCS when an IR guided missile is launched.

 

Dose ET support datalink?

 

And if New Radars can hold lock whit no lock giving away, Semiactive missiles could get useful. U would not even know that ER was guided in ur face ;)

 

You might need a new missile for that - but that's simply not the case anyway ... there's no radar that I know of that will not give up the fact it's illuminating you, save for an LPI radar - but then it's not for guidance.

There were rumors that guidance/illumination by SA-10/Patriot could not be detected, but that was proven wrong later.

Edited March 25, 2009 by GGTharos

[Vault]

Why that sounds like a book I'll have to buy, though I don't know which specification and aerodynamics you're referring to. Do be more specific please.

 

Everything from seeker technology through to propellants and control surface guidance. What Kopp says in that article about the ASRAAM is more or less repeated in that book.