Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions about the AA-10 Alamo

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MarocMirage
    Senior Member

    Questions about the AA-10 Alamo

    I read that the Alamo has a greater range than the AA-12, is this true ?
    Is there an IR Alamo, you know like the MICA IR.
  • J-35 Draken
    Rank 5 Registered User

    #2
    AA-10 ALAMO R-27 IR Versions

    All-aspect Infrared R-27T (70 km) Launch Weight 254 kg
    All-aspect Infrared R-27TE (120 km) Launch Weight 343 kg
    J-35 Draken

    Comment

    • GDL
      GDL
      Aussie Analyst

      #3
      The so called Long Burn AA-10s have ranges in excess of 100km, and the standard AA-12 has a range that I have seen from 50km~75/80km, depending on the source and the time that source was published.
      Last edited by GDL; 6th July 2004, 10:21.
      ~ Glenn - Endgltige Vernichtung - !

      Visit the Aussie Fifth Column Forum for discussion and debate on life, politics, and weapons and warfare.

      Comment

      • GarryB
        Rank 5 Registered User

        #4
        I read that the Alamo has a greater range than the AA-12, is this true ?
        Is there an IR Alamo, you know like the MICA IR.
        Yes, Alamo uses a lofted profile and is rather larger in its large versions.

        The information I have from the makers has a max launch range (ie high altitude head on high speed launch) of 60km for the R-27R1 and 62.5km for the R-27ER1. The 1 in the designation denotes the export variant. The E is the extended range model with the larger diameter rocket motor. The R means it is the SARH model.

        For the R-27T1 the range is given as 65km while the R-27ET1 has a range of 80km all in the same conditions.

        All can engage targets that are manouvering at up to 8g.

        The R-27R1 weighs 253kgs, the R-27ER1 weighs 350kgs.

        The R-27T1 weighs 245kgs, the R-27ET1 weighs 343kgs.

        In comparison the R-77 has a max launch range against a manouvering fighter target of 50km and a max launch range against a bomber type target of 80kms, a launch weight of 175kgs, and can engage targets manouvering at 12gs.

        Comment

        • aerospacetech
          Rank 5 Registered User

          #5
          No, the R-27 does NOT use a lofted profile. The R-27EM did, which is how its range increased.

          The actual real engagement ranges, taken from an Su-27 combat employment manual, are:

          Speed of Su-27 1100km/h
          Target speed 900km/h
          Head-on course
          height 10,000m

          R -27ER, R -27ET, R -27EP - 66 km.
          R -27R - 35 km.
          R -27T, R -27P - 30 km.

          The R-77 range under the same conditions is about 50km.
          Last edited by aerospacetech; 6th July 2004, 05:59.
          Available now: my book Hawker P.1103 and P.1121: Camm's Last Fighter Projects from Blue Envoy Press

          Comment

          • GDL
            GDL
            Aussie Analyst

            #6
            So you guys are saying the R-27ER and R-27ET never had ranges beyond 100km?
            ~ Glenn - Endgltige Vernichtung - !

            Visit the Aussie Fifth Column Forum for discussion and debate on life, politics, and weapons and warfare.

            Comment

            • Vympel
              Rank 5 Registered User

              #7
              Not engagement range, no. Kinematic range, yes.

              Comment

              • GarryB
                Rank 5 Registered User

                #8
                The actual real engagement ranges, taken from an Su-27 combat employment manual, are:
                Which realistically equate to the distance they should be fired (within the parameters listed) where the probability of a kill is relatively high.

                In the same sence that a bullet from a rifle might kill at over 3km but effective range is a small fraction of that range depending upon the conditions.

                No, the R-27 does NOT use a lofted profile. The R-27EM did, which is how its range increased.
                According to my info the long range models of the R-27s all use lofted profiles. This feature plus the updated midcourse correction are given as advantages over the contemporary versions of the Sparrow.

                Improvements to Rocket fuel performance since the R-27 entered service have been signficant. Look at the difference in performance between the R-33 and the R-37... roughly the same dimensions but large differences in weight and range. Perhaps that would better explain the increase in range for the R-27EM? Considering the EM is designed for low level over water targets is it really likely to use a lofted profile?

                BTW could you post figures for the EM. I haven't seen any numbers for this naval weapon.
                Last edited by GarryB; 6th July 2004, 07:56.

                Comment

                • GDL
                  GDL
                  Aussie Analyst

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Vympel
                  Not engagement range, no. Kinematic range, yes.
                  So, against a relatively slow and docile target like a bomber, the missile, if fired from above, could reach and hit it at greater ranges?
                  ~ Glenn - Endgltige Vernichtung - !

                  Visit the Aussie Fifth Column Forum for discussion and debate on life, politics, and weapons and warfare.

                  Comment

                  • MarocMirage
                    Senior Member

                    #10
                    So if one would choose a missile, one would choose the AA-10 Alamo in stead of the AA-12 Adder right?

                    Comment

                    • GarryB
                      Rank 5 Registered User

                      #11
                      So if one would choose a missile, one would choose the AA-10 Alamo in stead of the AA-12 Adder right?
                      Max range is not the most important thing with missiles.

                      The R-27s are all limited to 8g targets, whereas the R-77 can engage 12g targets.

                      Also when you launch an R-27, unless it is an IR version you need to keep closing with the target till impact. With the R-77 you can turn away any time you like (though once it is within 20km of its target and has its own lock you have a better chance for a kill).

                      The R-77 is also much lighter and it was designed from the outset to be carried internally... the grid fins fold flat along the missile to make for a very compact design.

                      There are IIR and IR as well as passive RH and longrange models of the R-77 in the pipeline. It will be a formidible weapon when fuly operational in its final R-77M form. (assuming it is not already ready).

                      Comment

                      • MarocMirage
                        Senior Member

                        #12
                        I see. All of you thanks!

                        Comment

                        • aerospacetech
                          Rank 5 Registered User

                          #13
                          You can think that all you like Garry, the truth is only the not-in-service R-27EM used a lofted profile.

                          All basic R-27 models head directly for the target. Note that ONLY the radar homing versions use inertial + midcourse guidance. This was not some "killer idea" from the Russians but the only solution to their inability to get decent range from their radar/SARH seeker combination to match or hopefully outrange Sparrow.


                          The IR versions don't have inertial/midcourse guidance, they are Lock-On-Before-Launch (LOBL) only. This means that R-27ET has a range of 66km, but only if the aircraft is detectable HEAD ON at 66km using the R-27ET seeker which is unlikely unless you are aiming at the sun
                          Available now: my book Hawker P.1103 and P.1121: Camm's Last Fighter Projects from Blue Envoy Press

                          Comment

                          • aditya
                            From the Flanker Temple

                            #14
                            This means that R-27ET has a range of 66km, but only if the aircraft is detectable HEAD ON at 66km using the R-27ET seeker which is unlikely unless you are aiming at the sun

                            So why create the ET version at all? And why should any airforce buy this kit? What will the numbers be like in pursuit mode?

                            Comment

                            • bring_it_on
                              2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

                              #15
                              i think u need to weigh in the NEZ of the missile rather then absolute maximum kinematic range..
                              Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                              Comment

                              • aerospacetech
                                Rank 5 Registered User

                                #16
                                So why create the ET version at all? And why should any airforce buy this kit? What will the numbers be like in pursuit mode?
                                The ET version is highly useful in tail-on engagements. The R-27 base version has a range of 35km head on, but tail on its only 18km, limited by the engine, not the seeker. The E models boost tail-on range considerably, to around 40-45km.

                                The Su-27's radar has trouble detecting much past 40km in tailchase against a fighter, so IR is a good seeker to choose for tail-on engagements. You'll probably have a nice juicy afterburner or two, and locking on at 40-45km or so would be no problem. So- you would use R-27ER in head-on engagements, and R-27ET in tail-on ones.


                                Incidently, the same confusion affects R-73 range figures. The HEAD-ON range is quoted as often quoted as 30km, and certain Western analysts have spouted forth on how it has a great range advantage over AIM-9. Yet, the seeker head in reality has trouble exceeding 8-10km head-on against a head-on fighter class target. In tail-on engagements, the seeker range can increase substantially, but the missile's achievable range will probably be more like 15km.
                                Available now: my book Hawker P.1103 and P.1121: Camm's Last Fighter Projects from Blue Envoy Press

                                Comment

                                • aditya
                                  From the Flanker Temple

                                  #17
                                  To sumarize; even though in theory the head-on range of any AAM should be higher than in pursuit mode, in practice the opposite is true thanks to the limitations of the seeker.

                                  Comment

                                  • gabrujatt
                                    Junior Member

                                    #18
                                    hasnt the alamo allready beat the aim-120 in the indo -us exer. at gwalior?

                                    Comment

                                    • seb92100
                                      Junior Member

                                      #19
                                      Modern propellant are better but the great increase in range comes from other factors :
                                      - the structure around the solid propellant was made of steel. Nowadays, carbon with liner is much lighter
                                      - the electronic used to be huge. In the first sparrows missiles, the electronics took more room in the body that the propellant. So think about less state of the art russian electronic ...

                                      Comment

                                      • crobato
                                        Rank 5 Registered User

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by seb92100
                                        Modern propellant are better but the great increase in range comes from other factors :
                                        - the structure around the solid propellant was made of steel. Nowadays, carbon with liner is much lighter
                                        - the electronic used to be huge. In the first sparrows missiles, the electronics took more room in the body that the propellant. So think about less state of the art russian electronic ...
                                        The R-27 is modular. Which means the rocket booster, and the warhead/seeker section are seperate. We have seen enough pictures and drawings of both to so easily and visually conclude that the booster is so much larger than the seeker/warhead module.
                                        pb::

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X