Read the forum code of contact
By: - 25th May 2014 at 12:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'Range' is a funny old thing. It depends on target altitude, speed, manoeuvrability, approaching or leaving. E.g.:
Are you quoting kinetic range, effective range and if the latter, what Pk parameters are you setting. You are right in that some stated ranges make no sense because specification writers work to different requirements and are essentially quoting different parameters in many cases. Often a no-escape zone is mentioned, but 'no escape zone' against what? A bomber, a typical fighter, a Mig-31, an SR-71?
Detection range is also a factor. This depends on radar size, power, wavelength/band, type (e.g. AESA or PESA etc.), processing power. Are we talking about detection or targeting? OTH capabilities, provided by OTH radar, airborne radar, satellites etc.?
As you rightfully said, guidance control, and trajectory also plays a part, as does the propulsion system. E.g. a Meteor was said to have 3 times the no escape zone of an AMRAAM C-7 in AirForces Monthly. It has ramjet propulsion, so doesn't need to carry oxidiser internally and it can also vary its speed to maximise range and optimise intercepts, which also helps relative to solid rocket propulsion. Add a bigger booster to create a VL version and it would be a very effective SAM.
Launch altitude also plays a part. Not everywhere is flat.
Different ranges are quoted for Aster for different launch systems:
http://www.eurosam.com/products/ground-launched-systems/
http://www.eurosam.com/products/naval-systems/
Note the shorter range against missiles for the naval variant. Faster, supersonic anti-ship missiles being the different requirement probably.
By: - 25th May 2014 at 17:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
!. SM-2 is a bigger missile then either the 9m96E or 9m96E2 missiles. 9m317 missiles kinda are limited to that range by guidance. The new missile for Buk-M3. The 9M317A with active/passive rader allows it to have range of 70 km. The missile also has increased max speed of mach 8. Which if probably if reduced would allow the missile to have higher range if they wanted.
2. Has bigger first stage.
Posts: 1,010
By: totoro - 25th May 2014 at 11:58
What contributes to operational missile range for surface to air missile systems?
If possible, it'd be nice to reach conclusions through the following questions:
1. Why are sm-2 blk2/3 (with mk104 motor, no additonal booster) marketed with 120 km range while similarly sized 9m38 missiles are marketed with 40ish km range and even newer 9m317 missiles are marketed with 50 km range.
2. Why are 9m96e missiles marketed with 40 km range and 9m96e2 with 120 km range, when the former are 30% lighter, and both have boosters.
2.b. Why is aster30 marketed with 120 range, while aster15 has 30 km range?
3. why does 9m338 missile have 15 km range while 57e6e missile has 20 km range, the latter being 35% lighter, though it has a booster.
4. why does mica vl have 20ish km range?
My own tries to answer the questions:
1. While the sm-2 are meant for all sort of targets, some including far away slow airliner type targets, buk system is meant for engaging tactical combat aircraft and incoming missiles only. being an army system that needs to be fielded in vast numbers, it also needs to be cheap. therefore, priority for buk is reaction time and simplicity of missile guidance which all resulted in missile being designed for relatively straight flight to get to target asap and the telar's being simple enough to do that job, but not also guide missiles precisely to 100 km ranges.
2. The same as above, really. while bigger booster surely does increase some range, most of the range difference between two missiles is due to planned trajectory. but for that to have sense the shorter ranged missile should also be cheaper, lacking some subsystems that enable the larger missile to be guided at long ranges. datalink, etc?
2.b. the same as above.
3. pantsir's boostered missile has less drag once the booster falls off, so kinematically it may be closer to the heavier tor's missile. But again trajectory differences which stem from guidance differences which stem from intended role and budget plans differences may contribute to difference in range. I am furthermore suspect of that when i read about the newest pantsir's missiles which, for a fairly slight increase in booster, increase their range by 75% So i suspect pantsir is meant for all sorts of targets, and its radar and guidance systems show that, while tor is meant for fast combat jets and munitions.
4. mica vl may be something like pantsir system in its role - being an all around system. its active selfguidance (assuming a wide aspect seeker) allows for long ranged trajectories without complex guidance systems of ground components. But like with pantsir's missiles and such, its efficiency drops with range, which is why mbda prospects show 15 km range against fast jets and 20+ km range against large(slow) aircraft.