From: greenla@umich.edu (Lee Albert Green MD MPH)
Does the AMRAAMski [RAP comment: New Russian BVR active radar guidance air-to-air missile R-77 RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) had been dubbed AMRAAMski by west because of its somewhat similar characteristics to US AIM-120 AMRAAM (advanced medium range air-to-air missile)] have that kind of smarts? I'd be very surprised, given the fUSSR's lag in information technology, but I don't know. Does anyone out there? The AMRAAMski has a nice set of numbers on paper, as far as range etc, but what's its realistic average Pk over its envelope? Is a MiG so equipped only equipped to fire four missiles which are dodged, then die as the one AIM-120 fired in reply nails it?
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
The R-77 is _better_ than the AMRAAM in some respects. It has more kinetic energy and less drag due to its short, low drag, wings and its "trellis" tail surfaces which provide better manuverability than conventional fins. This means that the R-77 is more manueverable (and has more energy over its envelope) than the AMRAAM. This, barring suceptability to ECM, probably makes it better in head-on attacks than the AMRAAM. The R-77 is slated for export (as the RVV-AE). Though Vympel has completed the development of the R-77, Russian defense cuts have (so far) stalled production.
And if that wasn't bad enough there's the R-73, which really has no match in the West, suprpassing AAMs like the AIM-9 in all respects. (The AIM-9X, however, will close the gap somwehat on its introduction- after the year 2000.) The R-73, coupled with the HMD targeting system used on the Su-27 and MiG-29 is a very worrying (and potent) visual range weapons system.
An interesting note about the R-73, which is thrust-vectored, is that Vympel issued a brochure showing it being fired backwards from an Su-27.
From: topwop@magicnet.net (Anonimous)
Lee Green wrote:
Mark Bovankovich (topwop@magicnet.net) wrote:
the F-16, F-15 and F-18 are at a disadvantage to anything slinging an R-77, or even an R-27EP or R-27AE. The F-14 still has the mighty Phoenix,
Are they? Range, maneuverability, and other flight characteristics are important of course, and look great on paper too. But the Sparrow looked great on paper... and of all the Sparrows ever launched in anger, fewer than a third ever hit anything but dirt. But launch an AIM-120 within its envelope and it will virtually certainly hit its target. So far the AMRAAM hasn't missed in combat, AFAIK.
The difference isn't apparent in numbers on paper, like speed, range, g-max, etc. The difference is in software and processor power. The AIM-120 is one hellacious smart self-propelled suicide computer. It hits its targets, period.
Does the AMRAAMski have that kind of smarts? I'd be very surprised, given the fUSSR's lag in information technology, but I don't know. Does anyone out there? The AMRAAMski has a nice set of numbers on paper, as far as range etc, but what's its realistic average Pk over its envelope? Is a MiG so equipped only equipped to fire four missiles which are dodged, then die as the one AIM-120 fired in reply nails it?
Briefly, and without going into too much detail:
The R-27EP is dangerous because it out-ranges AMRAAM, and you probably won't know it's coming before it's too late. Fortunately, only the Russians (and maybe the Ukrainians) currently have this missile.
The R-27AE is dangerous for the same reasons as the R-27EP plus it won't stop homing if you shut down your radar. Fortunately, there is some doubt as to whether this missile will ever be fielded.
The R-77 is nasty. It is superior to the AMRAAM in range and maneuverability (especially sustained maneuverability). The US currently doesn't have a countermeasure fielded against eh R-77, but this will soon change.
Lee, your comments about software and processor power apply only to the seeker on the AMRAAM. Even the AMRAAM's radar didn't present as much of a execution challenge as it did a miniaturization challenge (you'll note the at R-77 doesn't use the same level of miniaturization). The basic guidance algorithms for an AAM just don't take that much smarts.
We've got to face the fact that the former-Soviets caught the US napping where AAMs are concerned. They went bankrupt in the process of developing all their new systems, but they fielded two generations of missiles and are ready with a third in the same time that we took to come up with one new missile. We are definitely playing catch-up at this point.
BTW, the AMRAAM missed once in combat.
From: topwop@magicnet.net (Anonimous)
In response to my comments, Lee Wrote:
Anyway, my basic point remains that the measure of value in a missile isn't its aerodynamic performance (where the R-77 is clearly outstanding), but in the percentage of targets it hits. Aerodynamic performance is one contributor to that goal. However, if the R-77's brains are of Sparrow sophistication, it's going to have the Sparrow's 0.30 Pk no matter how good its flight characteristics are.
The key point here is that aerodynamic properties make a substantial contribution to Pk. Second to aero properties is fusing. Third is probably seeker capability (when you can't get a seeker lock, you typically don't fire the missile).
