Long range Missiles

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 02:38

Once everyone has lethality, it all becomes a game of information. Who can get it, and whether or not you can trust it.
See "Submarine warfare".
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 03:55

botsing wrote:Did I miss something? Is a post already deleted?


No I was just busting the OP's balls. Don't mind me, and my smart a$$ comments :)
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 04:12

Doesn't matter how far a missile can fly if the launch aircraft or his accompanying assets can't track the targets.

The sensors and vlo of the raptor and f-35 create such an unfair dynamic when you try to run any scenario.

The assumption of the basement dweller is always that the raptor or lightning will simply fly head on to their target after launching bvr missiles from maximum range and ultimately end up in a merge.....

In reality the 5th gen. planes will see you first and maneuver to an incredibly advantageous position, and then kill you before you ever had a chance...rinse and repeat.

From the stories we've heard about the raptor, it seems that it can sneak up on legacy planes quite easily. But that's what the basement dweller doesn't realize, legacy jets were like boxers. They were designed to fight in close and win with pilot skill and better maneuverability, a very honorable way to fight indeed but also very risky. The lockheed 5th gens create a situation where the opponent never has an opportunity to throw a punch let alone win consistently.
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 05:16

les_paul59 wrote:Doesn't matter how far a missile can fly if the launch aircraft or his accompanying assets can't track the targets.

The sensors and vlo of the raptor and f-35 create such an unfair dynamic when you try to run any scenario.

The assumption of the basement dweller is always that the raptor or lightning will simply fly head on to their target after launching bvr missiles from maximum range and ultimately end up in a merge.....

In reality the 5th gen. planes will see you first and maneuver to an incredibly advantageous position, and then kill you before you ever had a chance...rinse and repeat.

From the stories we've heard about the raptor, it seems that it can sneak up on legacy planes quite easily. But that's what the basement dweller doesn't realize, legacy jets were like boxers. They were designed to fight in close and win with pilot skill and better maneuverability, a very honorable way to fight indeed but also very risky. The lockheed 5th gens create a situation where the opponent never has an opportunity to throw a punch let alone win consistently.


Your preaching to the Choir here! I'm no basement dweller. And the AWACs makes a lot of signal noise that's probably not difficult to home on even OTH. I'm not saying the threat is impossible top stop. I've also mentioned that the attackers will likely die in the process. The only opportunities our enemies have at hurting us is a HAIL MARY play. That's what this is.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 06:49

Just want to get this off my chest.

The Chinese and Russians aren't dumb. They know US strengths and will analyse for weaknesses. Going toe to toe with US fighters in the air is playing to US strengths so what are the weaknesses?

All fighters, other than the F-35B, need a launch platform. Are the launch platforms vulnerable?

Ground based USAF fighters like F-22 and F-35A will need runways. No fighter remains in the air forever and will eventually need to land, whether running out of fuel or munitions. If an aggressor can kill fighters on the ground at a greater rate than friendly losses in the air, then the air battle will eventually tilt in the aggressor's favor. CAP weighs the scale on one end. But if CAP loses its AWACs and ground radars, then CAP loses its effectiveness. Good news is USAF already knows this. Hence training is now focussed on scenarios where AEW is not available. The networked capabilities onboard the F-22 and F-35 helps significantly.

Runways are fixed, easily identified and no matter how big a base, can be interdicted with a finite quantity of munitions. Hardened bases helps. Dispersals help. Dummy shelters helps. The USMC knows this and hence the temp FARP battle concept.

Another difficulty is dealing with enemy stealth (coupled with internally carried long range anti-surface missiles). Longer range ASMs means having to detect inbound aggressors farther out = much larger area to search. This is very difficult to achieve without search radars (whether airborne or ground based). Stealth means having to be nearer to the aircraft to detect.

GBAD can make a difference but that is the one area that suffers from lack of funding. Patriots are good but there are better systems. What about CRAMs and systems like iron domes?

Russia is developing exo-atmosphere bombers. China is developing next gen stealth bombers and ballistic missiles. Both countries have very long ranged anti-surface missiles , GPS guided in the X,000km range, cluster warhead armed which does not need targeting against fixed targets like runways and supporting structures.

The USAF has counter-strategies like using tankers as bait to whack enemy fighters and can put up a strong CAP. The effectiveness of the CAP is still dependent on missiles carried (internally only to be more effective). This is hampered by how many internal missiles each F22 and F35 can carry. Both China and Russia are developing counters to the AIM-120. The D versions has significantly longer range and better seekers but its not foolproof. Any missile will have lower pk against stealthier targets (but with the caveat that sensor fusion counters this and increases pk).

