RVV-SD - R-77 with extended range?

[Alfa]

I`ve never said the RVV-AE has a ramjet engine. I said the longer range projects for upgrading RVV-AE may have ramjet engine...

 

And I am saying that since the site in question is an umbrella organisation for the manufactures of the missiles in question, you can pretty much deduce that the designs featured there are the ones which are in the works of the manufactures - meaning that e.g. a ramjet version of the RVV-AE apparently isn't(anymore).

 

I don`t see how i`m contradicting any info that site offers.

 

Except that you don't seem to give it more credibility than the average 3rd party web sites.

[Alfa]

Essentially, both the RVV-MD (Air-to-Air Missile - Short Range) and the RVV-SD (Air-to-Air Missile - Medium Range) are evolutionary developments of the R-73E (export) and RVV-AE missiles, respectively.

 

Yes thats clearly the case :) .

 

The RVV-SD features a heavier motor, which is at least part of what gives it a 35% greater maximum claimed range over the RVV-AE. It also uses a laser proximity fuse in place of the radar fuse of the RVV-AE.

 

radar fuse?....AFAIK the initial RVV-AE also uses a laser proximity fuse ;) .

 

The lesser known development is the RVV-BD (Air-to-Air Missile - Long Range). Little is known about it, except some indications that it will feature a more typical control surface arrangement without the lattice fins of the RVV-AE. It is already offered as a weapon for the export Su-35BM and is also intended for the PAK-FA.

 

Not surprising - as you said yourself the RVV-SD and RVV-MD are really just upgrades to the RVV-AE and R-73 respectively, while the "RVV-BD" would constitute a new development(that isn't ready yet).

[topol-m]

Except that you don't seem to give it more credibility than the average 3rd party web sites.

 

It`s not that i`m not giving it credibility but it`s not abundant of data is it? It presents the products with most basics characteristics. You can find much more info about RVV-AE if you are willing to search. Do you see info for the new versions about contracts, news about exports, dates, numbers? Nope. Why? Because these products are still not in manufacture phase. Until some of these enter in service or at least in serious testing and preparation for manufacture we are talking about designations only. So what exactly am i not giving credibility to of all the data the site presents? That RVV-AE-SD is 190 kg and has a length of – 3.71 m? Ok i suppose it`s true there is no reason not to be. But isn`t it more interesting if some of these missiles will ever be produced in more than several dozens of pieces and which ones? PAK-FA will have new missiles no doubt. Will these be some upgraded RVV-AE or some new designs? Probably at the begining the former, later maybe the latter.

Edited November 28, 2009 by topol-m

[topol-m]

And I am saying that since the site in question is an umbrella organisation for the manufactures of the missiles in question, you can pretty much deduce that the designs featured there are the ones which are in the works of the manufactures - meaning that e.g. a ramjet version of the RVV-AE apparently isn't(anymore).

 

Also, I do not expect everything that`s being developed for the military to be posted in a site for everybody to see. So a ramjet version not present there does not necessarily mean such project does not exist or is not in development. It could be another of the many candidates for realization. ;)

[Alfa]

Topol-m,

 

We were talking about the RVV-SD(thread title) and whether:

 

a). it is likely that it has a bigger engine than the initial RVV-AE

 

b). it is likely that a future longer ranged version would employ ramjet instead.

 

It`s not that i`m not giving it credibility but it`s not abundant of data is it? It presents the products with most basics characteristics.You can find much more info about RVV-AE if you are willing to search

 

Oh I have searched and "found much more info about the RVV-AE" - but considering that..

 

- the body diameter is the same

- the aerodynamic configuration is the same

- the weight is higher

- the motor section of the missile is extended and clearly accounts for the increase in overall length

 

...I don't really need much more info than what the site gives to figure out how the RVV-SD obtains its longer launch range :) .

 

Do you see info for the new versions about contracts, news about exports, dates, numbers? Nope. Why? Because these products are still not in manufacture phase. Until some of these enter in service or at least in serious testing and preparation for manufacture we are talking about designations only. So what exactly am i not giving credibility to of all the data the site presents?

 

Its not about "data" - the trend over the years has been to publish varies prospective designs(including RVV-AE-PD and Hajduk's beloved R-27AE) that never production, so if the manufacturer doesn't even mention a possible ramjet version(PD) of the RVV-AE, I would say that the most likely reason is that it is no longer considered....which in turn should answer question b).

 

That RVV-AE-SD is 190 kg and has a length of – 3.71 m? Ok i suppose it`s true there is no reason not to be. But isn`t it more interesting if some of these missiles will ever be produced in more than several dozens of pieces and which ones?

 

Not in regards to what we were discussing - the increased length and weight combined with extended launch range is quite interesting in regards to question a) - namely whether the RVV-SD has a different(larger) rocket engine than the initial RVV-AE....which it clearly has.

[Alfa]

Also, I do not expect everything that`s being developed for the military to be posted in a site for everybody to see. So a ramjet version not present there does not necessarily mean such project does not exist or is not in development. It could be another of the many candidates for realization. ;)

 

No it does not necessarily mean that a ramjet project doesn't exist, but as mentioned in above post - the trend has exactly been to publish all sorts of prospective designs that never materialized......including the "RVV-AE-PD" ramjet version. So not only would your expectations be a break from previous conduct, but it would also seem rather odd that a design prospect already published years ago should suddenly become secret, while new ones such as the RVV-SD and RVV-MD aren't.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

That RVV-AE-SD is 190 kg and has a length of – 3.71 m? Ok i suppose it`s true there is no reason not to be. But isn`t it more interesting if some of these missiles will ever be produced in more than several dozens of pieces and which ones?

The RVV-SD is available and production rate and proliferation will depend on many factors. Including the Russian, Indian, Chinese, Venezuelans and other Air Forces need for such a missile.

 

The point is, we have an availability of increased range R-77 out there, right now.

[Pilotasso]

where is that written?

 

BTW the chinese already have the SD-10, and the indians are developing their own so they can get rid of the RVV-AE.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Pilotasso

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

where is that written?

Here.

[topol-m]

Topol-m,

 

We were talking about the RVV-SD(thread title) and whether:

 

a). it is likely that it has a bigger engine than the initial RVV-AE

 

b). it is likely that a future longer ranged version would employ ramjet instead.

 

Oh I have searched and "found much more info about the RVV-AE" - but considering that..

 

- the body diameter is the same

- the aerodynamic configuration is the same

- the weight is higher

- the motor section of the missile is extended and clearly accounts for the increase in overall length

 

...I don't really need much more info than what the site gives to figure out how the RVV-SD obtains its longer launch range :) .

 

Its not about "data" - the trend over the years has been to publish varies prospective designs(including RVV-AE-PD and Hajduk's beloved R-27AE) that never production, so if the manufacturer doesn't even mention a possible ramjet version(PD) of the RVV-AE, I would say that the most likely reason is that it is no longer considered....which in turn should answer question b).

 

Not in regards to what we were discussing - the increased length and weight combined with extended launch range is quite interesting in regards to question a) - namely whether the RVV-SD has a different(larger) rocket engine than the initial RVV-AE....which it clearly has.

 

:D This dispute has become rather funny. Let`s generalize what we`ve learned from it:

1. So there is a RVV-AE-SD missile in development, that has increased range and some other changes/improvements over the original.

2. There are other upgrades of the RVV-AE in different development phases.

3. None of those are actually in service and and it`s not known which ones will be.

I guess we can all agree on these ^^^ 3. These are obvious.

So where is all the arguing coming from? Oh it`s the "Very" important question if this increased range of the SD is achieved with same engine or a different one. As it is the same type of engine - fixed-thrust solid fuel motor i don`t see why should i argue about if the SD engine is some kind of upgrade of the RVV-AE engine, or it is a completely new specially designed for the SD. It`s not like there is a lot of detailed info released about that. Obviously for a 37% increase in range a ramjet wasn`t needed. Ramjet was and probably still is considered an option for the long range versions of RVV-AE which fate is unclear.

So basically with the limited amount of data that we have it seems a little useless this dispute about what part of the SD engine has been changed, what is its designation, where has it been manufactured, and exactly how much km it gives to the overall range... :doh: The missile according to the data released has a range of 110 km (front hemisphere launch). I doubt any digging will provide you with a detailed info about the structural differences of its engine compared to the one in the original RVV-AE.

Anyway my goal is not to collect data and make thorough comparison of various missile engines so it`s really interesting for me to see where this thread is going ;)

[GGTharos]

Russia is just catching up to AIM-120 .. again.

 

And the 73 has nothing ... nothing whatsoever on the 9X, which is not only in operation, but is being upgraded with datalink and LOAL for 360 deg coverage - it is also fairly competitive with all new generations of short range heaters, including Python and ASRAAM. The 73 was great back in the day, it is probably much more useful as an SRM than a 9M, but the 9X simply leaves it in the dust. It cannot be decoyed by flares, it flies farther, and its OBA capability is higher.

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

Actually, I think that, matching the AIM-120, Russia will be on top, as the R-73 it's the king of its category right now (when talking about fully operational missiles, of course. AIM-9X can't be counted there. The Phyton series, however, are a serious competitor when talking about short-range missiles. Anyone has seen the footage of the F-16 shooting down the UAV? The missile went freakin' backwards :bounce:!)

Edited November 29, 2009 by GGTharos

[mikoyan]

just in case you guys don't know...

the f-22 pawns everything even UFOS and the Enterprise from Star Trek

[GGTharos]

You can think of the motor mass as energy. More energy = more range. :)

Some things can change this when comparing missiles (some missiles may be draggier, or have lower fuel/mass ratio, and so on) but in general if you increase the propellant mass you will increase the range.

 

If they take off the gridded fins that missile will probably be quite the match for AMRAAM kinematically. If they don't ...

 

Anyway my goal is not to collect data and make thorough comparison of various missile engines so it`s really interesting for me to see where this thread is going ;)

[topol-m]

just in case you guys don't know...

the f-22 pawns everything even UFOS and the Enterprise from Star Trek

 

Hahaha now that was a comment just in the right place :laugh:

 

You can think of the motor mass as energy. More energy = more range. :)

Some things can change this when comparing missiles (some missiles may be draggier, or have lower fuel/mass ratio, and so on) but in general if you increase the propellant mass you will increase the range.

 

If they take off the gridded fins that missile will probably be quite the match for AMRAAM kinematically. If they don't ...

 

I agree. My idea was that such digging in engine comparison of missiles that have so little available info about them is useless and inaccurate. The only thing we can compare is what we have data about - and we have data about ranges, not detailed info about the engines. And yes the fins will make a difference, and probably the long range versions will get rid of the latice fins.

Edited November 29, 2009 by topol-m

[SpudmanWP]

Russia is just catching up to AIM-120 .. again

 

Hardly.... The 120 has never stood still. It is finalizing the 120-D testing as we speak and they are still working on improvements for later blocks.

 

ATK, the maker of the 120's motor, has recently been given a contract for a new motor. One of the planned upgrades is a "dual pulse" mode. This means that the motor can be restarted at the endgame to ensure full thrust, not just coasting, when it is near the target.

 

This, combined with the 120D's improved datalinks, will enable a very long range, high apogee, arching shot with full thrust at the end.

[GGTharos]

That was my point ;)

 

Hardly.... The 120 has never stood still. It is finalizing the 120-D testing as we speak and they are still working on improvements for later blocks.

[GGTharos]

You will not get data about the rockets, but you can probably make some educated guesses as to propellant weight, burn time and ISP. However these are guesses.

 

Eg. if you tell me missile range is 110km, I can plot multiple solutions that will arrive at that range anyway, with different rocket and loft parameters.

 

I agree. My idea was that such digging in engine comparison of missiles that have so little available info about them is useless and inaccurate. The only thing we can compare is what we have data about - and we have data about ranges, not detailed info about the engines. And yes the fins will make a difference, and probably the long range versions will get rid of the latice fins.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

:D This dispute has become rather funny. Let`s generalize what we`ve learned from it:

1. So there is a RVV-AE-SD missile in development, that has increased range and some other changes/improvements over the original.

2. There are other upgrades of the RVV-AE in different development phases.

3. None of those are actually in service and and it`s not known which ones will be.

I guess we can all agree on these ^^^ 3. These are obvious.

No Topol-M, "we" can not agree with your point number 1. Where do you get the idea that the RVV-SD is missile in development?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

R-77 is to be updated, dont think there will be radical changes, if they remove latice fins in the upgrade, that alone will increase range.

There is no need to remove lattice. R-77 had a greater range then competitive missile. The R-77 lattice provided better maneuverability then competitive missile.

[Pilotasso]

Here.

 

 

Theres is no mention that they are already mass producing it... they want to sell it and had developed it but from there to series production, they need actual tangible contracts.

 

There is no need to remove lattice. R-77 had a greater range then competitive missile. The R-77 lattice provided better maneuverability then competitive missile.

 

 

The lattice has multiple intersecting boundary layers, and thus huge drag. They are usefull for snap manuevers off boresight form the rack (should they been designed for that) but after it reaches speed they are an appentice. More, a BVR missile doesnt need to snap for off boresight shot, the 73 was designed for that.

There is no credible source for you to say R-77 had greater range, on top of that it bearely entered service at all.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Pilotasso

[topol-m]

No Topol-M, "we" can not agree with your point number 1. Where do you get the idea that the RVV-SD is missile in development?

 

You can call it whatever you like: "in development ", "ready for production", "completed", etc. Do you have any info about the completion of testing, of its readiness to enter in service or about any deals with foreign customers? I don`t. "The missile may be adapted for deployment on foreign carriers." This "may" is the keyword here. It may be ready for manufacture, it may enter soon in service, it may be exported... But right now it`s just a possible upgrade for RVV-AE. It could take an year or several months to adapt it or to start production depending on the progress with this missile so far or the interest. It would be nice if this happens as it is a better RVV-AE after all, and increases the capabilities of the fighters armed with it until some more advanced version or a completely new missile comes up.

[Boberro]

just in case you guys don't know...

the f-22 pawns everything even UFOS and the Enterprise from Star Trek

 

Hahah great :D

[GGTharos]

The R-77 is a kinematic lemon. It did and does not have greater range than 'competing missile'. These lattices WILL be removed eventually since the only thing they add is MASSIVE DRAG.

 

The extra maneuverability is useless because for many reasons (the lattices being one of them) the poor R-77 will just not reach its target. The only reason for not removing the lattices is to reduce development risk, cost and time.

 

There is no need to remove lattice. R-77 had a greater range then competitive missile. The R-77 lattice provided better maneuverability then competitive missile.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Why do they need to mass-produce it? Is there imminent attack on Russia? Why spending national treasure for something you don't need? But, if they ever need it, it is here and it is available.

Theres is no mention that they are already mass producing it... they want to sell it and had developed it but from there to series production, they need actual tangible contracts.

 

Ask GGTharos, he will tell you the missile had greater range then original AMRAAM.

There is no credible source for you to say R-77 had greater range, on top of that it bearely entered service at all.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You claimed that it did. One just need to search through your posts and will find several times you stating the R-77 HAD a greatere range then 120A.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

It did and does not have greater range than 'competing missile'.