The question I first asked remains unanswered: how *smart*, not how fast or big or maneuverable, is the R-77? Will it track targets through chaff, jinks, ground clutter, etc as the Slammer will? How likely is it to hit?
Speaking only of "smarts" the R-77 is probably roughly comparable to the AMRAAM. Both will have no problem with ground clutter in most situations. Both will have the same vulnerability to chaff. The R-77's maneuverability will give it an edge against a jinking target, especially if it was a long range shot. The AMRAAM probably has a slight advantage in ECCM, but both missiles are most effectively countered by the same basic techniques (ECM and expendables). My bet is that the seeker detection ranges are similar, with the AMRAAM probably having a bit of an advantage. My bet is also that the AMRAAM's fuse is quite a bit better than the R-77's. The R-77 on the other hand, has a clear advantage in range.
You might question how I know or can guess at these capabilities. Missile capabilities are not as mysterious as they may seem. Systems typically have certain unique limitations and characteristics that can be used to make an analysis. Based on what I know and can surmise, I would probably not want to face an R-77-equipped Su-35 with an AMRAAM-equipped F-15C. An AMRAAM-equipped F-22A is another story altogether--fortunately.
From: Buddha , The Melior Group
According to Raytheon there have been four (4) AMRAAM kills:
- Dec 12, 1992: F-16 downs an Iraqi MiG-29.
- Jan 17, 1993: F-16 downs an Iraqi MiG-23.
- Jan 18, 1993: F-15 downs an Iraqi MiG-25.
- Feb 28, 1994: F-16 downs a Bosnian Serb G-4 Super Galeb.
The only suspected kill by the R-77 was a test firing in 1986 that went bad, where a R-77 fired from a MiG-23 downed an Aeroflot AN-26 killing 26 passangers while attempting a radar intercept on a Mi-6 Hook helicopter drone. The AN-26 had a larger radar cross section and no ground clutter. See Zuyev, Fulcrum, 1992, page 219.
From: topwop@magicnet.net (Anonimous)
In addition to some comments about Brilliant Pebbles (which I'll leave to Tony) Maury wrote the following in response to my post:
The AMRAAM has a high Pk against a non-maneuvering target. Its Pk can drop severely if the target maneuvers. Remember, the AMRAAM's airframe bleeds speed more than comparable missiles. The cost paid for that extra range in a straight line was reduced maneuver capability.
Why is this? What is it about the airframe that makes this so?
Two things: the delta control surfaces and the lack of any strakes on the fuselage. The AMRAAM's delta control surfaces are less efficient than the R-77's "lattice" controls, bleeding much more energy in maneuvers. The R-77's fuselage strakes substantially enhance body lift at a minimal cost in parasite drag. The designers of the AMRAAM had to make some trade-offs between range and maneuverability, but you can't ignore the fact that they used a dated aerodynamic design. The inverse-taper canards on the R-27s, the strakes and lattice controls on the R-77s, and the simple but effective thrust vectoring on the R-73, these are brilliant pieces of engineering.
I should probably mention that energy is vital in missile intercepts. Missiles, especially BVR missiles, spend most of their flight time unpowered. If the missile bleeds speed in maneuvers, it loses energy needed to complete the intercept. At the time of intercept, you can almost draw a straight line correlating missile/target energy ratio and probability of successful intercept. The slower the missile, the more energy it bleeds. The slower the missile, the more difficult the intercept. The fastest missile is the deadliest: AIM-54C.
And I'm curious about Pk. Isn't it more accurate to say the engagement envelope is much smaller with a maneuvering target? That's as opposed to saying the Pk is smaller.
Part of the equation could be described both ways. If the target starts maneuvering after the missile has been fired, the engagement envelope shrinks and the Pk goes down. In addition, the Pk is usually lower against a maneuvering target regardless of the size of the engagement envelope.
From rec.aviation.military FAQ by Ross Smith
What air-to-air missiles are in service? The following list covers the air-to-air missiles known to be in service or under development, as of late 1993.
Guidance types: AR = active radar, IR = infrared, Opt = optical, PR = passive radar, SAR = semi-active radar.
