R-33/r-37

Well, yeah, I agree 😀 Seriously, I meant the dynamic characteristics and what one could get from them. Actually, one could transform a R-33 into a ASAT-like missile (low tier) without altering much of its dynamics – but it would be a pain in the a**. You’d have to change all the guidance, warhead etc requirements, and therefore it would be akin to launch a dummy weight into near space, that’s all.

I really doubt it in the case of the R-33 (or anything like it like a Phoenix). Consider the ones that HAVE made it into space like the ASM-135 (ASAT), CALEB, and so on. They were mostly fuel. Now if you replaced the front half of an R-33 with a 2nd stage and a small KKV and launched it from a Mig-31 there might be something there. Just not in it’s current guise. And probably just barely at that. Even the ASM-135 was nearly three times the weight of an R-33. Launched at say, Mach 2.5 and 70,000 feet though who could say?

Close in the sense that a Bear bomber is ALMOST a B-2 with a few minor differences.

Well, yeah, I agree 😀 Seriously, I meant the dynamic characteristics and what one could get from them. Actually, one could transform a R-33 into a ASAT-like missile (low tier) without altering much of its dynamics – but it would be a pain in the a**. You’d have to change all the guidance, warhead etc requirements, and therefore it would be akin to launch a dummy weight into near space, that’s all.

The key word here is “ballistic trajectory”.

Yeah, that’s why I pointed it out.

300km is not such a big deal

300km UP for an AAM is a VERY big deal.

The only missile that has the dynamic characteristics close to a ASAT in Russian AF inventory is the R-33, and it will never be used as an ASAT weapon.

Close in the sense that a Bear bomber is ALMOST a B-2 with a few minor differences.

I saw a picture of the MiG-31D based ASAT missile some month ago. It is larger than the F-15 based Vougth missile. Much larger than a R-37. No way a R-37 can have ASAT capability.

The MiG launched ASAT was intended to have much more capabilities as the SRAM Altair and the like. No wonder it’s larger. But it still did not work properly.

And that’s 300km UP. BIG difference from flying a ballistic trajectory 300km.

The key word here is “ballistic trajectory”. 300km is not such a big deal, however, no ASAT missile will hit its target on a ballistic trajectory anyway. So forget about the discussion. The only missile that has the dynamic characteristics close to a ASAT in Russian AF inventory is the R-33, and it will never be used as an ASAT weapon. All other missiles do not fit the requirements (look at the aerodynamic layout).

I saw a picture of the MiG-31D based ASAT missile some month ago. It is larger than the F-15 based Vougth missile. Much larger than a R-37. No way a R-37 can have ASAT capability.

But inorder to hit Low Orbit Satellites the missile must reach at least 300km!

And that’s 300km UP. BIG difference from flying a ballistic trajectory 300km.

But inorder to hit Low Orbit Satellites the missile must reach at least 300km!

that doesn’t say what you claimed it did.

At what heights future hypersonic flight vehicles will travel. offcourse no one is going to disclose exact capabilities but there was Vympel statement from 2006 of hitting targets above 40km.

Weapons System Upgrade Will Allow Heavy MiG-31 Fighter to Destroy Hypersonic Flight Vehicles

A weapons system upgrade will allow the heavy MiG-31 fighter to destroy hypersonic flight vehicles, chief of the 30th air force central scientific research institute federal state foundation, Colonel Yuriy Balyko, announced to journalists today.

“The domestic line of aircraft armament requires a definite upgrade right now,” he said. – Russia’s primary aerial weaponry improvement is the development and realization of a long-term state program which includes, in particular, the creation of a new generation of air-to-air guided missiles.

In Balyko’s opinion, “the upgraded MiG-31 will be able to use air-to-air guided missiles from a great launch distance.”

“Its capabilities for the destruction small airplanes and cruise missiles will grow, and also for future hypersonic flight vehicles,� the institute’s leader emphasized. – �On the whole, its combat effectiveness can grow 1 1/2 to 4 times in comparison with the basic airplane.�

“The Su-34 ((sic)) airplane will be able to destroy ground, surface and aerial targets effectively using a whole range of aerial weapons which do not depend on weather conditions and time of day in any geographic region,” Balyko concluded.

I wonder whether KS-172 can be used as effective ARM?

the source says:
“Whilst there was no mention of this missile being used as an ASAT or BPI, the capability would appear to be there, if required.”

and I said it may have this capability; the source’s also claim is again not definite but it’s about probablity.

Although not mention in the source, I heard about terminal interception of balistic missiles. But I don’t have any source, cause I don’t remember where I read.

It does not say it ‘may’ have this capability, it says that the author thinks it could possibly be given that capability at some point in the future, the author even states that he has no evidence to support this notion. If anything it looks like irresponsible journalism.

the source says:
“Whilst there was no mention of this missile being used as an ASAT or BPI, the capability would appear to be there, if required.”

and I said it may have this capability; the source’s also claim is again not definite but it’s about probablity.

Although not mention in the source, I heard about terminal interception of balistic missiles. But I don’t have any source, cause I don’t remember where I read.

Sorry that wasn’t Aviation Week but Jane’s..

Here is what they say:
“An unconfirmed report in 1992 stated that the Russian Federation had converted some MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ aircraft to carry and launch an anti-satellite missile, similar in concept to the US ASM-135 system, but based upon the AA-9 ‘Amos’ missile. It was reported that this system had been tested since 1987 and that several MiG-31 aircraft were modified with wing leading-edge extensions and tip-end plates to improve stability at high altitude. It is assumed that this programme will be held pending any future ASAT tests by the US. A further unconfirmed report in 1996 suggested that a number of AA-9 missiles had been modified for use from the MiG-31 aircraft as a ballistic missile Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI). However, further reports in 2000 indicated that this project had been terminated as no adequate performance could be achieved. In 2004 an unconfirmed report suggested that modifications were being considered to existing ICBM and SLV for use as an ASAT system in an emergency. In addition, a separate report indicated that the Russian Federation were researching fast burning solid propellant motors to use in a new interceptor missile, that could be used as a boost phase interceptor against IRBM and ICBM. This would be similar in concept to the US Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), which is planned for use from ground and ship launchers. In 2006 Russian reports stated that proposals had been made to re-start the development of the KS-172 and R-37M (K-37M) long range air-to-air missile programmes, and that these missiles could be fitted to upgraded MiG-31 and the new Su-35 aircraft. In November 2006 Novatur displayed a K-100 long-range AAM, which was stated to be an improved K-172. This missile had a length of 6.0 m, a body diameter of 0.4 m, and a launch weight of 700 kg. It had a 50 kg HE focused warhead, inertial navigation with a datalink, a two-stage solid propellant motor, and an active radar seeker. K-100 was reported to have a range of 400 km, and to be able to intercept targets at up to 30 km altitude. Whilst there was no mention of this missile being used as an ASAT or BPI, the capability would appear to be there, if required.

“

that doesn’t say what you claimed it did.

Sorry that wasn’t Aviation Week but Jane’s..

Here is what they say:
“An unconfirmed report in 1992 stated that the Russian Federation had converted some MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ aircraft to carry and launch an anti-satellite missile, similar in concept to the US ASM-135 system, but based upon the AA-9 ‘Amos’ missile. It was reported that this system had been tested since 1987 and that several MiG-31 aircraft were modified with wing leading-edge extensions and tip-end plates to improve stability at high altitude. It is assumed that this programme will be held pending any future ASAT tests by the US. A further unconfirmed report in 1996 suggested that a number of AA-9 missiles had been modified for use from the MiG-31 aircraft as a ballistic missile Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI). However, further reports in 2000 indicated that this project had been terminated as no adequate performance could be achieved. In 2004 an unconfirmed report suggested that modifications were being considered to existing ICBM and SLV for use as an ASAT system in an emergency. In addition, a separate report indicated that the Russian Federation were researching fast burning solid propellant motors to use in a new interceptor missile, that could be used as a boost phase interceptor against IRBM and ICBM. This would be similar in concept to the US Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), which is planned for use from ground and ship launchers. In 2006 Russian reports stated that proposals had been made to re-start the development of the KS-172 and R-37M (K-37M) long range air-to-air missile programmes, and that these missiles could be fitted to upgraded MiG-31 and the new Su-35 aircraft. In November 2006 Novatur displayed a K-100 long-range AAM, which was stated to be an improved K-172. This missile had a length of 6.0 m, a body diameter of 0.4 m, and a launch weight of 700 kg. It had a 50 kg HE focused warhead, inertial navigation with a datalink, a two-stage solid propellant motor, and an active radar seeker. K-100 was reported to have a range of 400 km, and to be able to intercept targets at up to 30 km altitude. Whilst there was no mention of this missile being used as an ASAT or BPI, the capability would appear to be there, if required.

“

And I think one of the summer issue of Aviation Week states that R-37 and K-100 missiles may have anti-satelite capability. Additionally there were some rumours that these missiles may have also anti-balistic missile capability both boost phase and terminal phase. What do you think guys are these claims credible?

Which issue and I’ll double check that (as it sounds like BS).

And I think one of the summer issue of Aviation Week states that R-37 and K-100 missiles may have anti-satelite capability. Additionally there were some rumours that these missiles may have also anti-balistic missile capability both boost phase and terminal phase. What do you think guys are these claims credible?

exhuming this old topic ….

is it possible that IF A mig-31 fire all 4 R-33s at a single target it will have a better chance of hitting fighter-sized targets [ like f-4 , f-16] as it will complicate the counter measures for its intended victim.

Kind of like putting the Genie back in the bottle eh Garry.

🙂

To Srbin, the R-37 was designed from the outset to replace the R-33… ie to defend Russian airspace by shooting down bombers and cruise missiles at long range. The R-37 will be doing that to… as well as threatening any SR-71 type aircraft that stray too close. The R-37M is designed to engage AWACs type aircraft at max range for obvious reasons… ie it offers a standoff attack capability to any carrier borne AEW aircraft and most land based AEW or AWACs types.

If it came to shooting down enemy fighters that is why the Mig-31M is pictured with 6 belly mounted R-37s and 4 wingmounted R-77s (probably later R-77Ms when they become available).

Well, if R-37M is just improved over the normal R-37 in range, does that mean that a R-37M can hit an AWACS or a Bomber or whatever at it’s max range given that the radar can actually give the missile a mid course update. I mean R-37’s range is some 300kms and R-37M’s is something like 400kms. That’s impressive range, is it not?

Also, were there any improvements to the R-37 or R-37M in terms of hitting maneuverable targets. I am not very good with missiles but did not the AIM-54 score all those kills because the enemy planes did not even know the missile was coming? Given that Iraqi planes did not have good RWR. Also does the R-37/R-37M operate the same way as AIM-54?

Well with a 60kg warhead that is plenty of room for a small tactical nuke to be command detonated to take out a group of fighters. A nuclear bomber would have some EMP protection afterall.

Kind of like putting the Genie back in the bottle eh Garry. 🙂 😉 :p