star49Source for the 200 km range figure for the Zhuk-M MSA? Details?
Source is very direct. general designer of Phazotron. where he is saying we have 200km radar with current technology.
And where is the evidence this versions exists right now? Oh I know, just another guess from you.
No one will be buying those weopons if it does not produce superior performance over R-77. seeker of R-73/R-77/R-27 are basically of same technology. It is the kinematic performance of larger missle that makes a difference.
I don’t care about what Russian manufacturer XY says about an aircraft he don’t know about at all. They haven’t specified anything so all you are doing is guessing and interpreting things in your way.
Surely he does not know. He certainly know alot more than arm chair general as he has government intelligence and customer requirements in front of him.
star49Pretty much any Area Air Defense missile system would find a Ka-31 within missile range and at that height to be target practice, they’d be better off on the deck.
No area defence missile can hit at 1000m or less at 200 to 300km range. Helicopter have plenty of time to guide faster Ashm against bigger targets and lie low. It is much better solution as it can land on pretty much every surface ships. It does not need aircraft carrier like E-2C.
Sources? Not to mention that the Tomahawk ASM varient was retired many years ago.
A force of single Brahmos is equal to 9 subsonic cruise missiles. Airlaunched will be much more than this as it has height and speed advantage. And i can be used against both ships and land.
star49In terms of over-ther-horizon targeting for anti-ship missiles, approximately hopw far can the surface-search radar ofd a Helix detect an enemy warship? And Tu-95??
Does the SH-60 see further than the Helix?
It should be mentioned that Ka-31 operates at 1500 to 3000m height so range of AAM and SAMs against is much reduced.
http://www.royfc.com/news/jul/2104jul06.html
With the creation of the helicopter, leading scientific and technical ideas have been used which allowed the realization of a high level of its tactical and technical characteristics. In particular, it is able to detect surface targets at a distance up to 250 kilometers, aerial up to 200 kilometers and track up to 40 targets.The helicopter has no counterparts in the world. It is unique in its usage characteristics and can be used autonomously from unprepared surfaces in the aviation regard, land airfields and ships, by day and night, in good and poor weather conditions.
While controlling the air, ground and surface situation, the helicopter can examine 250,000 square kilometers of sea surface in one hour of flight.
While covering the air situation, the helicopter, while patrolling at a distance 100 – 150 kilometers from the objects being screened, allows increasing the detection boundary of an enemy air raid out to 300 – 350 kilometers.
The importance of the Ka-31 is great also in the guarantee of the use of ships’ missile weapons to the full range of the launch Modern sea-based anti-shipping missiles have a launch range greater than 200 kilometers. However, their use at full range is limited by the range of the ship-borne radar target designation. In this connection, the problem of external target designation for long-range missile armament, it was stressed in the presentation, can be resolved successfully with the aid of the relatively inexpensive Ka-31 helicopters.The Ka-31 helicopter can be used effectively both in a shore protection and defense system, equipped with long-range missile complexes, inasmuch as the organization of the effective combat functioning of such systems and the use of the weapons at full range without external target designation assets is not possible.
Source: 21.07.04, RIA Novosti
Here is more evidence of using Airpower for long range antiship. Now Japan/Taiwan/China/India has come to same conclusion. what Russia has concluded decades ago. A single airlaunched Brahmos is almost equal to force of 10 to 15 tomhawks.
http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=477216&sid=REG
the three squadrons is conducting practise flights from the Leh air base in Jammu and Kashmir.India is already in the process of integrating its potent indigenous BrahMos supersonic cruise missile onto the IAF’s Su-30s.
“We are currently working on integrating the deadly cruise missile on the biggest fighter aircraft in our inventory,” the officer said.
IAF is planning to start trials of Su-30s integrated with BrahMos missiles by the end of this year or early next year.
“Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will start carrying out the trials by the end of this year or early next year. Both India and Russia will be working together to achieve this objective,” the IAF officer said.
IAF has plans of inducting a squadron of BrahMos integrated Su-30s by 2012.
Though both New Delhi and Moscow, who jointly developed the missile, are working together to integrate the missile onto the Su-30s, Indian Air Force will be the first to make the system operational.