China in particular has been improving its ECM technologies with self-developed jammer pods. IT will be interesting (though not in anyone's interest since that will only happen in a war) to see how effective those are. THe USAF also recognises this with calls for improved AAMs.

Everyone is looking for technology disruptors. The USMC is thinking lasers on the F-35 could be it. I think ground based lasers for GBAD/runway defence is probably more easily achieved (no size, power constraints).
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 07:35

Russia is photoshoping exo-atmosphere bombers on brochures.


This is what you meant, I think.

I agree with you, but this improving game has always been there. Your enemy will always improve over time, and your job is to stay ahead. This isn't new. The point is, they are actually so far behind, they can't even see our dust.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 11:42

arian wrote:First, these are paper weapons, with paper capabilities. These missiles rely on radars being able to cue them in. In tests, MiG-31M couldn't do it on its own but had to hand off the missile to another plane to get the maximum range. All fine, if you think you're just facing un-escorted tankers. The whole thing seems like a waste of time, because why do you need a 400km ranged missile if your plane can't target anything at that range?


You are talking about 1994 test? It was low flying drone target, smaller rcs and clutter.

wrightwing wrote:The KS-172, R-37, and PL-15 aren't currently deployed.


KS-172 is iced. RVV-BD replaced R-37. RVV-BD is deployed but probable in very small numbers because it cost lot more then R-33S and second reson is Izd. 810 which same class missile but with better tech and it is in development.
Last edited by milosh on 08 Sep 2016, 15:27, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 12:09

arian wrote:
Russia is photoshoping exo-atmosphere bombers on brochures.


This is what you meant, I think.

I agree with you, but this improving game has always been there. Your enemy will always improve over time, and your job is to stay ahead. This isn't new. The point is, they are actually so far behind, they can't even see our dust.

It's not just the technology. How will China, in particular, fare when it's green troops and commanders face major combat for the first time going up against a battle-tested foe? Not well IMO which is why I always thought China might want to gain some invaluable combat experience in Syria. Anyway, modern combat is so swift and brutal the war could be over before lessons could be learned and assimilated.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 19:26

milosh wrote:RVV-BD is deployed but probable in very small numbers because it cost lot more then R-33S


Deployed? Hard to believe. Also manufacturer claims a range of 200km for RVV-BD. The super-long range shot involved a two-stage system with a booster rocket, and obviously it was impractical since the plane itself couldn't target anything at that range. So it's basically just an improved R-33, and still Phoenix class missile.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 22:09

arian wrote:
milosh wrote:RVV-BD is deployed but probable in very small numbers because it cost lot more then R-33S


Deployed? Hard to believe. Also manufacturer claims a range of 200km for RVV-BD. The super-long range shot involved a two-stage system with a booster rocket, and obviously it was impractical since the plane itself couldn't target anything at that range. So it's basically just an improved R-33, and still Phoenix class missile.


The improved R-37M (RVV-BD, Izdelie 610M) missile is in serial production since 2014, and now, apparently, it is in an IOC stage in squadrons of MiG-31BM upgraded interceptors,” said researcher Mikhail Barabanov, editor-in-chief of the Moscow Defense Brief, which is published by the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Moscow. “The RVV-BD missile is also planned for use on the T-50 fighters.


R-37M doesnt have much with R-37 which used in 1994 test. R-37M is lighter so less range but more agile: dual pulse engine, stronger airframe and less speed (higher G limits) old R-37 was 6M missile, R-37M is probable 4.5M

And R-37M could be integrated with PAK-FA and probable will be but Izd. 810 is heavy missile for PAK-FA.

I dont understand why you think MiG-31M/MiG-31BM cant track targets for 300km? If your basis is based of April 1994 test fire, I will repeat it was drone target wiht much smaller RCS then E-3 and it fly low (60m-300m, if I remeber right).

And no, it wasnt booster rocket which used in that test. It was R-37. Booster variant came later as competitor for KS-172, I dont think it was ever tested.
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post08 Sep 2016, 22:42

arian wrote:
milosh wrote:RVV-BD is deployed but probable in very small numbers because it cost lot more then R-33S


Deployed? Hard to believe. Also manufacturer claims a range of 200km for RVV-BD. The super-long range shot involved a two-stage system with a booster rocket, and obviously it was impractical since the plane itself couldn't target anything at that range. So it's basically just an improved R-33, and still Phoenix class missile.


Why do you need to see that far if the Missile is following a long range radar signal?
If the weapon is Anti-radiation that solves 1/2 of targeting to begin with.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post09 Sep 2016, 01:10

Manufacturer advertises RVV-BD as a 200km missile. That's all.

milosh wrote:I dont understand why you think MiG-31M/MiG-31BM cant track targets for 300km? If your basis is based of April 1994 test fire, I will repeat it was drone target wiht much smaller RCS then E-3 and it fly low (60m-300m, if I remeber right).