Missile Length Mass Range Speed Warhead Guidance
(m) (kg) (km) (M) (kg)
------------------------------ ------ ---- ----- ----- ------- --------
International
AIM-132A ASRAAM 2.90 87 15 ? 10 IR
S225X ? ? 100 ? ? AR
Brazil
MAA-1 Mol 2.82 90 10 2.0 12 IR
China
PL-2 2.99 76 3 ? 11 IR
PL-3 2.99 82 3 ? 14 IR
PL-5B 2.89 85 16 ? 9 IR
PL-7 2.75 90 ? ? 13 IR
PL-8 3.00 120 5 ? 11 IR
PL-9 2.99 120 5 ? 10 IR
PL-10 3.99 300 15 3.0 ? SAR
France
MICA AR 3.10 110 60 ? ? AR
MICA IR 3.10 110 60 ? ? IR
R.550 Magic 1 2.72 89 10 2.0 13 IR
R.550 Magic 2 2.75 90 10 2.0 13 IR
Super 530D 3.80 270 40 4.5 30 SAR
Super 530F 3.54 245 35 4.5 30 SAR
Germany
Iris ? ? ? ? ? IR
India
Astra ? ? ? ? ? AR
Israel
Python 3 3.00 120 15 3.5 11 IR
Python 4 3.00 ? ? ? ? IR
Shafrir 2 2.60 93 5 ? 11 IR
Italy
Aspide 1 3.70 220 100 4.0 35 SAR
Aspide 2 3.65 230 100 4.0 35 SAR
Japan
AAM-3 Type 90 2.60 70 5 ? ? IR
Russia
K-13A/R-13S "AA-2 Atoll" 2.84 75 8 2.5 11 IR
K-13M/R-13M "AA-2-2 Atoll-D" 2.87 90 13 2.5 11 IR
K-13R/R-13R "AA-2-2 Atoll-C" 3.50 93 8 2.5 11 SAR
Kh-31P "AS-17 Krypton" 5.23 600 200 3.0 90 PR
KS-172 RVV-L 7.40 750 400 ? ? AR
R-23R "AA-7 Apex" 4.46 244 27 3.4 35 SAR
R-23T "AA-7 Apex" 4.16 217 27 3.4 35 IR
R-24R "AA-7 Apex" 4.46 ? ? ? ? SAR
R-24T "AA-7 Apex" 4.16 ? ? ? ? IR
R-27EA "AA-10 Alamo" 4.78 350 130 ? 39 AR
R-27EM "AA-10 Alamo" 4.78 350 170 ? 39 SAR
R-27ER "AA-10 Alamo-C" 4.78 350 130 ? 39 SAR
R-27ET "AA-10 Alamo-D" 4.78 350 130 ? 39 IR
R-27P "AA-10 Alamo" ? ? ? ? 39 PR
R-27R "AA-10 Alamo-A" 4.08 235 60 ? 39 SAR
R-27T "AA-10 Alamo-B" 3.80 245 40 ? 39 IR
R-33 "AA-9 Amos" 4.15 490 120 ? 47 SAR
R-37 ? 600 150 ? ? AR
R-40RD "AA-6 Acrid" 5.98 461 70 4.5 38 SAR
R-40TD "AA-6 Acrid" 5.98 460 30 4.5 38 IR
R-60 "AA-8 Aphid" 2.14 45 7 2.5 4 IR
R-60M "AA-8 Aphid" 2.14 45 ? 2.5 4 IR
R-60MK "AA-8 Aphid" 2.14 45 12 2.5 4 IR
R-73/R-73M1 "AA-11 Archer" 2.90 105 15 ? 7 IR
R-73E/R-73M2 "AA-11 Archer" 2.90 110 30 ? 7 IR
R-77 RVV-AE "AA-12" 3.60 175 90 3.0 18 AR
South Africa
Darter 2.75 89 10 4.2 16 IR
V3B Kukri 2.94 73 4 3.9 ? IR
Taiwan
Sky Sword I 2.87 90 15 ? ? IR
Sky Sword II 3.60 190 40 ? ? SAR
United Kingdom
Active Sky Flash 3.66 208 50 4.0 30 AR
Sky Flash 3.66 192 50 4.0 30 SAR
United States of America
AIM-7M Sparrow 3.66 230 100 2.5 39 SAR
AIM-7P Sparrow 3.66 230 45 ? 39 SAR
AIM-7R Sparrow 3.66 ? 45 ? ? IR+SAR
AIM-9J Sidewinder 3.07 78 15 2.5 ? IR
AIM-9L Sidewinder 2.87 87 18 2.5 10 IR
AIM-9M Sidewinder 2.87 87 8 2.5 10 IR
AIM-9P Sidewinder 3.07 82 8 2.5 12 IR
AIM-9R Sidewinder 2.87 87 8 2.5 10 Opt
AIM-9S Sidewinder 2.87 87 8 2.5 10 IR
AIM-9TC Sidewinder 3.00 84 ? ? ? IR
AIM-54C Phoenix 4.30 463 200 4.0 60 AR
AIM-92A Stinger 1.52 14 5 2.0 3 IR
AIM-120A AMRAAM 3.65 157 75 4.0 22 AR
Have Dash 3.00 180 50 3.0 ? AR+IR
[Most of the information here is from Doug Richardson and Piotr Butowski's survey of AAMs in the October 1993 issue of _Air International_]
Russian Air-to-Air missiles. New Case of Missile Gap? 
