Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: SD-10 pic

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    SD-10 pic

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 29-09-02 AT 02:49 AM (GMT)]Here is a new SD-10 picture instead from the CMF. Looks to me it reverted back to the PL-12 style missileframe.
    The other pic is for comparison.

    Attachments:


    pb::

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Futurama...beats a hard kick in the face.
    Posts
    3,401

    Hey, that's what I said!

    grrrrr.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: Hey, that's what I said!

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 29-09-02 AT 04:37 AM (GMT)]Oh sorry. Penlung also said the same thing but that thought is pretty obvious to anyone. Did you try to censor my first picture?
    Attachments:

    pb::

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    302

    RE: Hey, that's what I said!

    The above SD-10 picture was taken about 10 days ago at IDEAS 2002 show. First display of SD-10 in public (for more then 1 day).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Futurama...beats a hard kick in the face.
    Posts
    3,401

    RE: Hey, that's what I said!

    Thanks crob, :-). Just felt a little crabby yesterday.

    So, you think those J-10s are carrying white SD-10s or PL-11s?

    It wass aid that the PLAAF was unhappy with the R-77's high altitude performance and engine burn performance- is this somehow improved by decreasing the range of the missile (70km vs. R77's 100km)? If it flies a shorter distance, it might have higher KE for the entire duration of the flight. Well, I'm just guessing here, don't know enough...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545

    RE: u sure abt that?

    i thought the r77s range was only abt 30~40 km, the same as the aim120.

    as for the SD10, well it is suppose to be an r77 seeker with a chinese motor. it should have better proformance ovr the r77 and extended range.


    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: u sure abt that?



    What you hear about missiles like AMRAAM or R-77 with 80, 90 or 100km range is nonsense. These ranges only represent the maximum flight or ballistic range of the motor and missile frame. Your seeker range is far shorter than that, maybe 40-50km max. The only way you can fire farther is for the airplane's radar to track the target, then guide the missile through an uplink (similar to a SARH missile) till the missile is close enough to the target use its seeker. But to track the target, you have to follow the target, and scan it continiously, which would have warned the target to engage countermeasures and evasive maneuvers. The few successful AMRAAM kills were actually done at fairly close ranges, just beyond the WVR envelope, which would have given the target very little warning and too late to respond to them. The M in AMRAAM does not stand for Medium range for nothing.

    Having said this, the move to use the PL-10/11 missile frame suggests dissatisfaction on the R-77's flight performance and burn profile. Project 129 or R-129 as it is called, aka PL-12 aka SD-10, is an attempt to mate the R-77's AGAT seeker (designated AMR-1 by the Chinese) with a Chinese missile frame. (Heck if China was happy about the R-77, it would have seriously attempted to license it long ago, like it did with the Kh-31. I also have my doubts on the R-73.)


    pb::

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Futurama...beats a hard kick in the face.
    Posts
    3,401

    I agree

    Even if a BVR missile were launched at the end of its envelope, at 80km or so, it'd be comparatively easy to dodge.

    Interestingly enough, the PLAAF has been pretty mum on its next gen of IR missiles. PL-9 range is often underestimated- most sources quote it as <15km, but according to the Jane's Missiles and Rockets article, it is 22km. According to the same article, which I believe you are referring to, they are working on a new generation of IR dogfigithing missiles. However, it's curious that they felt confident enough to stick with their PL-8 for the time being, forgo the PL-9, purchase some R-73s, and just wait it out til the new missile comes into service.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 29-09-02 AT 04:31 PM (GMT)]
    There is an official figure for the PL-9 effective range, and it's 15km, according to www.catic.com.cn.

    Effective range usually means seeker range, which is how far your seeker can detect, and you don't really need a ballistic range longer than your seeker range. 22-25km sounds correct if you're referring to the missiles flight/ballistic range, which in other words is how long you can make the missile fly. Given the size and weight of a PL-9, which is quite bigger than an AIM-9L or PL-5E and heavier, 30km is even possible.

    For example, the seeker range of an R-73 is probably only about 10-15km as well, although its flight range can be as long as 30km, 40km for the M2 version.

    Much more important to an IR missile is its off boresight capability (just how far the angle of the target from the axis of the aircraft that the missile can lock on); the missile's resistance to flares and other countermeasures.

    R-73E can lock on any target as far as 45 degrees off bore, and 60 degrees with a helmet sight (the pilot facing sideways to get a lock). Similar off boresight capabilities is matched by the PL-9.

    However, the R-73E lacks a digital signal processor and multielement head for greater image differentiation. That kind of sophistication is for the R-73M2, also known as K-74M, which is not yet in production. Without a DSP and multielement image seeker, the R-73 is prone to chasing flares. From the same article mentioned on the Chinese missiles, the PL-9C uses a seeker with a digital signal processor and multielement head.

    From Janes:

    "CATIC describes the PL-9C as a 'third-generation combat AAM'. Key changes over earlier versions include the missile's new multi- element seeker (functioning in the 3-5µm band) with digital signal processing. According to CATIC, the PL-9C has significantly improved IRCCM (infrared counter countermeasure) capabilities, putting it in a class above the PL-8 (China's Python III copy)."

    Also from Janes about a new generation Chinese IR AAM:

    "The new missile will use an all-new airframe design, coupled with an imaging infrared (IR) seeker - CATIC is known to be working on 64x64- and 128x128-pixel IR seeker arrays, using both linear scanning and staring array techniques. These seekers have been developed for both the 3-5µm and 8-12µm wavelengths. According to CATIC, the new missile is intended to equip the J-10 fighter."

    The real difference between what's happening with the Russian R-73 project vs. the Chinese AAM projects is simply, money. In short, the Russians don't have it, while the Chinese do. Which means one project is not likely to finish while the other would.

    If you read my other post, you will note that for missile to travel farther than their seeker head, they require an inertial flight phase that must be guided by the launching aircraft through a datalink. This is actually true of IR missiles as well. For the R-73 to travel farther than its seeker range, you would need the IRST you see on the Flanker and the Fulcrum. The IRST tracks the target and supplies the information to the missile via a datalink, until the missile is close enough to use its own seeker. I don't know if the latest Russian IRST can work as far as 30-40km---it can confer an IR guided missile with near BVR capability.

    If the PL-8 and PL-9 would work similarly to the Python 3 system, the missile would probably be slaved instead to the aircraft's fire control radar, for targeting beyond the seeker's range. What's neat about this is that if the aircraft's fire control radar has multiple simultaneous track and engage capabilities, it can shoot off the missiles towards different targets all at the same time. Just like any other missile, once the target is in the seeker's effective range, the seeker takes over and the aircraft can forget about the missile.

    Thus because the PL-8/9 system may work so differently from the Russian R-73, it makes adaptation of the Chinese missiles difficult to a Russian fire control radar. Phazotron however has done it starting with the Zhuk 8II. But I guess supporting the PL-8/9 results in taking up valuable memory space in the Zhuk's processor, resulting in downgraded range (due to lower resolution from the lower usuable memory) and lower number of targets simultaneously tracked and engaged (each target being tracked requires reserve memory).

    As Russian missile development projects fall behind due to the lack of funds, so is their competitiveness against the West. This is why at a certain point, Chinese indigenous missile programs must forge ahead and take that lead, because in the future, you cannot rely on everything Russian.

    But as you can see it leads to another problem. If your aircraft fleet is too dependent on Russian radars, indigenous missile compatibility becomes a problem. In the long term you will find yourself trapped with inventories of outdated Russian missiles while being unable to use your own advanced missiles. That's why you hear this report that certain institutes, like CLETRI, is developing indigenous radars to replace those in China's SU-27s.




    pb::

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    19

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-09-02 AT 09:50 AM (GMT)]For missiles like the R77 and AMRAAM the active seeker is reportedly about 15km to 20km in range against fighters. This means that the launching fighter has to guide the missile until its within 20 km of the target. Then the seeker takes over.

    The actual effective range of the missile also depends on the flight profiles of the launching aircraft and the target aircraft. For example a fighter going to afterburner and launching the AMRAAM at Mach 2 will send it further than a fighter launching at subsonic speed. The effective range is also longer if the target is approaching at speed.

    As for the SD10, rumors have it that China wants a missile that can fly a lofted profile. This means that instead of travelling in a straight profile and bleeding energy every inch of the way, the SD10 will climb to a considerable height where the thinner air allows greater speed and range. Also the SD10 will be diving down on the target, possessing greater kinetic attack energy. And the RCS of the target will be that much bigger top down. On the whole the SD10 should have substantial superiority in performance over the basic R77.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-09-02 AT 01:36 PM (GMT)]>>Given the size and weight of a PL-9, which is quite bigger than an
    >>AIM-9L or PL-5E and heavier

    Not neccesarily.It also depends on the kind of propellants.The Aim-9L itself has a maximum ballistic range of 12-15 km.

    >>However, the R-73E lacks a digital signal processor and
    >>multielement head for greater image differentiation. That kind of
    >>sophistication is for the R-73M2

    India is a known user of the R-73RDM2.Russian tech is an enigma and hardly anything is known about the latest products such as the R-77.
    There is no proof to show otherwise,that the R-73RDM2 is not in production.The PLAAF also puts the R-73 to wide use aboard it's Flanker fleet.For greater resistance to flares,the missile has intense photodetector-head cooling.The PL-9 features an old sidewinder style airframe which is inferior to the R-73's aerodynamics with thrust vectoring.