How do you know the drone had smaller RCS? In 1973, an F-14 shot down an Firebee drone at ~204km range. Does that mean the F-14 would have been able to engage a large bomber-sized target at 400km range? (if its missile allowed?) No.

Second, because no one, other than some outdated Jane's reference, claims the latest Zaslon versions can engage anything at that range. Original Zaslon had a "detection range with 50% probability" against 20m^2 target, at 200km. That's detection range. Tracking range at 120km. According to manufacturer.

And engagement range?

People confuse Zaslon-M and MiG-31M, for MiG-31BM and Zaslon-AM. MiG-31M had a larger radome to incorporate a 30% larger radar diameter for Zaslon-M. Zaslon-M is not what is in MiG-31BM. Zaslon-AM is. Zaslon-M and MiG-31M never went into production. Zaslon-AM for MiG-31BM has the same front end as the original Zaslon (-A), but a more modern processor. So it can't achieve the same ranges as the Zaslon-M. And as far as Zaslon-M is concerned, the manufacturer claimed a "50-100% improvement" over Zaslon-A. That still leaves quite a bit more work to achieve an...engagement...at 300km range, even if we assume a 100% improvement over Zaslon. Which, would be quite a stretch.

Detection range /= engagement range . The often quoted mythical "400km range" is probably just "maximum search range". It doesn't mean it can see anything at that range, and certainly can't engage anything at that range.

Of course this whole conversation is moot, since they did in fact need to use 2 MiG-31M (M, with the 30% greater diameter radar which never went into service) to get that range in practice.

And lastly, all these tests are against closing head-on targets. I.e., in real life, this is never going to happen against the sort of targets we're talking about.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post09 Sep 2016, 01:21

jessmo111 wrote:Why do you need to see that far if the Missile is following a long range radar signal?


Where is this radar signal coming from?

If the weapon is Anti-radiation that solves 1/2 of targeting to begin with.


I don't think anyone has put any serious efforts into developing an ARM for anti-aircraft uses. It would be an impractical weapon. All you would need to do is aim the antenna in a different direction, and the missile would fly off into space. It's not like when its attacking a ground radar, where the location of the radar is still fixed and it can keep going even if the radar shuts off.

Another problem with these mythical anti-AWACs super-long range weapons is that, well, you're assuming that you can detect the AWACs, or the ELINT plane, or its CAP escorts, before they have already detected you, and killed you. Well, no matter how powerful and big a radar you can put on a fighter, it's not going to be as big or powerful as the one on an AWACs. They may be a 20m^2 large giant, and you may be a 0.5m^2 PAK-FA, but, chances are you're still never going to see the AWACs. Especially if you're trying to detect them with your radar (anyone care to guess what sort of ELINT sensors may be on a E-3G or E-2D?)
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Sep 2016, 03:37

arian wrote:I don't think anyone has put any serious efforts into developing an ARM for anti-aircraft uses.


Isn't that how home on jam works?
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post09 Sep 2016, 06:49

arian wrote:
jessmo111 wrote:Why do you need to see that far if the Missile is following a long range radar signal?


Where is this radar signal coming from?

If the weapon is Anti-radiation that solves 1/2 of targeting to begin with.


I don't think anyone has put any serious efforts into developing an ARM for anti-aircraft uses. It would be an impractical weapon. All you would need to do is aim the antenna in a different direction, and the missile would fly off into space. It's not like when its attacking a ground radar, where the location of the radar is still fixed and it can keep going even if the radar shuts off.

Another problem with these mythical anti-AWACs super-long range weapons is that, well, you're assuming that you can detect the AWACs, or the ELINT plane, or its CAP escorts, before they have already detected you, and killed you. Well, no matter how powerful and big a radar you can put on a fighter, it's not going to be as big or powerful as the one on an AWACs. They may be a 20m^2 large giant, and you may be a 0.5m^2 PAK-FA, but, chances are you're still never going to see the AWACs. Especially if you're trying to detect them with your radar (anyone care to guess what sort of ELINT sensors may be on a E-3G or E-2D?)


There has been work in this area.

More recently, air-to-air ARM designs have begun to appear, notably the Russian Vympel R-27EP. Such missiles have several advantages over other missile guidance techniques; they do not trigger radar warning receivers (conferring a measure of surprise), and they can have a longer range (since the battery life of the seeker head is the limiting factor to the range of most active radar homing systems).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radi ... prov=sfla1
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests