Rus AAMs, so many, so different, how to use?

[vanir]

I've just been reading up at a Ru warfare database some of the adv tech details of missile development and came across some interesting points I wanted to get a handle on how might be used/expressed in FC2.

 

I've never really been very clear on the differences between the vast array of Russian AAMs and it's pretty cool getting a good description of real world manufacturer claims and technical differences.

 

linky here:

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=242&linkid=1655&linkname=AA-missiles

 

It seems the R27 is designed to be fired before the missile seeker locks on to the target, up to 50-60% of the flight path maybe inertially guided with a single shot kill probability of 0.6-0.8

 

I assume this is represented by the override launch authorisation function in LOMAC. Is this function reflective of the missile being specifically designed to do this in FC2 or is it more of a "you can do it but don't expect to hit anything" kind of feature?

 

The marked difference with the R24 is that those missiles are designed to be locked on by the parent aircraft before release. If you overrode launch authorisation for them you certainly wouldn't expect to hit anything. The IR seeker on these were a bit ahead of other contemporaries though, all aspect and not prone to distractions once locked.

 

The R40 series is similar to the R27 in that being designed to be launched searching for a target, under inertial guidence, up to 60km head on for the D versions. Its big differences are flight speed in the Mach 5 class and special construction materials and details, they're pretty trick and work well against ground clutter or at "edge of space" altitudes equally, but are pretty easy to shake by manoeuvring transonic or subsonic targets.

 

(note, using the EfA mod I took a speed run in a Foxbat-B at altitude and saw clearly making significant G at 2.5M+ just isn't something you do).

 

Unless their game is modded Players don't really use these missiles though, but I think the EfA mod is reasonably popular so it's still worth talking about...though I can't say how simplified the flight models of AI aircraft and their weapons systems are and if this is the modelling Players will be using with mods like EfA.

 

The significant thing about the R60M aside from short range and small warhead is of course being rear aspect and probably fairly prone to alternate heat sources or IR jamming.

 

The R73 has already been discussed enough there's nothing new to be said except the distinction of being designed to lock before launch with other Russian IR AAMs other than the R23/24 aren't always meant to do. So where the IR seeker and databus for say the R27T is probably a linear development of R13-1M1 with an emphasis on modular heads (R27 missiles have interchangeable seekers), the development paths from R13 split for R40TD and R24T and the latter starting off all aspect and a good seeker wound up further evolved to the R73.

 

RVV-AE (R77) has a claimed max range of 100km (max engagement alt 30km), although it is designed for up to 80% of the flight to be under inertial guidence, so in this sense works much like the R33E. If you actually want to lock a target first and guide by SARH until a terminal phase range would be reduced by parent aircraft radar tracking range, and actual frontal aspect active seeker range is similar to AMRAAM proportions.

It's just presumably the R77 has tremendous power to weight and streamlining for a very good reach ballistically speaking.

 

 

So how detailed are the various Russian missile types for their functionality in FC2?

[Alfa]

I've just been reading up at a Ru warfare database some of the adv tech details of missile development and came across some interesting points I wanted to get a handle on how might be used/expressed in FC2.

 

I've never really been very clear on the differences between the vast array of Russian AAMs and it's pretty cool getting a good description of real world manufacturer claims and technical differences.

 

linky here:

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=242&linkid=1655&linkname=AA-missiles

 

 

Warfare.ru is good as a database - i.e. as a place to quickly find info on all sorts of Russian armament, but the info on individual systems is merely collected from other sources and not always very deep/correct.

 

It seems the R27 is designed to be fired before the missile seeker locks on to the target, up to 50-60% of the flight path maybe inertially guided with a single shot kill probability of 0.6-0.8

 

Yes the radar guided(SARH) versions of the R-27(R-27R and R-27ER) are designed to be launched before seeker lock:

 

a). aircraft radar locks on to target and initial target data is uploaded to the missile's inertial navigation system(INS).

 

b) missile is fired and is steered towards target position by its onboard INS - during this intermediate flight stage, the aircraft radar transmits updated target coordiantes to the missile's INS - this is known as "radio correction" or "midcource guidance".

 

c). at terminal stage of flight when the missile's small onboard semi-active radar seeker is within range of target, it takes over guiding the missile by homing directly on the aircraft radar's pulse being reflected off the target(SARH).

 

The IR versions of the R-27(R-27T and R-27TE) need the seeker to lock on to target before the missile can be launched.

 

I assume this is represented by the override launch authorisation function in LOMAC. Is this function reflective of the missile being specifically designed to do this in FC2 or is it more of a "you can do it but don't expect to hit anything" kind of feature?

 

No the "override launch autorhorisation" feature in Lock-on is actually representing an emergency launch feature of the real missile.

 

The R-27 missiles use two types of suspension racks - an ejector rack(called AKU-470) for the radar guided variants and a rail launcher(called APU-470) for the IR homing variants.

 

The ejector rack is for missiles mounted on the fuselage(underneath or between engine ducts) of the Su-27. Upon launch the missile is ejected dwonwards from the aircraft before the missile engine ignites - this ejection launch method is necessary on fuselage positions in order to avoid having the missiles exhaust plume entering the aircraft's engine inlets upon launch. Only the radar guided variants of the R-27 can be launched using this rack.

 

Emergency jettison of a missile from this type of rack is a matter of simply ejecting the missile without firing it.

 

The rail launcher rack is for missiles mounted on the wings of the aircraft - upon launch the missile's engine is ignited right away and the missile "slides" off the rail. This rack is primarily for the IR homing variants of the R-27 and contains a container with liquid coolant for the seekers of these, but the rack can also be used for a wing mounted SARH variant.

 

Since the missile can only clear the rack by own power, the only way to jettison the weapon is to fire it. That is what the "launch override authorisation" is for.......i.e. to get the missile to launch and clear the rack without having a target.

 

The marked difference with the R24 is that those missiles are designed to be locked on by the parent aircraft before release. If you overrode launch authorisation for them you certainly wouldn't expect to hit anything. The IR seeker on these were a bit ahead of other contemporaries though, all aspect and not prone to distractions once locked.

 

See above - the R-27T and TE cannot be launched without a solid seekerlock except to get rid of the missile in an emergency situation(such as an imminent crash landing).

 

The significant thing about the R60M aside from short range and small warhead is of course being rear aspect and probably fairly prone to alternate heat sources or IR jamming.

 

Incorrect. The big difference between the initial R-60 and updated R-60M is exactly that the latter has a newer all-aspect seekerhead.

 

The R73 has already been discussed enough there's nothing new to be said except the distinction of being designed to lock before launch with other Russian IR AAMs other than the R23/24 aren't always meant to do. So where the IR seeker and databus for say the R27T is probably a linear development of R13-1M1 with an emphasis on modular heads (R27 missiles have interchangeable seekers), the development paths from R13 split for R40TD and R24T and the latter starting off all aspect and a good seeker wound up further evolved to the R73.

 

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying in the above, but it sounds like you think the IR seekerhead of the R-73 is more sophisticated than that of the R-27T/TE.....if anything its the other way around. The IR seeker of the R-73 has a +/- 45 degree off-bore capability, while it is +/- 60 degrees for the IR seeker of the R-27TE.

 

RVV-AE (R77) has a claimed max range of 100km (max engagement alt 30km), although it is designed for up to 80% of the flight to be under inertial guidence, so in this sense works much like the R33E.

 

It works nothing like the R-33E - the R-33 is a huge long-range SARH missile, while the RVV-AE is a small medium-range ARH missile and as such works much like the AMRAAM :) .

 

If you actually want to lock a target first and guide by SARH until a terminal phase range would be reduced by parent aircraft radar tracking range, and actual frontal aspect active seeker range is similar to AMRAAM proportions.

 

I think there is something you have misunderstood - you don't "guide by SARH". SARH(Semi-Active Radar Homing) is a homing method just ARH and IR.

 

The RVV-AE works in exactly the same way as an AMRAAM, which in turn is very similar to the procedure I described for the R-27R/ER to begin with - except that at terminal stage of flight the RVV-AE and AMRAAM use active radar homing rather than semi-active radar homing. The difference being that an active radar seeker has its own onboard radar emitter and thus doesn't need the aircraft radar to provide the target reflected energy to home on.....i.e. it is autonomous at this stage - hence the term "fire & forget".

 

There are examples of combined use of SARH/ARH. I believe the AIM-54 missile uses such a homing method - persumably in order to take advantage of the huge radar power of the F-14's AWG-9 radar to extend seeker range at terminal stage.

 

It's just presumably the R77 has tremendous power to weight and streamlining for a very good reach ballistically speaking.

 

Considering the control surface design and that it has a single stage "boost-only" engine I would consider that doubtful. Anyway, you can meassure missile ranges in varies ways and range quotes are really quite useless unless you know exactly what they are meant to display :) .

 

 

[vanir]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Alfa :)

 

It is a bit confusing why to have IR seekers on R40 and R27 missiles if they have to have seeker lock before firing. Range would be reduced such that an R24T or R73 would do just fine.

And particularly in the case of the R27 it is stated that the missile is common manufacture and only the seeker head is interchangable IR or SARH so that the inertial guidence datalink should still be encased for the IR versions.

 

It makes me wonder, are you sure the R27T/ET and R40T/TD missiles can't be fired before seeker lock using the inertial guidence datalink and attain seeker lock much like an AMRAAM does, only with IR instead of ARH.

It's the only way I can imagine they achieve their advertised ranges for IR versions under any circumstances at all, otherwise you're looking at what, 20km max no matter what kind of missile the seeker is on, so what's the point fitting IR to larger missiles?

[GGTharos]

Here's your answer: Bombers and some fighters are so ECM-capable, you'll never get a radar lock on them. You'll try, but the radar will just fail to lock.

 

What do you do now? IR missile - those bombers will usually have a HUGE IR signature and you will be able to lock onto them from a longer distance than against a fighter. In addition the large missiles are more capable of intercepting very fast and high flying (or low, fast, and running) bombers (think XB-70, F-111, Tornado, B-1B's) than an R-73, and in general radar missiles work best at high aspect (front quarter) engagements than low aspect engagements. Plus the ECM issue.

 

And no, you cannot launch those without seeker lock. The fire control radar does not produce the data-link signal for IR missiles, and yeah, it is really as simple as that :) As far as the FCR/WCS is concerned, the only difference between the R-73 and the R-27T/ET for example is their kinematics, and nothing else. The programmed lock and launch process is exactly the same.

 

Note: There are modern IRH missiles which do utilized datalink+LOAL. Those would be the AIM-132, the MICA IR, the Python 5, IRIS-T (IIRC) and AIM-9X Mod 2. These missiles can in some cases give you 360deg engagement capability.

Edited October 3, 2010 by GGTharos

[vanir]

All makes very good sense. Thanks guys :)

[Alfa]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Alfa :)

 

You are welcome mate :)

 

It is a bit confusing why to have IR seekers on R40 and R27 missiles if they have to have seeker lock before firing. Range would be reduced such that an R24T or R73 would do just fine.

 

In a head-on engagement yes, but the thing is that while a radar seeker has longest acquisition range against a head-on target with a considerable drop in rear aspect, the opposite is the case with an IR seeker - it performs best in rear aspect where it has a clear line of sight to the hot engines of the target, wheras the acquisition range is much lower in head-on aspect where the target's hot parts are shielded by the airframe.

 

The idea with the R-27T/TE was to couple the long rear aspect acquisition range of an IR seeker with a missile that has the kinematic performance to take advantage of it - i.e. the ability to chase down a receeding target.

 

And particularly in the case of the R27 it is stated that the missile is common manufacture and only the seeker head is interchangable IR or SARH so that the inertial guidence datalink should still be encased for the IR versions.

 

No because the INS is part of the SARH seeker module :) . The "auto pilot" mid-section module common to all R-27 variants AFAIK only contains the basic flight controls that translates steering commands into physical control surface deflections and keeps the missile stable in flight.

 

It makes me wonder, are you sure the R27T/ET and R40T/TD missiles can't be fired before seeker lock using the inertial guidence datalink and attain seeker lock much like an AMRAAM does, only with IR instead of ARH.

 

Yup I am sure - at least as far as the R-27T/TE is concerned(don't know much about R-40) :)

 

It's the only way I can imagine they achieve their advertised ranges for IR versions under any circumstances at all, otherwise you're looking at what, 20km max no matter what kind of missile the seeker is on..

 

Well as mentioned earlier range quotes can mean a lot - i.e. are they advertising realistic engagement ranges for the conditions/situations in which the missile was intended to be used.....or are they merely max kinematic ranges of the missile as such when fired at optimal launch conditions :) .

 

.. so what's the point fitting IR to larger missiles?

 

As mentioned earlier, to chase down fleeing targets that smaller IR "dogfighting" missiles lack the range(flight time) to do :) .

Edited October 3, 2010 by Alfa

[nscode]

Here's your answer: Bombers and some fighters are so ECM-capable, you'll never get a radar lock on them. You'll try, but the radar will just fail to lock.

 

What do you do now? IR missile - those bombers will usually have a HUGE IR signature and you will be able to lock onto them from a longer distance than against a fighter. In addition the large missiles are more capable of intercepting very fast and high flying (or low, fast, and running) bombers (think XB-70, F-111, Tornado, B-1B's) than an R-73, and in general radar missiles work best at high aspect (front quarter) engagements than low aspect engagements. Plus the ECM issue.

 

It's interesting that the MiG-21 manual states something like that, only a bit in reverse about the R-3: prop aircraft have a smaller heat signature, so that is why you have the radar version :) But that is anchient hystory...

[combatace]

It's interesting that the MiG-21 manual states something like that, only a bit in reverse about the R-3: prop aircraft have a smaller heat signature, so that is why you have the radar version :) But that is anchient hystory...

 

Yes because they don't have afterburners like fighters.

[GGTharos]

What do afterburners have to do with it?

[RIPTIDE]

What do afterburners have to do with it?

They help with barrel rolls.

[GGTharos]

Hm, I guess they would at that ...

[vanir]

I've got a much better handle on how to use the R27T/ET now (what kind of situations to save it for and why to even carry it), thanks guys.

The thing I didn't even think about for things like the R40TD is that high mach high alt targets (like the blackbird, although not modelled), will also be giving off a lot of heat in cold air due to friction.

[GGTharos]

Yep; also consider that the missile you mentioned was actually meant to be used against the B-70. In real life it was (presumably) used to shoot down Spreichner's F-18.

[vanir]

It doesn't bely the general truth in your statement but having looked over Jane's reporting of the Mikoyan design requirements of the Foxbat it was never intended to shoot down Valkyries which I don't think were in development in 1958 when it was muted. It was all about the (then) A-11 (with a coat of radar absorbant paint the A-12), which rather intentionally sounded like a Mach 3 cruise missile carrier to the Russians by designation.

 

The way I read it was the SR-71 was originally R/S-71 and never meant "strategic reconniassance" but was initially designed to Johnson's personal requirement as a reconnaissance/(nuclear) strike aircraft, the strike capability was never accepted by the air force, so he reversed the designation to SR from R/S on a whim and later people just started saying it meant strategic reconnaissance. Johnson says it always meant it was a dual capability reconnaissance-bomber.

 

The only Blackbird designed solely for reconnaissance from the start was given an attack aircraft designation for the project. Understandably this would disconcert the Russians.

It was also intended from the beginning to become the basis for some armed combat variants, the YF-12 already in development construction by 1964 and that had to have been started before 1963 because of Phoenix.

 

Mikoyan design requirements from 1958-64 development phase for the Foxbat as stated by Janes were "to protect soviet territories from high flying cruise missiles and A-11"

[GGTharos]

I might not be quite as well read on the subject, though it looks like the Valkyrie was in development at that time.

[vanir]

Probably right, I'm not read up on Valkyrie development, except that it essentially provided the al honeycomb industrial technology put to such good use for later fighters for the US. If it provided nothing else of value, the Valkyrie did quite a lot.