RVV-SD - R-77 with extended range?

[Alfa]

R-77 and RVV-AE are 2 different missiles, the later doesnt have datalink. Thats why india and china are developing their own..

 

The RVV-AE does have datalink Pilotasso - where did you get the impression that it doesn't?.

 

They are hardly "different missiles" - "R-77" was the initial designation for Soviet service, while "RVV-AE" is a later export designation.

 

What happened was that with the break-up of the Soviet Union and subsequent lack of domestic orders, Vympel offered the missile for export and apparently used foreign components for it - but the design is the same.

[Pilotasso]

Spent a good time researching but could not find the source about the lack of datalink.

In similar subject, I accidentaly came across a page of the manufacturers site trying to dispel the deficiencies and shortcoming of the missile by indian authorities.

 

http://eng.ktrv.ru/news/company/153.html?PHPSESSID=8d0bb347ba9e0a5e289faae676f4b358

 

And indian remarks.

http://sify.com/finance/astra-air-to-air-missile-to-make-its-first-flight-news--news-jktck1dieah.html

 

While it says nothing about the missiles export downgrades, there seems to be motives for the indian designers to use RVV-AE's seeker onto their new astra missile wich uses native motor, missile electronics core and avionics integration (why? ;))

 

Fell short of my objective but this is difficult stuff to prove. They dont exactly tell you publicaly what has been removed, so we dont know exactly what russia is using. Sometimes other sources show up bu they dont exactly publish it on the net either. ;)

Edited December 2, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Alfa]

Spent a good time researching but could not find the source about the lack of datalink.

Ok thanks for looking - the reason I asked is that I suspect it could be down to a misinterpretation of problems encountered by the Indian airforce.

 

Prior to acquiring the Su-30MKI, India purchased the RVV-AE for upgrading some of its MiG-29s - IIRC these were of the 9-13 version(i.e. not the 9-13S with N019M radar) and as I understand it, rather than acquiring the N019M, they instead made the necessary modifications(for RVV-AE) to the "baseline" N019 themselves. My point being that since datalink operations requires compatibility between radar and missile, a problem with functionality might as well be down to shortcomings with those indiginous radar modifications.

 

Then again, since India AFAIK was the first export customer for the RVV-AE, it could also simply be a case of "birth problems" with the initial batch recieved by India....which the manufacturer seems to admit to in the page of your first link.

 

But datalink in an integrated aspect of the RVV-AE's functionality - inertial navigation with radio correction(datalink) + seeker active radar homing at terminal stage. So a deliberate removal of the datalink capability would make the missile virtually defunct - i.e. removing the BVR aspect of a BVR missile.

While it says nothing about the missiles export downgrades, there seems to be motives for the indian designers to use RVV-AE's seeker onto their new astra missile wich uses native motor, missile electronics core and avionics integration (why? ;))

Well I don't believe that the problem(if true) has anything to do with export downgrade - while this was normal conduct during the Soviet era, the exact opposite has been the case in post-Soviet times. The Su-MKI is a good example of this - a dedicated export item that is far more sophisticated than any Flanker variant in Russian service.

 

By the end of the cold war the demand for arms dropped dramatically and with the competition for meeting what little demand remained, downgrading was not exactly a good idea - especially not for India, which traditionally buys from both east and west.

 

As to why India and China are looking to make their own missiles - you could just as well ask why they decided to develop the LCA and J-10 fighters respectively - nations with "super power" aspirations cannot rely on foreign arms imports in the long run.

 

Besides, any nation will try to involve its own industry as much as possible in military acquistions - partially to reduce the immense cost to the country and partially to boost techology standard(possible commercial spin-offs).

Fell short of my objective but this is difficult stuff to prove.

Well I didn't really look for proof - I was just interested in what info gave you the impression that the RVV-AE should lack datalink :) .

They dont exactly tell you publicaly what has been removed, so we dont know exactly what russia is using.

Well thats the interesting thing Pilotasso - I suppose that Vympel could have made an "all-Russian" version(only domestic components) of the RVV-AE, but as far as I can tell the recent Su-27SM upgrade involves compatibility with the existing export version.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Alfa

[Pilotasso]

But datalink in an integrated aspect of the RVV-AE's functionality - inertial navigation with radio correction(datalink) + seeker active radar homing at terminal stage. So a deliberate removal of the datalink capability would make the missile virtually defunct - i.e. removing the BVR aspect of a BVR missile.

 

Well thats the interesting thing Pilotasso - I suppose that Vympel could have made an "all-Russian" version(only domestic components) of the RVV-AE, but as far as I can tell the recent Su-27SM upgrade involves compatibility with the existing export version.

 

 

It has hapened before, look at UK's Tornado F-3's for example, they took AMRAAMs for years without datalink capability (due to integration and funding problems) so they were limited at BVR by AMRAAM's having to fly into the last known target predicted point before launch.

PK will be reduced against a manueverable target but BVR capability is not immidiatly and automaticaly nill. Simirlaly for the russian case, using the exportable RVV-AE is not an ideal situation, its a compromise much the same way the brits had when cash got low. Wouldnt be surprised if the datalink was confirmed to have been removed.

 

But I take your point and take note for future referrence to find out whats going on with the RVV-AE's alleged limitations. Will keep an eye on it.

 

 

 

 

Well I didn't really look for proof - I was just interested in what info gave you the impression that the RVV-AE should lack datalink :) .[/size]

I didnt have to prove but I chose to try. :D

 

Good read as always. Cheers.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Alfa]

It has hapened before, look at UK's Tornado F-3's for example, they took AMRAAMs for years without datalink capability (due to integration and funding problems) so they were limited at BVR by AMRAAM's having to fly into the last known target predicted point before launch.

 

I didn't know that, but then it sounds more like the possible explanation I mentioned in regards to the alleged lack of datalink capability for the RVV-AE in Indian use - i.e. not a short coming with the missile itself, but rather with its integration to a particular WCS.

 

PK will be reduced against a manueverable target but BVR capability is not immidiatly and automaticaly nill.

 

No thats correct, but as you say it does reduce PK against a maneuverable target and especially for longer ranged shots(i.e. the longer the missile has to fly without update, the less accuracy), so IMO the missile would only be effective for engagements within seeker range - i.e. barely BVR :) .

 

Simirlaly for the russian case, using the exportable RVV-AE is not an ideal situation, its a compromise much the same way the brits had when cash got low. Wouldnt be surprised if the datalink was confirmed to have been removed.

 

Well I would :) . If the Russian airforce is going to use the RVV-AE in its export configuration I think it is a cost cutting measure - i.e. like with the Su-27SM upgrade package and MiG-29K/KUB, to take advantage of developments already funded by export orders and introduce them directly to the Russian airforce with as little change as possible......the interesting thing being that this could indicate an ease to restrictions concerning the use of foreign components.

 

I didnt have to prove but I chose to try. :D

 

I expected nothing less :D .

 

Cheers,