    >>I don't know if the latest Russian IRST can work as far as 30-40km--
    >>-it can confer an IR guided missile with near BVR capability.

    Those IRSTs have ranges over 70 km minimum.

    >> Having said this, the move to use the PL-10/11 missile frame
    >>suggests dissatisfaction on the R-77's flight performance

    That's pure speculation.I don't think they would chose the obsolete Aspide airframe over Vympel's new design.There have been numerous other speculations regarding the SD-10,with it resembling an AMRAAM and another report indicating that it actually uses the R-77 airframe.
    There's little doubt that the missile is still in the conceptual stage.

    >>In the long term you will find yourself trapped with inventories of
    >>outdated Russian missiles while being unable to use your own
    >>advanced missiles

    Russia offers some of the most advanced tech in the world.I hope china's not putting faith on conceptual designs which certainly can't live upto the standards of the masters in the feild.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree


    > India is a known user of the R-73RDM2.Russian tech is an
    >enigma and hardly anything is known about the latest
    >products such as the R-77.

    We have discussed this before on ACIG. "Claimed" is more like it. There is no proof that the R73M2 is actually in production.


    >There is no proof to show otherwise,that the R-73RDM2 is not

    That's not how it works. The burden of proof does not lie in trying to disprove existance but to prove existance.

    >in production.The PLAAF also puts the R-73 to wide use
    >aboard it's Flanker fleet.

    The 60 degree off boresight R-73 everyone is using is actually the R-73E. Without helmet sight, the off boresight is actually 45 degrees as many people stated. But with helmet sight, you gain the pilot's visual field of range, putting it at 60 degrees off boresight.


    >
    >>>I don't know if the latest Russian IRST can work as far as 30-40km--
    >>>-it can confer an IR guided missile with near BVR capability.
    >
    > Those IRSTs have ranges over 70 km minimum.

    I doubt that. For it to have that range, the whole IRST must be bigger than a beachball.


    >
    >>> Having said this, the move to use the PL-10/11 missile frame
    >>>suggests dissatisfaction on the R-77's flight performance
    >
    > That's pure speculation.I don't think they would chose the
    >obsolete Aspide airframe over Vympel's new design.There have
    >been numerous other speculations regarding the SD-10,with it
    >resembling an AMRAAM and another report indicating that it
    >actually uses the R-77 airframe.

    You're pretty behind the times now. It won't use the R-77 airframe certainly.

    Read it again, Chinese tests could only show the R-77 having a short burn profile and straight flight profile that limits range and energy at the end of that range. The tests only show reaching as far as 45km. The Aspide could reach as far as 80-90km. It's a proven missile as far as ballistics and flight performance goes.

    >There's little doubt that the missile is still in the
    >conceptual stage.

    Wrong. News articles last spring describe the missile in a final stage of development or in the finalization phase. Look at those J-10 pictures again, and the SD-10 in display.


    >
    > Russia offers some of the most advanced tech in the world.I
    >hope china's not putting faith on conceptual designs which
    >certainly can't live upto the standards of the masters in
    >the feild.

    Conceptual design? The Aspide/Sparrow airframe is one that has a proven flight characteristic. A lofted flight profile is certainly what the Chinese is after. It gives better range, better energy in terminal phase since the missile is in a dive. Not only looking from above gives the missile a better RCS view of the target, the missile also escapes the target's radar zone from the nose, meaning you won't detect it coming head on at you, it's coming at you from the top.



    pb::

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-09-02 AT 02:08 PM (GMT)]>>There is no proof that the R73M2 is actually in production.

    There's no proof to show that the R-73RDM2 isn't in production or counter india's "claim".Little is known about such tech.The same thing was discussed regarding the R-77 missile and now it's proven that both india and china have the R-77 missile in full service.

    >> That's not how it works

    There's nothing to show that the R-73RDM2 is a missile still in development.From available info,it's a fully developed missile in service.

    >>For it to have that range, the whole IRST must be bigger than a beachball

    They are quite big really.I'm pretty sure of their range.

    >>Look at those J-10 pictures again, and the SD-10 in display.

    Forgive me for this but I don't really trust that pic given the number of photoshopped pics of the J-10 I've seen.The clarity is also poor.

    >>The Aspide could reach as far as 80-90km. It's a proven missile as
    >>far as ballistics and flight performance goes
    >>gives better range, better energy in terminal phase since the
    >>missile is in a dive.

    I'll agree a bit.For longer ranges and burn profiles,the Aim-7 or R-27 airframes are perhaps better.But then again,they won't be going active until at comparatively very short ranges from the target.Probability of kill becomes much less.The R-77 features aerodynamics which are a generation ahead and it's KP will be much higher despite the shorter range.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-09-02 AT 02:27 PM (GMT)]>There's no proof to show that the R-73RDM2 isn't in
    >production or counter india's "claim".Little is known about

    What I saw is a "claim" made by a website. It's really the absence of production or news of such, just as Tom of ACIG said.


    >
    >>> That's not how it works
    >
    > There's nothing to show that the R-73RDM2 is a missile
    >still in development.From available info,it's a fully
    >developed missile in service.

    From available info, the only R-73 in service, in production, and being sold now is the R-73E.

    Here is Vympel's official lineup:

    http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Vympel/



    >
    >>>For it to have that range, the whole IRST must be bigger than a beachball
    >
    >They are quite big really.I'm pretty sure of their range.

    Impossible. If you have an IR seeker of that size with that range, the balance of airpower would have been in your favor---you can create an IR missile with BVR capabilities superior to the AMRAAM.


    >
    > I'll agree a bit.For longer ranges and burn profiles,the
    >Aim-7 or R-27 airframes are perhaps better.But then
    >again,they won't be going active until at comparatively very
    >short ranges from the target.Probability of kill becomes
    >much less.The R-77 features aerodynamics which are a
    >generation ahead and it's KP will be much higher despite the
    >shorter range.

    Airframes has nothing to do with the seeker. Do you know that there is an R-27 with an active seeker? That's the R-27EA, and the range is much longer than the R-77---about 140km.

    How is aerodynamics in a missile much different? It's basically a rocket with a small cross section, with small fins. If you ask me, the importance of aerodynamics in a missile is overrated, just more babble by marketing people. What determines a missile's performance more is its burn and flight profile.

    pb::

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-09-02 AT 07:06 PM (GMT)]>>What I saw is a "claim" made by a website. It's really the absence
    >>of production or news of such, just as Tom of ACIG said.

    The R-73RDM2 is mentioned by innumerable sources.Surely you're not suggesting that all of them sourced it from one indian website,which incidentally,can boast of extensive military links and connections?Has there been news of R-77 or Kh-31 production despite the fact that they are very much in service?The answer is no.

    Vympel's website is missing some products including the R-27E which you brought up.Who'd know better about products than the users themselves?It's also funny that this website mentions the rearward firing R-73R which is however,not acknowledged at ACIG.

    >>If you have an IR seeker of that size with that range

    If you've actually seen an IRST ball,then you'd know how large it is.

    >>you can create an IR missile with BVR capabilities superior to the
    >>AMRAAM.

    That does'nt make any sense.The limitations of missiles such as the R-73 are their range compared to missiles such as the AMRAAM.However,there do exist long range IR guided R-27s.

    >>If you ask me, the importance of aerodynamics in a missile is
    >>overrated

    Well,that's your opinion just like people who say that manouverability of aircraft no longer matter and it's just the radar and missiles that accompany it that do.Might as well but a powerful radar and a salvo of AAMs on a balloon.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    127

    RE: I agree

    PL-11 have not been widely used by PLAAF nor PLANF. Testing on J-10 is not the same as mass adoption.

    Russian are determined to use R-77 as the future solution, despite R-27 could be fitted with active seeker. This is exactly the same situation as Su-27 vs MiG-29.

    R-77 will be improved by Russian research efforts. So it will remain in competition, even though it may seem to fall behind others.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    72

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-09-02 AT 09:11 PM (GMT)]>>you can create an IR missile with BVR capabilities superior to the
    >>AMRAAM.

    just wondering isn't mica supposed to be IR guided, Alamo-C is IR guided and has range of around 120 km the missile well likely by RAF pilots India and Russia are the only two users of this missile however.

    >>R-77 will be improved by Russian research efforts. So it will >>remain in competition, even though it may seem to fall behind >>others.
    actually it already has been improved there has tidbits that R-77PD is already in user trials and is to be exported for the MKI and MKM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545

    RE: I agree

    >Who'd know better about products
    >than the users themselves?

    id think the makers, i means its a funny world where the users get the products before the makers know they made them.

    >>>If you have an IR seeker of that size with that range
    >>>you can create an IR missile with BVR capabilities superior to the
    >>>AMRAAM.
    >
    > That does'nt make any sense.The limitations of missiles
    >such as the R-73 are their range compared to missiles such
    >as the AMRAAM.However,there do exist long range IR guided
    >R-27s.

    it makes perfect scence to me mate.

    the biggest problems with active seeker, or any radar guided missile for that matter, is that the radar emmitions from the launch platform(fighter) or the missle, can be detected by the target long before the missile gets near the target. this give the target aircraft time to deploy contermesures and do evasive manovers that throws the missile off target.

    if u have IRST seeker that can detect targets at 70~80km, u can just turn ur radar off and use that to lock on to the enemy fighter and fire ur missle without the target fighter knowing abt it, that mean no contermeasures or evasive manovers. how many times will a modern missile miss a strate flying target with no electronic or IR counters? i think a launch to hit ratio will be alot greater then that achived by the R77, amrram, mica, SD10 etc. the effective range of the missile will probably also be considerable greater too.

    and ps, i think the R73's range restrictions is more to do with not being able to get a fix on targets at long ranges with the IRST, not that it hard to make the missle fly that far.

    >>>If you ask me, the importance of aerodynamics in a missile is
    >>>overrated
    >
    > Well,that's your opinion just like people who say that
    >manouverability of aircraft no longer matter and it's just
    >the radar and missiles that accompany it that do.Might as
    >well but a powerful radar and a salvo of AAMs on a balloon.

    hmm, well i think u need to use ur common scence on that one. just take ur fighter example. the designers of the f22, typhoon, rafale, the most capable fighters around, did decide that getting a first shot is far more important then just doing well in a furball. thats why all 3 a/c have powerful radars, low forward radar sig, and capable BVR missiles. the f22 also has supercruse which will probably be used mostly to get the a/c quickly out of enemy range and avoid getting into a dogfight.

    the typhoon and rafale will have better manoverablity then the raptor, but the raptor will be the better fighter because it can get first shoot and get out of danger faster if things dont go as planed.

    the same can be said abt missiles. speed/balistic and manoverablity are two sides to the succes of a missile type, but as always, one muct take precidence over the other.

    crobato has already explained very well how the balistics of a missile can effect its effectiveness, so i wont bore u by repeating it. but speed is also very important.

    the faster the missile, the less time the enemy pilot has to make manovers, so the less course correction the missile has to make, giving it a better chance of a achiving a hit. also u have to take into account that when BVR missile engage their targets, they're just abt at the end of their fuel supply, so even if the missile can manover like an UFO it wont have much time to do manovers, so that a bit of a waste. thats y most heat seeker-missile designed for manoverabilty, only have effective ranges of abt 15~30km when they can easily fly 50+km.

    anyway, the whole point of having a BVR missile is to engage the enenmy at a long distance, if ur missile is overrilient on manoverablity, then it will have to sacrafice its speed. that means if u fire such a BVR missile, chances are u will already be dogging enemy heat seeker before ur missile bothers the enemy(if u survive the enemy's fast BVR missile that is).




    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,371

    who leaked data?

    just exactly who told you about the manueverability of the F22? Why are you so sure about it's manueverability versus the Typhoon or the Rafale? If you assumed so, just say so. Speaking as a matter of fact. Next thing you'll "assume" is the J10 is more manueverable than the F22, when you don't even have data on both.
    Country::US of A

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    >
    > The R-73RDM2 is mentioned by innumerable sources.Surely
    >you're not suggesting that all of them sourced it from one
    >indian website,which incidentally,can boast of extensive
    >military links and connections?Has there been news of R-77
    >or Kh-31 production despite the fact that they are very much
    >in service?The answer is no.

    The one source that is not mentioning it is the source that truly counts---Vympel's own literature.

    Funny huh?

    Websites either list R-73M1 and R-73M2 or R-73E and K-74M. Unfortunately there is never a Vympel printed brochure that ever mentioned R-73M1/2.

    Vympel's own literature mentions R-73E, as it no longer refers to the same missile as R-73M1. The R-73M2 is now the K-74M (e.g. R-74 when it comes to service), which meant this product was originally conceptual, and entered experimental development. Export version is the K-74ME. The proof is right in Vympel's own mouth---right at their brochures.

    And yes, there is news about Kh-31 production---it's even licensed to China, something that's been mentioned by periodicals like Jane's.

    At least R-77 should be in limited production, but they're moving over to the still in development K-77M before they can finally commit themselves to a definitive version that they can build in large number. No one builds a large batch if the version's quality or performance remains in question and an improved variation is under development.


    >
    >Vympel's website is missing some products including the
    >R-27E which you brought up.Who'd know better about products
    >than the users themselves?It's also funny that this website
    >mentions the rearward firing R-73R which is however,not
    >acknowledged at ACIG.

    Wrong. If you check the R-27 section, that brochure shows all the head and body variations.


    >
    >>>If you have an IR seeker of that size with that range
    >
    > If you've actually seen an IRST ball,then you'd know how
    >large it is.

    Still not as big as a big beachball.

    For something to reach as far as 70km, you need an IRST as big as a fighter's own radome.


    >
    >>>you can create an IR missile with BVR capabilities superior to the
    >>>AMRAAM.
    >
    > That does'nt make any sense.The limitations of missiles
    >such as the R-73 are their range compared to missiles such
    >as the AMRAAM.However,there do exist long range IR guided
    >R-27s.
    >

    You would need a missile seeker in excess of a meter in diameter if you can go terminal at 70km.


    >>>If you ask me, the importance of aerodynamics in a missile is
    >>>overrated
    >
    > Well,that's your opinion just like people who say that
    >manouverability of aircraft no longer matter and it's just
    >the radar and missiles that accompany it that do.Might as
    >well but a powerful radar and a salvo of AAMs on a balloon.

    That can work too, though we can replace balloon with a unmanned UCAVs.

    I'm pretty much in the opinion that missiles count more nowadays than the aircraft platforms.



    pb::

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-10-02 AT 00:04 AM (GMT)]>
    >just wondering isn't mica supposed to be IR guided, Alamo-C
    >is IR guided and has range of around 120 km the missile well
    >likely by RAF pilots India and Russia are the only two users
    >of this missile however.

    R-27T is also in service with the Chinese forces, whose R-27s are clearly seen with two kinds of heads. Any purchase of R-27 is usually both SAR and IR versions since it's the established doctrine in using the R-27 to load both in one plane and fire both simultaneously at the target. If the target attempts countermeasures against the SAR missile, it won't work on the IR missile.

    Alamo C itself is not 120km. That's the R-27ET that has the long range. As far as I know, there is no service deployment of any of the "E" versions of the R-27, mainly R-27ER, R-27ET and R-27EA.

    MICA has both active and IR guided versions. The ROCAF has both.


    pb::

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    >>For something to reach as far as 70km, you need an IRST as big as a
    >>fighter's own radome

    What happened to the beachball?Yes,the IRST ball is just as big.

    In fact,the Typhoon's PIRATE has a claimed range much in excess of 70 km.

    >>You would need a missile seeker in excess of a meter in diameter if
    >>u can go terminal at 70km.

    Who's talking about missile seekers?The seekers are cued to long range IRSTs for that range.And your figures are wrong.Radars with even 500mm diameter can acheive that kind of range of 70 km.It just does'nt depend on size.

    >>At least R-77 should be in limited production,

    There's no report to prove that just like the one you want to prove that the R-73RDM2 is in production.Nor is there any report to show that the Kh-31 is also in production and I'm not talking about the sale to china.One could say that china will be the first to start actual Kh-31 production.Then I suppose india got theirs from china?I rest my case.

    >>that brochure shows all the head and body variations

    It does'nt mention the ER nor it's seeker capabilties.

    >>u can just turn ur radar off and use that to lock on to the enemy
    >>fighter and fire ur missle without the target fighter knowing abt

    That's crap.Just because you can detect at 70 km does'nt mean you can track,distinguish or acheive a lock on at that range.IRSTs don't have the capability to distinguish,label,identify or track and engage a large number of targets like radars do.

    Or are you saying that it's impossible to detect an IR missile fired at you?

    >> , not that it hard to make the missle fly that far

    I'm talking about comparative range compared to the AMRAAM.Even then,there do exist IR guided AAMs that outrange the AMRAAM.Does that mean they're superior?If they're cued and guided by the IRST at long ranges,it makes them passively guided AAMs.

    >>did decide that getting a first shot is far more important then
    >>just doing well in a furball. thats why all 3 a/c have powerful
    >>radars

    All the aircraft you mention have powerful radars but also excellent aerodynamics and turning capabilties.If radars are so much more important than aerodynamics,then stick to the balloon idea.There's nothing to indicate that their radar systems were given first priority.

    >>anyway, the whole point of having a BVR missile is to engage the
    >>enmy at a long distance, if ur missile is overrilient on
    >>manoverablity, then it will have to sacrafice its speed

    For missile aerodynamics not being so important,why do you think the Python-4 can acheive such high agility and manouverability?If seekers and burn cycles are so much more important,then one should also assume that the only targets are B-52s flying in straight lines.



  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    >
    > What happened to the beachball?Yes,the IRST ball is just as
    >big.
    >

    I guess from the other question in the other thread, you don't even know what an IRST looks like. It's pretty obvious here.



    > In fact,the Typhoon's PIRATE has a claimed range much in
    >excess of 70 km.

    Claimed, maybe in a tail chase.

    >
    >>>You would need a missile seeker in excess of a meter in diameter if
    >>>u can go terminal at 70km.
    >
    > Who's talking about missile seekers?The seekers are cued to
    >long range IRSTs for that range.And your figures are
    >wrong.Radars with even 500mm diameter can acheive that kind
    >of range of 70 km.It just does'nt depend on size.

    Wrong. Reception does depend on size. That's basic eletromagnetics. Seekers are never cued to long range. You sure have to learn about missiles do you? All long and mid range missiles have inertial guided midphase flight, where during this phase, they are guided from the launcher's radar. SAMs, ASMs, AMRAAMs, R-77s, you name it.

    The IRST of a Flanker is as big as a police car's warning light. It's not even close to 500mm. We're talking about a receptor as big as an orange.



    >
    > There's no report to prove that just like the one you want
    >to prove that the R-73RDM2 is in production.Nor is there any

    There is no proof, even from Vympel that R-73RDM2 is in production. In fact, they don't even use that name.

    Vympel's designation for the same missile is actually K-74M.


    >report to show that the Kh-31 is also in production and I'm
    >not talking about the sale to china.One could say that china

    Kh-31 goes a long way. In 1991, they were sold to Dubai. And yes, there is a pic of a brand new Kh-31 in a Chinese factory.

    >will be the first to start actual Kh-31 production.Then I
    >suppose india got theirs from china?I rest my case.
    >
    >>>that brochure shows all the head and body variations
    >
    > It does'nt mention the ER nor it's seeker capabilties.

    You really don't know how to read that brochure, do you? It breaks up the R-27 into its modular components---two boosters, one short, one extended, and three different seekers, SAR, T and EA.

    >
    >>>u can just turn ur radar off and use that to lock on to the enemy
    >>>fighter and fire ur missle without the target fighter knowing abt
    >
    > That's crap.Just because you can detect at 70 km does'nt
    >mean you can track,distinguish or acheive a lock on at that
    >range.IRSTs don't have the capability to
    >distinguish,label,identify or track and engage a large
    >number of targets like radars do.

    Are you answering yourself there?

    >
    >Or are you saying that it's impossible to detect an IR
    >missile fired at you?

    Yup. It's extremely difficult. Perhaps in the front, and only within your radar's gimbal field. But not beyond that.


    >
    >For missile aerodynamics not being so important,why do you
    >think the Python-4 can acheive such high agility and
    >manouverability?If seekers and burn cycles are so much more
    >important,then one should also assume that the only targets
    >are B-52s flying in straight lines.

    Have you heard of thrust vectoring? Rockets and missiles have been using that system for decades.





    pb::

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-10-02 AT 08:12 PM (GMT)]
    >>maybe in a tail chase

    Make up your mind first.First you say IR sensors can't have such a range,now you agree and again you deny!

    >>Vympel's designation for the same missile is actually K-74M.

    That's fine.According to your own link,this missile is on offer from Vympel.Thanks for proving me right.So india does have this missile.

    >>Wrong. Reception does depend on size. That's basic eletromagnetics.

    Don't twist my words.Did I say that it does'nt?I said it does'nt just depend on size.

    >>You really don't know how to read that brochure, do you

    Look who's talking.

    http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Vympel/R-27.jpg

    Where is the EA or an active seeker mentioned?There are two different seeker heads - IR and Semi active radar guided.

    >>Yup. It's extremely difficult

    Then your AMRAAM beating missiles already exist.

    >>Have you heard of thrust vectoring?

    The Python-4 has no thrust vectoring like the R-73.

    >>It's not even close to 500mm

    I never said 500mm for the IRST ball.

    >>Seekers are never cued to long range.

    I never meant that long but near BVR ranges.

    The R-73 seeker is cued to the IRST for 25-40 km engagements.
    http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-4.htm
    With radar coop,a max range of 50 km can be acheived,more than enough for the R-73.The Flanker's new larger and liquid cooled IRSTs should have better range.

    http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/ILA98/ila98ag_smtirst.jpg

    Does that look orange sized to you?Not as big as a beach ball but around the size of a large volleyball.

    An afterburning target in tail chase can easily be detected at BVR.


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    >
    >>>maybe in a tail chase
    >
    > Make up your mind first.First you say IR sensors can't have
    >such a range,now you agree and again you deny!

    They usually don't have that range, on all aspects, except maybe being in the six o'clock of a bomber.

    >
    >>>Vympel's designation for the same missile is actually K-74M.
    >
    > That's fine.According to your own link,this missile is on
    >offer from Vympel.Thanks for proving me right.So india does
    >have this missile.

    Wrong. K stands for "experimental".

    If it's really in production, it would be called R-74.



    >
    >>>Wrong. Reception does depend on size. That's basic eletromagnetics.
    >
    > Don't twist my words.Did I say that it does'nt?I said it
    >does'nt just depend on size.

    It does depend on size.

    >
    >>>You really don't know how to read that brochure, do you
    >
    >Look who's talking.
    >
    >http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Vympel/R-27.jpg
    >
    >Where is the EA or an active seeker mentioned?There are two
    >different seeker heads - IR and Semi active radar guided.

    Oh I guess they're not making the R-27EA then. Go run a search to see what the R-27EA stands for.

    >
    >>>Yup. It's extremely difficult
    >
    > Then your AMRAAM beating missiles already exist.

    Nope they don't. Just more unsubstantiated propaganda.

    >
    >>>Have you heard of thrust vectoring?
    >
    > The Python-4 has no thrust vectoring like the R-73.

    Wrong. They do.

    Just read the webpage you're quoting.

    >
    >>>It's not even close to 500mm
    >
    > I never said 500mm for the IRST ball.

    You would need that much if you can read 70km.

    >
    > The R-73 seeker is cued to the IRST for 25-40 km
    >engagements.
    >http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-4.htm

    25-40km distances represent maximum flight range, not seeker range.


    >With radar coop,a max range of 50 km can be acheived,more

    R-73 has no radar coop, unlike the Python 3. If it has radar coop, it won't need an IRST.


    >than enough for the R-73.The Flanker's new larger and liquid
    >cooled IRSTs should have better range.

    Maybe.



    >
    >http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/ILA98/ila98ag_smtirst.jpg
    >
    >Does that look orange sized to you?Not as big as a beach
    >ball but around the size of a large volleyball.
    >

    Nope, it looks awfully small for me to be the size of a volleyball. It looks it you can put in your single hand.


    pb::

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    >>Go run a search to see what the R-27EA stands for.

    I know the EA exists but you repeatedly said that Vympel's site mentions it.It does'nt!

    All I can say is that now,one cannot judge what's there and what's not from vympel's site:
    R-27EA - On offer but not mentioned.
    R-77AE-PD - Should rightfully be designated K-77AE-PD and it is NOT on offer but mentioned anyway
    K-74ME - On offer with india already a user

    >>It does depend on size.

    Yes but not just size.

    >>Wrong. They do.

    You don't know the Python-4

    http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html


    The Python 4 employs a 6 in diameter rocket motor, a feature it shares with the Archer and the ASRAAM. The long burn motor has a tailored thrust profile to achieve optimal acceleration for close-in closing engagements and high energy for terminal phase homing or end-game engagement. Thrust vectoring is not employed, the missile instead utilises aerodynamic design to achieve a high turn rate throughout the its flight envelope.


    Now,do you see the importance of aerodynamics?

    >>Nope, it looks awfully small for me to be the size of a volleyball

    It's much larger than it looks.You can see from many Flanker pics that their IRST ball is almost the size of the pilot's helmet.

    >>If it has radar coop, it won't need an IRST

    No,I'm talking about the IRST itself.With radar coop,it can acheive 50 km and hence guide the R-73 which should also have it for the purpose.

    >>not seeker range

    I never said seeker range.The R-73 seeker probably ranges 15-25 km.Further than that,it's cued to the IRST.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree



    Bluetooth,

    K stands for experimental version. It means it is not in service. What do you don't understand about Russian missile designations? Vympel has already in effect previously lied designating undeveloped missiles as R or inventory in order to use a Simonov like tactic of baiting a buyer, then using the purchase money to finish the development.

    I will have to agree with you on the Python 4, but it does use up fairly big canards (meaning increased drag) to achieve that maneuverability. Pythons have never been known for their range anyway.

    Note that AIM-9X does not significantly change its aerodynamic profile from the rest of the AIM-9 series, or that AMRAAM still follows the same configuration as the Sparrow.

    That IRST is never bigger than a pilot's helmet. At best you're looking like something of a police car's warning bulb. If you suppose that those things are as big as a pilot's helmet, they would be obstructing the view considering how close they are to the canopy.

    and what are you saying about 50KM? Russian IR sensor technology is at best, equal to its American and Israeli counterparts, which never claimed anything over 15km. It is only when you are directly behind your target and they are in afterburners can you detect heat that far. In any other aspect, that would be impossible to achieve.

    pb::

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    Crobato,the site I showed you itself mentions 50 km IRST range with radar coop.The pic I showed you and readily available flanker pics show the size of the IRST ball and it's clearly no where as small as you say.There's no argument.You'd notice that the ball is a bit dipped and a helmet is'nt big enough to block the view.

    If you say Vympel's site is unreliable,then why did you bring it up in the first place?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    7,172

    RE: I agree

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 02-10-02 AT 05:22 PM (GMT)]>Crobato,the site I showed you itself mentions 50 km IRST
    >range with radar coop.The pic I showed you and readily

    Your 50km IRST range is only possible on a tail chase. Headon, it may only be 10-15km.

    > If you say Vympel's site is unreliable,then why did you
    >bring it up in the first place?

    Their figures may be unreliable (just about every expert would say the same thing). But there is no doubt on what they would label. R-73M2 deployment is pure BS, now that they have renamed the missile K-74 and admitted its experimental status with the "K" designation.



    pb::

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    97

    RE: I agree

    About designations,would you say that the R-77AE-PD is a developed missile as designated on that site?

    It's unreliable,from which one cannot draw correct conclusions!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES