Now…lets compare the R-73 against the Python-4

The AA-11/R-73 becomes public around 1986 (DoD) and the Phyton 3 becomes public around 1987 (Aerosalon).~1990 R-73 were handed to Israel for testing by Germany. The Phyton 4 from 90s is what we compare with the R-73+. In the 90s the development started of the “R-30”, the successor of the R-73+ and Israel worked for the Phyton 5, which had just entered service now. We can asume to a fair degree, that every lot of AAM incorporates some improvements. The first built Phyton 4 differs from the last one produced over some years. Most of it internal. Where buys Israel the propellant for the rocket-motor? We can assume to a fair degree that some goodies from other countries will find its way into every AAM.

Sens, it’s true that we have many Russian Jews today here in Israel (about 1 million), and yes, some of them probably worked in the Russian arms industries – but keep in mind that they came to Israel starting since 1989 – and the Python 4 entered production in 1990. I don’t think they used any Russian knowledge in it. If anything, it’s in the Python 5, but I highly doubt they used Russian technologies in it too. But they have probably used these people’s minds and education.

Hi Srbin,
the data of R-73 at hand and the real R-73 too in Israel for testing. You can set the yardsticks, what you want from a Phyton 4. Why to spend money on an inferior design?
So many people from the former SU and Russia are now in Israel. You can exspect, that quite a number of them has worked in the military branches and industry. The fate of the R-30, when the Phyton 5 enters service, shows that Russia looses ground.

Sometimes a customer may be buying a downgraded version intentionally just to save money. You can’t fault the Russians for that.

The case of the Chinese bought ECMs is really funny. The Chinese bought Gardenia pods instead of Sorbitsya pods for their Su-27s. Maybe the Gardenia is not so capable as the Sorbitsyas but Gardenias are installed internally with Russian use only MiG-29s, and the Russians never exported MiG-29s with Gardenias to anyone. But later, the Chinese appear to be buying the even more capable Omul pod developed for the MKK. So why buy one, then get the other, and miss the one in the middle? Just stretching the Yuan?

Garry, I never detected any Russian export circa after 1990 or the fall of the SU that were in anyway “degraded”. In most cases, the exports all have better equipment, with more up to date electronics. In cases when equipment were removed, it would be by the request of the customer, who is either saving money, or wish to put their own. The Indians for example, think they can do better both the ECM and RWR on their own.

There are probably more R-77 capable Fulcrums outside of Russia than in it. The Chinese got the first R-77 capable Flankers, not to mention loads of other capabilities. Look at the Talwars and the Indian Kilos with Club S 3M54E1 missiles. No Russian ship are operational with Clubs. The Chinese will get a modified Sovremanny with Sunburns that range longer than conventional Sunburns, not to mention 8 new Kilo 636s with Club S 3M54E missiles.

The thing is, the Russian arms industry circa after 1991, has turned virtually an export industry, since by default, the Russian armed forces are not getting anything new, except for a small handful. I think that has become an issue of resentment to so many nationalistic Russians, but the Russian arms industry, business is strictly business. For the Russian government, it is essential to keep the Russian arms industry alive and flourishing with new designs even if the Russians themselves are not the destined users. By keeping the industry alive, they hope that one day, when their economy recovers, their defense industry infrastructure is intact and capable of giving them ready state of the art weapons.

Please note that your statement is complete drivel, Gary. I take it that export MiG-29s carry 15% less fuel, have 15% shorter radar range, have 15% shorter range missiles with 15% smaller warheads…. Probably the pilots seat is 15% less comfortable.

Yes, export versions can be less capable. So, for example, export radars often lack ECCM features. There is no way you can measurably decrease capability by a percentage.

Of course absolute drivel. No question at all. I mean a policy of downgrading exported military equipment would have to be the policy of each individual company in Russia and the former Soviet Union. There is absolutely no way that the government of a country could ever pass a law like that!!!. Just wonder… seeing as you know so much, could you tell us which companies decided to downgrade their products for export and which did and how they decided what to down grade and how much they were downgraded by.

I am really surprised to learn from you that the Russian Government has nothing to do with such things considering that would be their job.

BTW 15% overall capacity could simply be the removal of ECCM capability and slightly older model avionics or allowing the customer to replace all the Russian downgraded equipment with French or Israeli or other equipment like the Indians do.

There is nothing special about a very wide off boresight. That’s usually achieved by a gimballing seeker (rotates on a ball joint) rather than a fixed one, then putting the seeker in a semihemispherical front lens. No matter how good the electronics of your seeker is, if it’s fixed, you can’t have more than 45 degrees off bore (90 degrees FOV). Another limiting factor is the extent which the aircraft radar can gimball by itself to track the target and que the seeker. Theoritically, if the parent radar has a smaller FOV than the missile’s own seeker FOV, your effective FOV would follow the radar’s.

I take it the R-73E is 45 degrees without the HMS, 60 degrees with the helmet. The R-73E appears to correspond to what was previously known as the R-73M1 (that with the optimistic 30km range, which the R-73E also reflected) rather than the R-73M2 (that with the optimistic 40km range) which was redesignated K-74.

To get the missile seeker to gimbal to 60 degress, or even 90 degree off bore, you would need a helmet sight to que it that far.

With regards to the PYthon 3, or at least the Chinese copy of it, the PL-8, the Chinese appeared to have modded the seeker on the later blocks of the missile, probably at least 60 degrees since they appear to be using them now with helmet sights (60 degs were mentioned in PL-9 brochures in airshows). Perhaps without helmet sight, the missile should have a 40 to 45 degrees OFB. They probably studied the R-73 closely (they gots tons of them) and adapted the techs to the PL-8. It is also probable that Python 4 techs were indeed leaked to the Chinese, so that the missiles could be using Python 4 techs on a Python 3 body (a Python 3.5?)

It is odd that the Israelis preferred not to use TVC, kept using the draggy but highly maneuverable layout using large control surfaces.

It should be noted that the R-73 is a relatively slower missile, Mach 2.2, but should get better range. The Python series are faster, Mach 3, but with shorter burn motors, sacrificing range and endurance for a quicker kill.

OFB is an overblown issue. PK rates actually fall the further you shoot the missile offbore since you waste a lot of energy when your missile goes sideways. Pilots are trained as much as possible to use their missiles as much as within directly boresight of their plane to increase kill chances. Once you reach the 45 to 60 degree region, what really should be more important now would be flare discrimination, and there is always room for more efficient rocket propellants. I have not heard much about the R-73’s flare discrimnation qualities (I heard some not so encouraging stories but they could be biased), while the Python 4/5 have great emphasis on this issue. Python 5 appears to still use an analog seeker, the explanation the Israelis gave is that you’re going to need an extensive database of thermal images if you’re going to use a digital IIR seeker, and that won’t be possible without some super espionage effort.

Just because it was the answer to something does not mean it’s better than that something.

What’s the K/R-30? first time I hear about it!

Also how about the R-73M2, the latest.

Most people forget with TVC, limited to a very small burn-time.
“Every coin has two sides.”
21. Century pilots are speaking of positioning and energy state.
The avionics delivers the situational awarness to achive this and
survive such otherwise deadly encounters. (R-73?/Phyton 4)
Both AAMs does the work related to former “dogfight-times”.
All very modern short-range AAMs have a visuel seeker head, not
impressed by stealth, but vulnerable to laser.
The Phyton 4 was the answer to R-73, so you can assume it will
be better. Seems that the Phyton 5 was intended to counter the
“R-30”, which is delayed for years due to money-shortage.

aerospacetech, thank you for the info on the K-30 😎 good to know “there actually is” somebody working hard on the subject.
altough it doesnt mention its OBS capability, i can easily assume that 90 degrees its the new standard, and it seems also that it will again take the lead for some good time. 😉

harry (bang bang, feuer frei 😎 )
thanks to you also for the clarification, i assume that those 15 degrees diff. between coupled or not to the HMS are taken directly by the helmet itself…
lets see, something like, the missile seeker limited mechanically to 45 but the helmet givin 15 more (literally like a second pair of eyes)
picture this theatre piece: 😀
lord helmet…there he is 60 degrees to the left
R-73…where?
lord helmet…more to the left, do you see it?
then at 45 degrees, R-73…ok i got the sucker
lord helmet…go get him tiger!!!
…could it be?
and then again if the Python-4 has the same limits, then they seem to be pretty much matched, could it be?
Camaro.

Harry, according to Vympel literature R-73E is +-45 degrees, R-74/R-73M is +-60 degrees.

Where did you get 60 degrees for basic R-73E.

Paul, I discussed the deployment of the R-73 on the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000 with the respective pilots. Although the version in IAF inventory is unmistakably the R-73E, it’s max OBS capability was given as 60 deg. when combined/cued with the HMCS/IRST. The R-60MK too is supposed to be fairly decent when combined with the HMCS.

Vympel K-30

krainian company shows
dogfight missile control system
Miroslav Gyürösi
At the Aviasvit-XXI International Air Show held in Kiev on 14-18
September, the Ukrainian State Kiev Design Bureau Luch showed
the configuration of a new air-to-air dogfight missile, writes
Miroslav Gyürösi. Known as ‘Izdeliye 611’ (Product 611), this is
almost certainly the K-30 missile being developed by the Russian
Vympel Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Engineering
Design Bureau. If adopted, it would be designated R-30.
The general configuration shown by Luch shows a weapon with
vestigial long-chord wings, and trapezoidal tail surfaces, both arranged
in a cruciform layout. The weapon is approximately 3.0m long and
170mm in diameter. Wingspan is about 270mm, and the span of tailcontrol
surfaces is about 470mm. Launch weight is about 105-110kg.
Luch displayed the PR-611 servo-electric drive unit which is probably
intended for the new missile. It has four actuators controlling four
aerodynamic control surfaces, and two actuators probably intended to
move a two-axis gimbal system for a single moveable nozzle.
The first information to be released on the K-30 dogfight missile design
was a leaflet published in the early 1990s by the Vympel design
bureau. This proposed that the new missile would have a thrustvectoring
nozzle made from erosion- and temperature-resistant carbon
composite, and mounted in a gimbal system moved in two axes by
control-system actuators operating via articulated joints. This
arrangement would be more efficient than the control vanes used in
the R-73, said Vympel. The PR-611 control section incorporates an
array of four moving tabs. Although visually similar to the four thrustcontrol
vanes used on the R-73, these may be part of an actuation
system designed to move a single moving nozzle in order to vector the
thrust.
l Number of actuators – 6
l Maximum tension on control surfaces – 30Nm
l Control surfaces oscillation (cycles) area (zone) – 35 Hz
l Control surfaces angular range – ±30º
l Control surfaces angular velocity – 450º/sec
l Diameter (calibre) – 170mm
l Length – 300mm
l Weight, complete with aerodynamic control surfaces – 10kg
l Control – aerodynamic + thrust vectoring
Comparison of thrust-vector control systems
Main technical parameters control vanes gimballed nozzle
Maximum side control power in each
channel, (as a percentage of the rocket
motor power output)
13-14% 13-14%
Maximum angle of control device
movement
17º 8.5º
Maximum hinge moment 4kgm 3kgm
Device weight (without actuators) 4kg 3.5kg
Dimensions (without actuators) length 150mm 210mm
diameter 165mm 165mm
Rocket motor output loss when thrust
is not vectored
5% 3%
The only hardware on display was this PR-611 servoelectric
drive unit.
(Source: Miroslav Gyürösi)
This artist’s impression shows the general
configuration of the new missile
(Source: Miroslav Gyürösi)
This poor-quality illustration shows the vectored nozzle
proposed by Vympel
(Source: Vympel via Miroslav Gyürösi)
The K-30 ‘Izdeliye 611’ is about 3m long and is
thought to weigh around 105-110kg
(Source: Miroslav Gyürösi)

so it doesnt sound like vympel (or anybody in russia) is doing anything (or they are taking way too long) to match the newer generation Pythons and sidewinders 😮
it wouldnt make much sense to get newer and hotter Migs or Sukhois if they dont come with something hotter in the A2A bisness ( 🙂 ) to match your opponent, isnt it? unless you decide to use Pythons or sidewinders, wich will make your fighter much more expensive, plus maintenance and/or supply wise a bit troublesome 🙁 . :confused:
Camaro.

Please note that your statement is complete drivel, Gary. I take it that export MiG-29s carry 15% less fuel, have 15% shorter radar range, have 15% shorter range missiles with 15% smaller warheads…. Probably the pilots seat is 15% less comfortable.

Yes, export versions can be less capable. So, for example, export radars often lack ECCM features. There is no way you can measurably decrease capability by a percentage.

R-73E is the exported Archer. It is a Russian law that exported material of a military nature must be 15% less effective than that used domestically… and includes everything from rifles through to… well everything.

Harry, according to Vympel literature R-73E is +-45 degrees, R-74/R-73M is +-60 degrees.

Where did you get 60 degrees for basic R-73E.

IIRC, Python has 18 control surfaces and no TVC. What a diff compared to AIM-132, which only has 4.. 🙂

Aerodynamics wise, R-73 wins on every occassion. Speaking of seekers etc., I really don’t know

in service R-73s only had +-45deg off boresight.

60 deg. when cued with HMS. Same thing with Python-4 and DASH.

i remember reading somwhere about the R-73M1 having a 90 degres OBS, but the source, i’m not sure is that reliable, and who knows if is in production ???
nobody i believe. :confused:
dear aerospacetech, i’ve spent the last few hours trying to find info on the K-30 but…no luck, do you have any links about? 😉
thanks to all brothers. 🙂
Camaro.

well i think Python-5 is still being developed, aint it?

Actually it entered service few months ago 😉

but then again, the other guy has also off-boresight, awesome maneouvrability and had also fired its R-73 (sure its not on the video) but in real life we know, so…it still looks to me that both the oponents will “buy the farm” …man modern air combat its getting too complicated to me.
somebody said, combat aircraft developement, should have stopped at the F-86 / Mig-15…i agree

Indeed, but that’s why they are developing the 5th generation – aircrafts that will have small hit and radar signature, which would make it difficult for even advanced missiles such as the R-77, Amraam and Python-5 to lock on their target. So in the end it won’t be that kind of hell up there.

so how does it manuever compared to 9x and r-73