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)
When those Tornadoes and Harriers are knocked out of the sky by Mirage-2000s there is nothing the RAF can do anymore
Hmm. You DO know that Tornado F3 is a dedicated air/air version? Sure, its primary mission was anti-bomber, but its pretty potent in BVR engagements. Plus the MICA is relatively unproven compared to AMRAAM.
I think people are underestimating the Tornado F3 and its radar. It has greater range and TWS capability than RDI, for certain. I wouldn’t want to second guess the outcome against the Mirage 2000s.
More importantly the UK has a much greater range of decent assets for bombing the other side…
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.
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.
in service R-73s only had +-45deg off boresight. +-60 deg was the upgraded R-73M which wasn’t put into production AFAIK.
Can’t make RIAT, booked Farnborough ages ago, doesn’t look like a very interesting lineup at Farnborough though. I remember Farnborough 1988, that was great show 😉
Umm, its not much of a matchup. R-73 is better compared to Python 3.
The K-30 might make a better match for the Python 4/5.
#1= UK
Not sure about the others 😉
Well, we’ve dealt with stealth (you are wrong!) and IR signature (wrong again!), that leaves only “tail and TVC nozzles too close to the CG”. That’s hardly a major issue even if you are correct- its still going to have perfectly adequate control authority (moment = distance x force, and 70,000lbs of installed thrust is a lot of force 😉
Excellent news!
I can stop trying to read Polish now 😉
If you think that Rafale/Typhoon are even remotely comparable in stealth to F-22, think again. Typhoon was quoted once as having an RCS 1/4 that of a Tornado. Thats Super Hornet territory, not F-22….
PiBu- so what exactly is in the two volumes? Is it anything like your Polish Lotnitwo Wojskowe Rosji?
but yes an modify eagle can perform in stealth as good as f22
I’m afraid you are completely wrong here.
Initial ATF studies circa 1983 envisioned reduced RCS of around 0.5 sq m. Partly because stealth was still secret, not many people knew how the F-117 had already achieved huge RCS reduction, and partly because it wasn’t clear if it was possible to make a stealthy, agile, supercruising fighter. By 1986, it was looking increasingly possible, and the requirement was increased.