AvimimusThis range is against bomber/tanker target in head-on intercept. Against fighter in chase will be much, much smaller. There was project on design stage with IR or dual IR/SARH seeker, but it was chosen to use only SARH seeker.
Mind you the overall weapon system is impressive: Most SARH systems can only engage one target at a time – the Mig-31 can fire all of its R-33 at separate targets nearly simultaneously (overlapping flight times)!
AvimimusIts nice to see this thread started now. Here is what I’ve dug up in the past couple of years:
Its interesting to note that the S-24 and S-25 use deflected thrust nozzels to spin up the rocket during the first few seconds of flight (the S-25 also uses rifling. I’m not sure if its fins actually play any role in producing spin – it has eight of them I think and they are very narrow spring loaded things).
The S-8 was considerably more accurate than the S-5. I believe that both the S-8 and S-13 supposedly would land within a 6m radius circle at 2000m range (not sure what this is in angular mils).
When considering launches from a helicopter there are two additional factors that need to be considered. One is rotorwash which can deflect the course of a barrage and also tends to generally increase inaccuracy.
The other, arguably more important factor, has to do with velocity: Aerodynamic surfaces (stabilisers) on the rocket will be ineffective at near zero airspeed. A set of fins that would generate considerable spin if dropped from an aircraft traveling at 600kph (even if the rocket engine didn’t ignite) will be almost totally ineffective if launched from a platform going 60kph. So, a lot of error is introduced during the first couple of seconds before the rocket achieves velocity under its own power.
I get the strong impression that Mi-24 pilots are trained to fire at near maximum range. Russian pods fire a salvo of rockets within one second, then the pilot watches for effect, if the target is missed in the area barrage a second salvo is fired (sometimes, but not always with corrected aim).
I get the impression that unguided rocket accuracy is a fairly sensitive subject. The only in cockpit “down the boresite” footage I’ve seen comes from a few Mi-24s and Mi-8s and Vietnam era American aircraft.
I’ve heard the British 60lb rock achieved 8 mils dispersion while Russian rockets from the same era (RS-82, RS-13) were around twice that at 16 mils.
S!
AvimimusIt comes up occasionally (eg. with respect to the KS-172) but I haven’t seen anything to speak of yet. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Perhaps the future will consist of long range missiles with search radars guiding other long range missiles to the target area which in turn will release multiple smaller missiles to attack multiple targets with multiple sensors…
AvimimusI do. The major increase in lethality will be through automated target identification and guidance (leaving only the final I.D. to the pilot – shortening response times). Concealed weapons will always have an edge.
AvimimusI believe that the Vikhr has considerable launch constraints. The missile goes ballistic if it can’t find the laser beam early in its flight, before the beam spreads out (hence the depressible launchers). In addition if the launch platform moves laterally the missile will no longer be in between the launcher and the target (and out of the beam).
I remember reading a speculative article by a Russian scientist arguing that there would eventually be a division between two types of Russian ATGMs – one would be a line of sight, laser guided, hypersonic weapon (a Vikhr that merges with the sabot type of deployment and characteristics) and a fire and forget short range missile. I personally think the ideal for the latter would be a simultaneous multiple missile radio command guidance system. It could be cued by either optical or radar and would allow multiple target engagement at a low per round cost. Of course, this would only be accurate a short ranges (<8km).
Btw. I was under the impression that the Hermes was planned to be dual radio command guided and laser beam rider (allowing two missiles to be fired – one using each system).
AvimimusThe problem is that subsonic flight (up to M0.7) at low level and short landing/take-off nearly cancel each other out. I would really on totally oversized engines with high bypass ratio, able to rotate a bit. Blow flaps to assist. Principally the same as done before, just using modern technology where appropriate and scaling down requirements so that headache becomes controllable.
Still I think if an USAF general would make the requirements, we would have the high-speed, low-level, vertical take-off transonic stealthy combat zone transporter. And it would get cancelled by Congress when elected people see the bill.
All the same, if I wanted to deliver several hundred soldiers to a city 1500km away with two days notice, capture a number of people, and then pull out within 36 hours, how would I do it?
AvimimusOkay how about this:
– A light transport, optimized for mid-range subsonic cruise
– the airplane uses several conventional high lift wings in order to generate extra lift and decelerate during the final approach.
– the main engines or extra lift fans are used for extra lift (possibly using various innovations to trade efficiency for a temporary increase in thrust lasting around fifteen to thirty seconds), this is combined with an unconventional (thrust vectoring or vaned) control system to maintain control at low speeds.
– The landing approaches are calculated by several small millimeter wave length radars and is automated (possibly with a lead craft in front to check atmospheric conditions) allowing very accurate high speed approach vertical landings.
Use:
– The airplane takes off conventionally, lowers weight through fuel consumption, bleeds speed/altitude conventionally, uses lift engines (fan or vectoring) for the final landing. This allows almost vertical landing.
– The main cargo is detached and left behind (the aircraft is now light and can take off vertically), the aircraft returns.
– Then when the work is done, the aircraft arrives and lands vertically, picks up personnel and expensive equipment and then uses extra lift devices to get this much lighter cargo airborne and bring it home.
A sort of CTOVLVTOCLCTOVLVTOCL system.
Feasible in eighty years?
AvimimusThe facts are fairly simple:
– The Russian’s have a clear lead in FAE (as well as airborne guns)
– The Russian’s have produced a very nice weapon for use against tunnel complexes in a “dirty war”
Lighter weight and twice as effective as a MOAB (if the new weapon used under ideal conditions anyway)
AvimimusCould mean anything really
Yes anything…
AvimimusHello,
Does anyone know of sources on the design requirements and capabilities of the proposed V-60, V-80 and V-100?
There are a lot of interesting designs by smaller firms that are very hard to get information on (integral by eurasia, Aeroprogress etc.) any good sources would be welcome.
AvimimusI agree with the general skepticism.
Vympel is right: A few comments and a lot of western speculation do not add up to the real picture of what is happening with these programs.
There are undoubtably more proposals (eg. Integral and 7.01) that are not only sitting in filing cabinets, but actively being worked on. Even without funds a few engineers can spend their idle hours with a slide rule.
With the announcement of the “new cold war” and the sudden increase in funds a number of old prototypes (like the 1.44) or projects could be getting funding. Additionally aviation projects are prestige symbols so they may be a priority.
It should be noted that the announcement refered to an aircraft not a “fighter” or a “bomber” and certainly not the PAK-FA.
It could be that an unknown program has brought a communications platform within a year of flying an airframe. Think of the various advanced Myasichev projects…
AvimimusThe balloon interceptor had a dorsal turret and two missiles, it was a very different plane than what we actually produced (wing, fuselage, everything).
Beautiful plane though…
AvimimusR-33 lacks datalink. R-27R uses a datalink transmited by the sidelobe of the radar N-019 multiplexed with the main beam. Same for R-77.
Interesting!
I am curious if anyone knows the barriers regarding recapturing of missiles.
How does the R-33 complex work? I assume the radar provide continous illumination of all four targets, does this change at range though?
How does the seeker on the R-33 work to discern which of the four targets it should be slaved to? If the radar was turned off, could lock be regained when the radar came back on?
Is there any way to use a datalink on a modern missile like the R-27 to get the missile to reaquire after being spoofed? What are the barriers to this?
Thank you!
AvimimusShouldn’t this discussion be in another thread?
“Politics, Strategy and History…and Politics”
Does anyone know of the capabilities of the datalink for the R-33 and R-27?
AvimimusGarryB, Sealordlawrence, Thank you, this is extremely interesting.
The use of SACLOS on this “Vikhr derivative” is interesting and would allow long range. How one could isolate a target from the ground at 100km’s range evades me though.
A trend toward very high-speed long range missiles and small launch platforms seems to make sense. In the interim an ability to stagger the launch of a higher speed SACLOS missile system -engaging multiple targets looks very attractive.
Btw. Has anyone heard the reports of a 9M114 being used to take down a low flying F-14 in the Iran-Iraq war?
It should be possible even if it is unlikely.
I have one more major question:
Do the datalinks on the R-33 and R-27 allow recapture of the missile after radar lock has been temporarily lost?
If this is not the case is the R-27ET only used in low-altitude/rear-aspect/below launches? I heard the seeker can only resolve targets at about 30kms?
Does anyone know of good sources of video footage of live fire of Russian A-G munitions (especially rockets)?
Thank you
Sign In