The Su-30MKI Block-III would be used during the trials of the BrahMos missile upon integration. The Block-III aircraft were first inducted into the IAF last year.
star49“They have accepted F-18E as competitor but not EF.”
If they mean on price grounds, then that’s probably accurate. Or even if they mean on the grounds of A-G capability that can be delivered now. Otherwise, it’s deluded.
There is no where written they are comparing prices or AtoG work. It is solely air to air work.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-05.html
Figure 3. Source: Eurofighter Typhoon [Editor: Eurofighter have assumed the threat capability is the Su-27M, relabelled later the Su-35. This is a much less capable aircraft than the current Su-35BM/Su-35-1 in late development].The realism of the Joust simulation and the validity of these results as a guide to actual combat effectiveness are certainly open to question. For, example, the AIMVAL/ACEVAL tests despite their having been constructed to favor aircraft equipped with BVR radar guided missiles (defending aircraft not equipped with BVR weapons were maneuvered into head on engagements with attacking aircraft that were) showed that exchange rates for the BVR aircraft dropped dramatically as the number of opposing aircraft increased12. For example, in engagements with 1 aircraft on each side (total of 2 aircraft), “valid” engagements had an exchange rate of 3.8 to 1 in favor of the aircraft equipped with BVR radar guided missiles. However, in engagements with 4 aircraft on a side(total of 8) the exchange rate was one to one. These results were confirmed in the simulations run during the AMRAAM OUE [Editor: numerous concerns remain about the series of simulations produced to argue the Typhoon case.].
Radar guided missiles are susceptible to the centroid effect as demonstrated by the continuing interest in developing and deploying towed radar decoys. A simple thought experiment helps illustrate this problem for radar guided missiles such as AMRAAM. For example, let us assume the following:
two target aircraft with 150 meters of separation approaching head on
the target aircraft and the launching aircraft are travelling at 0.9 Mach (300 metres/second) for a combined closing speed of 600 metres per second.
the missile antennae is equal to the diameter of the missile which is 17.8 cm for the AMRAAM
the radar operates at 10 gigahertz
resolution is equal to the theoretical resolution given by the optical resolution formula and that no sophisticated signal processing or ECM is taking place
once theoretical resolution is achieved it takes the missile 2/10 seconds to determine that there are two targets, activate the control system, overcome the moment of inertia and it then performs a constant acceleration course to the intercept.
target aircraft maintain course and speed
missile speed is constant at 1,000 metres per second giving a combined closing speed for the missile and target aircraft of 1,300 metres per second.
Resolution of two targets for the AMRAAM would be achieved at 890 metres. To make a kill the AMRAAM would need to pull 63 G. If the response time of the system were 1/2 second then the AMRAAM would need 829 G.14EFA supporters claim that the EFA performance is inherently superior to other aircraft such as the F-16, Rafael, and F-15. See Figures 5-7 (Source – Eurofighter Typhoon
Conclusions and Recommendations
The analysis discussed indicates that the Royal Air Force would find it advantageous in terms of military capability if it were to:
scrap the EFA’s already purchased in Tranche 1 (55)
scrap those Tranche 2 (89) EFAs for which production can not be cancelled and cancel production of the remainder
Cancel procurement of Tranche 3 (88)
Replace the EFAs scrapped and cancelled with an F-16 Air Force that has the same DCF
star49I don’t care if the R-27 is better or more capable than the R-77/RVV-AE. Yet you are guessing like ever. 99% of your claims are guess based on your assumptions! Your example is dumb at best and the main issue is completely missed by you, like ever.
It is very correct gues. No one buys two types of BVR missile unless there is verifiable proof of superiority. and it is not in small quanities. So it is not stop gap to R-77 but will be used for decades to come.
Zhuk-ME has a mechanically scanned array! There is no operational AESA radar onboard an operational russian fighter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GET IT
Current Zhuk radar has 200km range which is clearly Slotarrays. The deigner is referring to 300 to 400km AESA as according to him there is not point of developing AESA for 200km range as it is achieved with current technologies. This is the correct interpretation of statement.
The boldened passage should be self explaining. They want means the current variants don’t provide that range. Hence this is completely irrelevant for yet and now!
That was 2004. we are in 2008.
ROFL, sorry but your ignorance is unbelieveable. YOU WANT TO MAKE US BELIEVE MARKETING CRAP FROM RUSSIAN MANUFACTURERS WHICH ARE “SELF STATEMENTS”, YET YOU SAY THEY HAVE NO VALUE:rolleyes:
Do your homework, where is the contradiction here:rolleyes:
Sorry this is no marketing statement. They have accepted F-18E as competitor but not EF. Marketing statement is when some one say We are the best. No one can do like us for decades to come.
star49Ah yes and me is the one who is guessing:rolleyes: To cut it short as usual much guessing, nothing known for sure, yet you claim superiority where nothing is evident.
Evidence is pretty strong if u look at logically. Why would some one order AIm-7 if AIM-120C7 is available and that in thousands.
In giving bearing information yes, but that’s not enough for an accurate missile shot. There is a reason why IRST was coupled with small radar transmissions to gain the required range data etc., that is effective, but not 100% passive and it is not useful in all circumstances.
U cannot extend ur opinion about Russian IRST. They are using it for stealth targets.
Again I’m speaking about operational radars, you speak about prototypes which aren’t fitted to any operational platform, that’s the difference. If you want to compare Zhuk-A, compare it to Captor-E.
MIG-29K radar is operational. MIG-29SMT radar is operational. The designer is clealry differentiating between AESA and non AESA where 200km is achieved.
There is a small difference between tracking or have to lock on to guide a SAHR missile. Your “surely” is once again just a guess nothing concrete, nothing proven as usual!
Proof is clear. why they want to increase range to 200km.
I don’t twist public statements, I just reject nonsense (which many of these statements are). Eurofighter GmbH says the EF is better than anything else so what do you say now? Oh the manufacturer says it so it must be true…:rolleyes:
Nope again ur making in accurate assumptions. If Phozotron say it is making radar to compete with APG-79. it means they have high value of that system. Self praise and self statements have no value. thats the biggest problem with EF.
star49Not specific numbers, but the F3 has a larger antenna and more output than any Fulcrums, that are CURRENTLY in service. It’s in the same league as F-15Cs and F-14Ds, which also have/had more powerful radars than Fulcrums.
what is the output of Radar? Antenna size is not alone determinant factor. Older Zhuk used 700mm but has 50% less range than 624mm Zhuk-M which has less range than Zhuk-M3 and now they are again going back to 700mm. So it is moving target. Radar is never a constant figure.
Fulcrum thrust is now 2*20,000lbs. with 25k lbs thrust VK-10M engine on tests.
star49Jamming and what? Most modern AAMs are designed to operate in such environments and weapons like the AMRAAM feature a HOJ mode for example. Soo again nothing special about your R-27P/EP.
R-27 is ordered many times more than R-77. and is continously upgraded through various variants. So there is some thing it offers that others not.
IRST alone lacks accurate target data to make any missile shot with an acceptable pk. Let alone that such a possibility is not limited to IRST equipped Russian fighters. Short once again no advantage.
surely u know how they are going to use IRST. It is pretty accurate
Zhuk has existed since the late 80s, Zhuk-M just since ~2000. FACT!
surely since year 2000. when was first flight and all those J-8/JH-7/J-10 components created Zhuk-M.
That’s the same for EVERY modern operational radar, not just for Zhuk! Furthermore I speak about Zhuk-M not Zhuk-A. Zhuk-A isn’t operational on any platform, its currently a prototype not more not less.
I am clearly speaking about brochure policies. It is not fixed thing. Zhuk-M is 200km with AESA they want to double it. ur assumptions are based on out dated data.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1256624&highlight=%22zhuk+300%22#post1256624
the distance of 300-400 km is real for this radar. Of course even on [BRLS] Zhuk we today ensure the distance 200 km, but in radar with AESA it will be even more. This radar gives to fighter new military characteristics, significantly enlarges its possibilities”, said [Yu].[Guskov].
The “E”-version provide a longer range than the R-77, but not a significant longer range. AIM-120C-5 provides a max range of 105 km, comes quite close to the 110 km figure for the R-27E. With the difference that the AIM-120 is a fully fire & forget capable missile if required and not dependent on weather.
That 110km range belong to 1980s era. Surely it will be between 110 to 200km. It has much more range so airforce prefer it along with R-77. fire and forget does not matter at thos ranges as most of time fighter radar will have to track it untill the last few kms.
Maybe Captor is so much better that they see no need for comparison:diablo:
Nope. They have clearly mentioned it Su-35 is clearly superior to anything else beside MIG-31/F-22. The same is true for Phozotran. They are trying to match APG-79. u cannot twist such public statements.
star49The R-27P/EP use a passive radar like any anti radiation missile, nothing special about that. These work like RWRs in general, turn of the radar and your missile will go blind anywhere. 200 km is the supposed max optimum detection range, doesn’t mean much if your missile has a max range of 72 km or 110 km. which is not the effective engagement range. Therefore no advantage here range wise. Let alone is the any prove for thosr R-27P/EP versions being in service at all and on which platforms?
It can work even in Anti jamming environment. and who knows newer version are dual seeker. Infact IAF and PLAAF has ordered thousands of R-27. There is alot confidence in this weopon. Even for Su-30MKM in year 2008 uses R-27.
IRST for passive attacks? Well at limited range, but hardely compareable to radar performance.
Some time u dont neet to use Radar and IRST has now alot of range.
A decade older? APG-79 no, APG-80 no, RBE2 no and Zhuk-M no! YOU ARE WRONG!
Zhuk-M has been existence since late 80s but is continously upgraded.
Detection/tracking ranges and coverage are well known for most of these radars and yes the Captor provides advantages here over most of these radars including the Zhuk-M with a range of 120-130 km in the export version. RBE2 has a similar range to the Zhuk-M, APG-80 ~150 km, APG79 ~180 km. Captor has a tracking range WELL BEYOND 160 km. So the APG-79 is the only radar which might offer a longer max range, but not necessarily at the antennas gimbals.
Real figures of Zhuk only customer will know. In brochures they put Zhuk-AE range as 200km but in public statement they are saying 300 to 400km. On MIG site for MIG-29K they say twice the range from previous versions. 200km range is safe to assume. APG-80 is 1sqm at 120km at those are figures from year 2000.
True Typhoon currently lacks the Meteor or AIM-120C-7, but no of these super duper R-77 versions are in service either. So you are comparing current Typhoon weapons with supposed future Flanker/Fulcrum weapons:rolleyes:
that is ur assumption of what is included with MIG-29SMT and MIG-29K. R-27 has greater range than R-77.
Why should a single radar be a competor for a whole aircraft?:diablo: Seriously your MiG-35 does not exist, so you can dream about it, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no single order, not even a production representive prototype. And the situation is just a bit better for the Su-35 2 prototypes of which are flying, but the Su-35 is still at least 3 years away from entering service and if this aircraft will pose all the supposed capabilities at that date is another open question!
Various subsystems of MIG-35 and Su-35 exists but why the radar manufacturers are biased against EF but not F-18E? They may know things which are not available for public.
star49You think that a Fulcrum has a longer detection range than a Typhoon? Against what size target? The R27 is still going to need datalink updates assuming it’s kinematic range is 200km. The Mig’s ESM will detect the emissions, and give passive guidance, but the missile itself won’t be autonomous for 200km. The current AMRAAM(C7), and the Meteor are plenty to handle the Migs in A2A. I’m not sure how anti-ship missiles are relevant in A2A.
There is no meteor with EF and there is no AIM-120C7 either. There is new slot array Zhuk-ME for IAF MIG-29SMT that goes even beyond MIG-29K slotarry. So no can say there is advantage of Captor. Infact Phozotron has said they are tying to match APG-79 AESA range with Zhuk-AE. Phozotran has never considered Captor as serious competitor to MIG-35. The same is true with NIIP Su-35. They considered F-18E the closest competitor. So if both different radar manufacturers have respect for F-18E but not for EF.
There is 3 new versions of R-77 offered with ranges 3 to 4 times of current R-77. Those who are saying that EF has decisive edge over its competitors will soon face the reality.
star49I guarantee you that the missile’s onboard radar isn’t gonna be able to detect/lock on to a target at 200km. The Mig’s radar might lock onto a non stealthy aircraft at that range, but the seeker might have a 20-30km range.
It is passive guidance. So there must be reason for increasing range to 200km. Missile can hit tagest as low as 20m. The whole point is not all version of R-27 were sold during soviet times and there is constant improvements such as R-27AE etc. EF certainly dont have radar detection ranges, interception capability advantage over MIGs. Mig can guide two antiship missiles on same target. There is extended range SEAD capability.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/506/
The R-27P1 and R-27EP1 unified medium-range air-to-air missiles with passive radar homing heads are intended for round-the-clock engagement of radio-emitting air targets in fair and adverse weather conditions, in the front hemisphere, against diverse underlying backgrounds and in cases when the enemy targets protect their aircraft with anti-radar active jamming.
star49The current F3s have a longer radar range than any Mig-29 in service, not just the A models.
Sury u know the Radar ranges for MIG-29SMT that IAF signed for but hasnt signed for M2K RDY-2 which is 15% more than RDY. RDY is the longest range slot array for its size. Taiwan use it in airdefence role.
star49Captor has been updated as well and at the moment there’re no extended range missiles available for any other modern fighter, excluding the specialised MiG-31.
It is part of MIG-29. It has test launches in 80s. thats why the missile is still selling.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-24787.html
JANE’S MISSILES AND ROCKETS – MAY 01, 2004——————————————————————————–
Vympel offers R-27EP anti-radar air-to-air missile
Piotr Butowski
The R-27P and -EP missile – P for passivnaya (passive) – are equipped with a PRGS-27 (or 9B-1032) seeker developed by CKBA. This operates at centimetric wavelengths, and guides the round to the radar of enemy fighter aircraft. The missile is intended for use against enemy fighters at long range, when the launch aircraft may still be beyond the maximum range of the target’s radar. Since the weapon uses passive homing, it will give the target no warning that a launch has been made
Vympel offers two versions of the missile: the standard R-27P with a maximum range of 72km and the ‘energetic’ version R-27EP with a bigger rocket motor which gives a maximum range of 110km. This maintains the dual-standard policy set by the original active-radar and infrared-guided versions, which were fielded in medium (R-27R and -27T) and long-range (R-27ER and -27ET) variants respectively. The R-27P and -27EP retain the basic configuration of the earlier members of the AA-10 ‘Alamo’ series, including the novel trapezoidal ‘butterfly’ control surfaces.The homing head is capable of detecting a target from a range of more than 200km, but the R-27EP cannot carry out an interception at such distances. The flight time would exceed the operating duration of the missile’s onboard power supply. Vympel is working on ways of increasing the operating time of the power supply in order to allow R-27EP engagements at up to 200km.
Radar detection ranges are twice of previous in MIG-29 with using IRST for passive attacks.
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_K_KUB_e.htm
The fighter has multi-role, multi-mode “pulse-Doppler” type radar “Zhuk-ME” manufactured by “Fazotron-NIIP” Corporation. The radar is provided with the slot array. As compared with radars of the previous generation, “Zhuk-ME” has wider scanning angle in azimuth, twice longer target detection range, less weight and increased reliability. “Zhuk-ME” provides tracking up to 10 air targets with four targets simultaneous firing with missiles.The MiG-29K/KUB fighters are equipped with state-of-the-art multi-channel IRST with target designation system to the anti-radar passive war-head missiles
star49Yep I think AESA is a must. Though the Captor at the the moment out performs most in AtA situations, just to say “we now have a AESA radar ” will catch a lot of attention as it is pictured as “state of the art”.
Any evidence of Captor outperforming APG-79/Zhuk-M3/RBE2/APG-80. Some of these were developed a decade earlier than Captor but there are constant improvement over period of time. Second is missile package. EF dont have extended range missile.
star49Tornado F3 is pretty new aircraft for airdefence. I dont doubt its radar longer ranged than MIG-29A. But i have doubt Skyflash is longer ranged than R-27. R-27 may be from obsolete stocks as soviet articles have short life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado_ADV
Tornado F3
The Tornado F3 made its maiden flight on 20 November 1985.[1] Entering service in July 1986, 152 F3s were ordered. The F3’s primary weapons when it entered service were the short-range AIM-9 Sidewinder and British Aerospace Skyflash, a British medium-range air-to-air missile based on the American AIM-7 Sparrow.
Sign In
