the best air to air missile

[Moscow]

Type Short to Medium-Range Air to Air Tactical Missile
Place of origin France
Service history
In service 1996 (MICA-EM) and 2000 (MICA-IR)
Used by See Users
Production history
Manufacturer MBDA
Specifications
Weight 112 kg
Length 3.1 m
Diameter 160 mm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warhead 12 kg focused splinters HE warhead
Detonation
mechanism RF proximity fuze, impact fuze

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Engine One SNPE solid-propellant rocket motor

Wingspan 560 mm
Operational
range from < 500 m to > 60 km [1]
Flight altitude up to 11,000 m
Speed Mach 4
Guidance
system MICA-EM: Inertial guidance
Active radar homing
MICA-IR: Imaging Infrared homing
Launch
platform Dassault Rafale, Mirage 2000, F-16E Block 60


the french MICA

 

[Moscow]

in the above posts i have posted all the technical details of the major bvr missiles now i can hope we can discuss better about this thread.

my personal argument about the two best ones are:-


The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120 AMRAAM is in range and maneuverability. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant. Like most AAM weapons, the claimed range is for a non-maneuvering target, at a high altitude, and probably on a head on aspect with a respectable closing rate. Lower altitudes, rear aspect, or maneuvering targets will all reduce this range, but the same applies to the AMRAAM.

The planned upgrade of the AIM-120, the AIM-120D, is to have a much greater (+50&#37 range and thus no-escape zone which will exceed that of the standard R-77 by a large margin. It is unknown how the AIM-120D will compare to the R-77M design in terms of range.



The missile's maneuverability relies on the lattice work fins at the rear. The R-77's overall aerodynamic configuration is more efficient than the conventional deltas used on for example the AIM-120. This reduces the loss of energy when the R-77 is chasing a maneuvering target. The weapon is reported to be able to handle a target maneuvering at up to 12g, a substantially higher rate than any manned fighter.

 

[Moscow]

In 2010, Vympel expects to complete its development of the short-range Izdeliye 760 missile — which is a significantly modernized version of the R-73 weapon, outfitted with an inertial flight control system and course correction receiver, improved rocket engine and with new multi-mode infrared seeker. The Izdeliye 760 is expected to be a close counterpart to the Western-built ASRAAM and Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles.
Three years later, the new-generation K-MD short range missile (also to be designated the Izdeliye 300) is to be operational. When compared to Izdeliye 760, the new missile will have longer range and will be capable of being launched from any direction; it will be also more resistant to jamming. The K-MD will be fitted with a new imaging infrared seeker enabling identification of target according to memorized images. The seeker's lock-on range will be two times greater than the seeker for the Izdeliye 760 missile. A new adaptive warhead will be introduced, and the missile's control will be performed with aerodynamic surfaces, as well as a thrust-vector engine nozzle.

 

[Keysersoze]

in the above posts i have posted all the technical details of the major bvr missiles now i can hope we can discuss better about this thread.

my personal argument about the two best ones are:-


The R-77's main advantage over the AIM-120 AMRAAM is in range and maneuverability. The longer range is because the R-77 is a larger 200 mm vs 178 mm (8 vs 7 in), heavier 175 vs 150 kg (386 vs 335 lb) missile than the AMRAAM and contains more propellant. Like most AAM weapons, the claimed range is for a non-maneuvering target, at a high altitude, and probably on a head on aspect with a respectable closing rate. Lower altitudes, rear aspect, or maneuvering targets will all reduce this range, but the same applies to the AMRAAM.

The planned upgrade of the AIM-120, the AIM-120D, is to have a much greater (+50%) range and thus no-escape zone which will exceed that of the standard R-77 by a large margin. It is unknown how the AIM-120D will compare to the R-77M design in terms of range.



The missile's maneuverability relies on the lattice work fins at the rear. The R-77's overall aerodynamic configuration is more efficient than the conventional deltas used on for example the AIM-120. This reduces the loss of energy when the R-77 is chasing a maneuvering target. The weapon is reported to be able to handle a target maneuvering at up to 12g, a substantially higher rate than any manned fighter.

Right this has been gone through on a number of threads before but since it has been brought up here i will try and go through it again.

Missiles are often cited with their maximum engagement range, which is very misleading. A missile's effective range is dependent on factors such as altitude, speed, position, and direction of target aircraft.

I can't remember where I got the above but it rings true.

The R-77m1 in NOT yet in use by ANYONE as it is still in development and i find it amusing some pro India commentators think they have it when even the Russians don't have it yet.

The ranges quoted for the AIM 120 and the R-77 have one important difference. The Russian missiles tend to give the full kinematic range (AT high altitude, head on engagement etc etc) the AIM's range is for a lobbed launch (without any extra advantages) this will give it a better NEZ

The sensor suite and ECCM on the AIM will be considerably better and since the first few seconds on a missile launch is the crucial part i will take that the AIM will be better.

Oh and there was a tendency for Russians to exaggerate the capabilities of their equipment.

 

[circuitbaba]

nice article....
we should only worry the type of adder abroad the IAF MKI
Will our Thunders be able to fire AMRAAM C5

 

[Indicom]

Don't forget the Adder is also carried by the Fulcrums&the Bisons too.

 

[Moscow]

Right this has been gone through on a number of threads before but since it has been brought up here i will try and go through it again.

Missiles are often cited with their maximum engagement range, which is very misleading. A missile's effective range is dependent on factors such as altitude, speed, position, and direction of target aircraft.

I can't remember where I got the above but it rings true.

The R-77m1 in NOT yet in use by ANYONE as it is still in development and i find it amusing some pro India commentators think they have it when even the Russians don't have it yet.

The ranges quoted for the AIM 120 and the R-77 have one important difference. The Russian missiles tend to give the full kinematic range (AT high altitude, head on engagement etc etc) the AIM's range is for a lobbed launch (without any extra advantages) this will give it a better NEZ

The sensor suite and ECCM on the AIM will be considerably better and since the first few seconds on a missile launch is the crucial part i will take that the AIM will be better.

Oh and there was a tendency for Russians to exaggerate the capabilities of their equipment.

sir with due respect to your point of view there is also a very big difference between the US and russia i n the way these missiles operate a part of the explanation is given below.

The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles. If the missiles are wholly identical by type,factor degrading the kill probability of one missile is apt to have a similar effect on its siblings in a salvo. However, where the missiles differ by seeker type and guidance control laws, then the assumption of statistically independent missile shots is very much stronger.
BVR missile launch was to salvo two rounds, a semi-active radar homing weapon and a heatseeking weapon.Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent.this technology is applicable to russian BVR missiles
the western made is AIM-120 AMRAAMThe AIM-120C-4 has better kinematic performance introducing a larger rocket motor and shorter control section, and a better warhead, while the AIM-120C-6 introduced a better fuse. The latest AIM-120D introduces a redesigned seeker built for better durability in high vibration carriage environments, a two way datalink, GPS to supplement inertial guidance, incrementally improved kinematics, and better seeker performance against high off-boresight targets.Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the enemy d which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the russian BVR does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics.



classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the downfall.This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defence it has against the anti-radiation missile

sir i will try to post the link with the full details.

thanx

 

[Moscow]

The Russian Philosophy of BVR Air Combat

 

[rkapo7]

[Keysersoze;268121]
Oh and there was a tendency for Russians to exaggerate the capabilities of their equipment.[/QUOTE]

Moscow has you cornered and out-manouvered - the potential of the R-77M and derivatived with there multiple homing and seeker heads definitely makes it probably the most effective A2A around. The long awaited 'Meteor" might come close or be better in some areas but without the different seekers etc. I certainly would not wantto be a Pilot with 3 R-77's coming at me all with different homing devices. [What do you do?]. The Russian aircraft that will carry them are all big enough to carry enough to have all the various types on board.
Your comment at the end is uncalled for. Present day Russia tends to " Bullshit " less than there USA and Western counterparts.
After all marketing "Bullshit" is basically an invention of the West. The propaganda and disinformation spread by the West was as good if not equal to that coming from the USSR now we can look back and analyse it in hindsight.
Defence Companies are very good at it in the West - just try to get a straight answer from "LM" regarding the cost of say an F35 and what its real capabilities will be. I have even seen statements recently more or less saying it will be a good WVR fighter. Thats not waht they were saying 10 years ago.

As an Aussie I now would put more weight on statements made by Russian Industry and spokesmen than most of there equivalents in the West.
Part of the Russia Culture - tell it as it is.