Torpedoes -when compared to AShM or even artillery- are pretty silly way for attacking surface targets; They are slow, short ranged, easily evadable (even by the means of maneuvering or just going at full speed), and easily divertable (by the means of ship launched decoys, or decoy carrying anti-submarine rockets) and easily destroyable (by any artillery -if close to surface-, or anti-submarine rockets -if submerged-)

In fact primary use of Udav-1 or similar systems is defense againist torpedoes. Speaking of Udav-1, It fires 111SO decoy rockets and 111SZ proximity fused mines along the way of the torpedo as soon as its detected. If both fails, it can fire 111SG rockets with depth charges at close range.

Add to that; missile dropped torpedoes barely reach 10 nm range with 40 kts max speed. Any modern warship can maneuver and run away from the torpedo at 30 kts, meaning torpedo has to be dropped at around 2.5 nm. If a missile managed to get so close, it should just as well fly straight onto the target.

And no; an AEGIS destroyer or Arleigh burke class specifically, wont survive 100 AShM, not by a long shot: No matter how many SAMs it carry, it can provide 3 Guidance channels due to fact it has 3 SPG-62 guidance radars. New ARH SAMs do not require terminal guidance, but they still require mid-course updates which is still provided by SPG-62.So only after first salvo of 3 missiles acquire their targets, another 3 can be launched, no more, not sooner. Due to curvature of earth, there is a such thing called radar horizon. With ~17m height of SPY-1 radars, its radar horizon is approximately 14,2 km. Time required for a M2.5 AShM to cover this distance is 16,5 seconds; AEGIS is fast and mostly automated, but it would be a real miracle can detect 3 different targets (that also involves differentiating from ground clutter if any), track and identify them, conclude them as threat to the ship, get missile launch authorization from the operator, direct CW guidance radars to target, and launch the missiles. Its not impossible, but re-engaging targets if not destroyed or launching another 3 set of missiles to different targets in that time? That is pretty impossible to me. 4 supersonic missiles will likely to mission-kill a non CIWS Arleigh burke, 5 or 6 will mission kill a CIWS variant. An Arleigh Burke assisted by datalinked AEW platform is another story, which would allow its ARH missiles to be used over the horizon.

Kirov is said to be able to theoratically survive an attack by 100 harpoons is another story; MR-800 3D search radar is located exactly 48 meters from S/L, covering 24,7 km range at sea level. With stated 864 km/h speed, it takes 103 seconds for Harpoon to cover the this distance. This radar does not provide missile guidance, it certainly provides tracking data to fire-control subsystems and alerts the crew. Now the impressive part; Each of two Volna systems can guide 8 missiles to 4 different targets in the air, with 4 in command guidance mode, and another 4 in terminal SARH or TVM mode. It takes 3 seconds for rotating dispanser to get into position (due to cold launch system it simply rotates the octuple missle magazine), so new missiles will be launched in command guidance. Which means, kirov can utilise all 12 of its SA-N-6 rotating launchers, engaging 8 different targets, with additional 8 in mid course update. 5V55R/U missiles reach 7200 km/h speeds, so time between launch and missile detonation (succesful or not) is roughly 10 seconds; At the end of 10 seconds, 8 missiles have reached their targets, another 8 will be in the air (now switched to SARH) and another 8 are just launched. Even by worst assumptions, kirov can fire and deplate its entire SA-N-6 magazine againist incoming harpoons in ~60 seconds. Add to that, when remaining inbound missiles close into 12 km comes the SA-N-9 system. By that time 3R95 which already detected tracked, prioritized and selected its targets, and guides 8 missiles to 4 different targets. Theoratically, kirovs are supposed to carry two of these radars and 192 SA-N-9 missiles. System as a whole puts 16 missiles againist 8 targets. It could operate in the same fasion as above, putting close to hundred missiles in the air if needed. Then there is SA-N-4s, each system can engage 2 different targets with relatively lower Pk againist missiles, and 8x AK-630 or 6xKashtan-Ms, each module of the latter can engage two different targets at the same time. What should limit a kirov battlecruiser is the fact that its not truly network centric; independent systems can operate in full automatic mode, they can also get information from MR-710 and MR-800 search radars, but they have no connection with other systems, at 8-9 km, a single harpoon can be engaged by all of the SA-N-6, SA-N-9 SA-N-4 and SA-N-11 systems, wasting tracking channels and ammunition.

No; Baseline Su-27 airframe can safely withstand 171000 kg of lift. With sufficent strengthening to landing gear assembly, and/or reduction in expected take off criteria (ie increasing runway length or altitude, etc), no airframe modification would be needed; even Su-27S could take off at 38 tons, but would be limited to 4,5Gs. Theoratically, there is no aerodynamic or airframe strength limitation that prevents Su-27S to take off and fly in level at 100+ tons. I am reasonably confident Su-30M2 airframe is mostly unchanged; just improved landing gear, and newer engines provide more thrust for better acceleration.

iamnot saying sustain high altitude , but like to zoom up 60K feet , release missiles then come down , so that missiles dont have to climb much or fly in thick air

Theoratically possible, but imagine; a Su-35 flying at 12000 m @ M1.5+ will need so little AOA that it will be flying closer to its Cd0 (at given mach number). With the zoom climb and associated speed loss, its likely to come down stalled. Such action would waste great amounts of energy, and would not be practical.

Su-35 is really big air plane , not sure if carry 10 r-77 really affected it that much , how about mig-31 ?

I don’t have exact data for Su-27 for various payloads, but I can examplify how ceiling of F-15/16 changes with varying weight/drag. What matters is, such ceiling with missiles will certainly happen subsonic speeds, at supersonic at M1.3+ with 10 missiles, level flight altitudes will be much lower, around 12000m.

is the 5Gs limit of mig-31 is with or without weapon? , what is the limit when it loaded with 6 R-37 , 2 R-40 , 2 R-77 ? ( all pylon have missiles )

Not related to weapons, but should be related to airframe weight. I don’t have data, but logical estimate is at 50% fuel, it should be able to pull whatever Gs its capable of pulling. Speaking of performance, MiG-31 can achieve M2.83 with 4xR-33 + 2xR-40 thats I all know.

Assuming MiG-31’s level flight envelope behaves similarly to MiG-25 (which I have data); MiG-25 achieves its ceiling around M2.5; ~23000m at 24tons, 21500m at 28 tons with 4xFAB-500s. At 35 tons, its ceiling is approx. 15000 meters, achieved at ~M1.5.

So with full fuel and weapons load, MiG-31 should reach around 15000m, with decrased fuel to 50%, it should easily exceed both 20000m and M2.5 marks with full missile load.

but instantenius turn reduce speed and altitude significantly isn’t it ?

It depends on how negative SEP aircraft has at its maximal instantenius turn. For example, MiG-31 takes 65 seconds to complete an 360 turn at M1.4. This data means it has 5,53 deg/s turn rate, requiring it to sustain 4,2Gs. With maximum 5Gs, its instantenious turn drag is not that different than what is sustaining. With different speed/altitude combinations it may, or it may not lose speed/altiude. On an extreme example, a MiG-31 sustaining 5Gs at a certain speed will also be pulling its max. instantenius turn.

but 60 seconds seem like even longer than a ramjet engine ,wasnt ramjet supposed to have much much longer burn time than solid fuel ? ?

Ramjet/rocket/scramjet etc has nothing to do with burn time. One can design a turbojet that will deplate its fuel in 10 seconds, or a rocket engine that burns for hours, or even days.

Thrust = Specific Impulse (in seconds) * fuel mass flow rate (or fuel burn rate; in Newton/seconds)

Only thing that matters is the weight

Comparing the impulse from worst to best;
solid fuel rocket-liquid fuel rocket-ramjet-turbojet-turbofan.
Comparing engine assembly weight from lightest to heaviest;
solid fuel rocket-liquid fuel rocket-ramjet-turbojet-turbofan.

Obviously their order is the same. Impulse of a solid fuel rocket is around 500s at best. A ramjet can reach exceed 1500s at design speeds. However, for equivalent propulsion system weight, 1 kg increase in engine assembly will reduce 1 kg of available fuel. If impulse is improved sufficently to overcome the reduction in propellant, its better, othervise it is not.

Also engine assembly is dead weight when fuel is deplated, or engine goes out of its operating envelope; something to consider when missile is supposed to maneuver at the end of its flight, or a spaceshuttle goes above stratosphere.

With 500s impulse, a solid fuel rocket can be design to burn 50 kg propellant in 1 second, producing 245 kN of thrust, or in 100 seconds, producing just 2,4kNs.

Developing this example further; (excluding drag and reduction in mass with expanded propellant) a short range would prefer the former; 200kg missile fired at 200m/s speed (720km/h) would accelerate to M4.89 in one second, after travelling 812 meters, and will start slowing down. Latter burn time is preferred for long range missiles; it will also reach M4.89, but that is after travelling 81250 meters, only after that the missile will start to slow down. Obviously drag and reduction of mass will change those values, but this makes the point clear enough.

how much the situation change if we take in to account ramjet R-77 ( assume it have same performer as Meteor )

Assuming both types will be able to carry it? BVR Advantage still belongs to MiG-31, IMHO.

Wing area and Missile ?!?!!!

C’mon Andraxx, I thought we had that clear enough.

Look at them. Look at their fins. Look at the apparent section of their “airfoil”. Does it look like inviscid theo and low subsonic eq. can apply ? Does the H2K missiles employ large wings or thick airfoil ?

I didn’t read it all but Why do we have to write it that down again ?

Lift/drag formulae are not only for subsonic speeds. They are pretty valid, but supersonic Cd and Cl values change. Inviscid flow has nothing to do with this, as air viscosity is already included within the calculation due to Cl/Cd coefficients. With different -chord- reynold’s numbers come the different Cd/Cl. Thick, thin, cambered, supercritical, hexagonal etc all airfoils or even a flat plane can have Cl/Cd. What is to remember is both change with reynolds number and mach number.

Missiles never require large wings or thick airfoils. Ever read lukos telling about Cl/Cd increases with V^2? Difference of Cl between thickest and thinnest airfoils are 12-13% at best when supersonic. Difference of going 6% faster is 12,4% improvement in maneuverability.

That’s what basically I am trying to say 😉

You are comparing harrier in VTOL config with F-16. Both needs lift to make turns, it doesn’t matter if lift comes from side looking engines, or wings.

12000 meters is only 39.370ft but since they both detect the other from 300-400 km isnt it more logical for them both to climb to higher altitude + accelerate to very high speed before launching missile to give their missiles more energy ? EX : 18000 meters ( 59055ft )

True for MiG-31, but not for Su-35. It has ceiling around 18000m, so with 10+ missiles and high fuel load, it should shrink to 15000m. That is pretty much the lift limit, Su-35 will have no great acceleration or maneuverability there. For any ordinary fighter, 12000 m is a good altitude.

so basically at 17km ( 55774ft ) the turn radius of mig-31 is about 34 km rather than 10 km (probably mig-31 can only turn 5Gs at slower speed ? )

5G is the supersonic limit for MiG-31, IDK about its subsonic limits. Its possibly talking about sustained turn, but I am talking about instantenius turn when pulling 5Gs.

Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space
~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft)
~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft)
~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft)
~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft)
~5 seconds @ Sea Level
so it seem that if fighter climb higher before launching their missiles then their missiles can remain fast for really long

too theoratical, missile also loses its airspeed at a) first rapid maneuver at launch where missile sets an intercept course horizontally, and setting a lofting flight path vertically. b)gaining altitude while flying ballistic

sustain for 100 km at mach M4.5 is equal to about 65 seconds , are you sure R-33S rocket burn that long ? wasnt it a solid fuel rocket ? , normally i only heard rocket burn for maximum of 6-7 sec

~60 seconds burn time looks pretty logical to me. Rocket burn is determined by design of engine. If you want quick acceleration right off the rail, you want a short burn motor; assuming specific impulse remaining same, increasing propellant burn rate should increase F accelerate missile to its max speed in a few seconds, which is wanted for VWR missiles. Like lukos says, rocket engine thrust is not affected by the increase of altitude. So for long range missiles, its desirable to reduce burn rate, where missile accelerates slowly but reserves some propellant for high altitude so missile will continiue generating thrust in thin air to reach longer distances. Sustaining M4.5 is not a correct term, a R-33 should reach M4.5 perhaps 40 seconds after its launch. On the negative side, this requires some minimum launch distance, where missile could gain some airspeed to have maneuverability to shoot down its target.

@lukos and obligatory; You both (and me in my example quoted) are talking about very different things;

I was talking about optimization, a theoratical F-16 with 33% lower wing loading will likely perform better at 30k feet for a given speed. But nothing is linear; double the wing area, it will perform worse at 30k, but perhaps better at 50k. Double it again and you will have something similar to U-2, it will fly high, but wont sustain turns at all. What lukos is talking about is very different to this, because it also includes variance in speed;

lukos is talking about missile’s reach, or effective range; and he is correct in his conclusion that less density at longer range allows for longer range; if you half the wing area at very high speeds, you also half the drag; you certainly half the max G at the same speed However with much greater (T-D), missile will fly faster, slow more slowly, and will have greater reach.

He is also correct that rocket engines do not lose thrust with the decreased air density, with simplest real life example being bell x-2 (M3.2 with only 67kN engine).

However I stand with obligatory in that terminal approach the missile’s wing area do matter. For intercepting a MiG-31 flying at M2.5 at 20000meters, an AIM-120C, R-27RE etc will simply have not enough maneuverability, after they flew reasonable amount of distance. Slighest turn by MiG (even by 30 degrees) will force missile to make huge corrections, which is impossible for a missile that is already slowed down to ~M3.0.

The issue about missiles is also optimization. Lift by itself is not only the only factor in missiles terminal maneuverability, but efficently carrying itself to its target is also another factor.

Lets say, AIM-120D, has certain Pk at 30, 60, 90, 120 kms. Question is, how would greater wing area affect Pk? 30 km? Cerainly would not matter, as missile would be G limited (rather than lift limited) anyway. 60km? Greater wing area increases the lift but as increased drag slows the missile down during 60 km flight, it also decreases the lift, so improvement is debatable. 90km? just like above example, but also missile with increased wing area may slow down too much to be able to catch its target. 120km? With increased drag AIM-120 wouldn’t even fly 120km.

You also realize the big extension in range is due to ballistic flight where energy from thrust is traded for altitude and drag only impedes it gaining altitude.

On a truly ballistic flight, a missile will not generate any lift. It will fly in zero lift Cd0 condition. A-A missiles do not fly truly balistic however.

speed exactly overcomes the loss of density.

However on this I have to disagree, in part. AIM-120D has 200+ km rated range. R-33S is also said to have 200+ km range. Looking at this by pure kinematics, (ignoring seeker performance etc), how would they perform if they were fired at at a high flying (not necessairly too high, lets sat 30k feet) maneuverable target at 160 km away? IMHO much lower wing loading would matter, and with bigger warhead I would put all my money to R-33.

BTW This discussion is not relevant at all; Lets make it more relevant by saying;

R-27RE max range = ~120 km. R-33S max range = ~200 km. I say,
a)R-33S fired at 100 km againist Su-35, has significantly higher Pk than a R-27RE fired at MiG-31BM at same range.
b)R-33S has much better terminal maneuverability than R-27RE at high altitudes, after both flies 100km distance.

Reasoning: R-33S has better sustainer, lower wing loading, better warhead, and its more or less at middle of its launch envelope.

and this method of target illumination is supposedly not really fast enough to illuminate maneuvering targets with sufficient frequency so the missile’s seeker can stay ahead of the target when it gets close to it.

This is your conclusion. Zaslon being PESA allows multiple target illumination. It takes like 1,2ms for each module to steer beam, or transciever to switch frequency. Not only R-33, it can guide 2 R-40 missiles along with two R-33 missiles as well.

Then there is also the size and the weight of the missile which would probably cause the missile to bleed most of its energy trying to stay ahead of the maneuvering target,

Missile/aircraft mass is completely irrelevant in energy maneuverability. Hence the term specific excess power. Is Su-27 less maneuverable than F-5 because its larger? RIM-66/67/174, 9M317, 5V55, 48N6 are all large missiles. They can still maneuver very well.

to be fair the high speed of mig-31bm do bring some disadvantage when target shot back though ,
1-very big turn radius ( like 30 or 100 km at mach 2.4 if i dont remember wrong ) make it actually have to come very close to target even after launching the missiles

True, but that is circumstential. If pilot wants, MiG-31 can always stay slow to M1.2 at 17000 meters, and dive to 13000 meters to gain M2.0+ speed then climb if necessary. From the MiG-31 pow, it should never allow target to shoot back succesfully.

and the R-37 missiles would have had active guidance so it would be possible to engage maneuvering targets unlike with the R-33S

So SARH missiles cannot engage maneuvering targets? ROFL. If you are strictly comparing ARH vs SARH, by which I mean excluding INS or mid course updates, SARH missiles are FAR more suited to engage maneuvering targets at long range.

If there are any re-training for legacy Su-27 pilots that transcend up to the Su-35S, it would be different instrumentation and systems.

I believe utmost reason is the increase in landing weight of Su-35. Su-27 could only land at 21 tons. A slight 1 ton increase in empty weight, 2 tons increase in bring back capacity would total at 24 tons, 14% increase in landing weight would make glide angle, AOA and airspeed all different. As Su-35 pilots are logically most experienced Su-27 pilots, their experience may work againist them.