AA-12 versus AIM-120 AMRAAM

Is the Russian AA-12 better than the AMRAAM in terms of speed and range or others?

And did the Royal Malaysia Air Force already have the AA-12 on their MiG-29s?

Its builder claims that the AA-12 has a better range than the AMRAAM and a better radar seeker range. However, any data about AA-12 must be cautiously looked at, since the Russian and US builders only give absolute maximum range (about 50nm, compared to about 30nm for AMRAAM), which means little in combat. Moreover, most of what we would like to know about thse weapons is highly classified, for very obvious reasons. Last, as far as I know, the Adder (NATO codename) has never been used in anger.

India and China have also orderd AA-12s, mostky for their Sukhoi fighters, but the state of their weapon stock is not known to me.

Also, me thinks the C-7 and D models will further improve AMRAAM range and kinematics as well as terminal guidance.

Yes, Malaysia has the AA-12, and also Peru has it.

Range and kinematics are only part of what makes a missile good...or bad. The software is critical.

The primary difference that we, the public, do know about (i.e. it's not generally classified) is the effectiveness of grid fin missiles vs. standard planar fins. Grid fins have higher drag at low angle of attack, but much greater control power and angle of attack capability. That's basically how it breaks down. So an AA-12 would be very dangerous within its range, which I'm pretty sure will be less than an AIM-120C and probably even B. Grid fins are being used in the west now and we may even see them on A-A missiles one day. The problem right now is that you sacrifice long range kinematics for endgame maneuverability. So if we ever get to the point where we have fighters carrying around *true* long range, medium range, and short range missiles, you might see the medium range missile carrying grid fins. Medium range would mean outside the effective range of the short range missile. Where that medium range ended would then be covered by something like an AIM-120D or BVRAAM out to its maximum effective range.

Sorry to come off as preachy, but I did a senior aerospace laboratory project on grid fin vs. planar fin missiles. Fabrication, wind tunnel tests, and all that.

Where in the west are they using grid fins?

MOAB for one, not sure what else.

skrip00 wrote:Where in the west are they using grid fins?

MOAB was definitely one. I'm not sure of all the applications, but a lot of them are probably still just test projects. I believe the Army is using them on steerable projectile projects. You could find out what projects are using grid fins by looking through technical report servers like the following:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/

You can download all the reports marked as "full text".

Will the AIM-120 ever see TVC for variable range use? I heard the D-model will use a new liquid-gel propellant. How hard would in be to integrate a system like that found on the AIM-9X onto an AIM-120D?

TVC adds weight = less range. That's not good for a BVR missile.

skrip00 wrote:Will the AIM-120 ever see TVC for variable range use? I heard the D-model will use a new liquid-gel propellant. How hard would in be to integrate a system like that found on the AIM-9X onto an AIM-120D?

I have no clue myself. But why would you want to waste time and money making a medium/long range missile as maneuverable as a missile designed to kill targets close in at very high aspect angles and whatnot? A medium or long range missile shouldn't ever have to perform like a short range AIM-9X or similar. It simply needs to be able to pull enough G during its end game solution to avoid overshooting a maneuvering fighter. The missile will have no problem getting its nose on target when fired from a decent distance away. That's not the problem you face with medium range missiles when they're actually fired at medium ranges. Putting thrust vectoring control vanes on a medium range missile would be useless under nearly all circumstances. The missile will have run out of propellant long before it comes time to do some high G/AoA maneuvers at end game.

Because, I assume, the USAF wants a one-all-do-all missile. Short-range, BVR, etc.

I was just curious.

skrip00 wrote:Because, I assume, the USAF wants a one-all-do-all missile. Short-range, BVR, etc.

I was just curious.

Missiles aren't that different from actual aircraft themselves. An all-in-one missile would be 100% akin to a bomber the size of a B-1B that was designed to pull 9G turns, fly at outrageous angles of attack, and so on. Simply impossible. A long range missile has lots of propellant and hardware which make it big and not very maneuverable right off the rail. Short range missiles can be made relatively small and light enabling better maneuverability. A medium range missile would be something akin to an F-15E or F-111. Not your first pick for use in a knife fight with a much smaller, tighter turning adversary.

One option would be a multi-stage missile where a big truck of a booster carries the missile most of the way, then a second small stage ditches the booster and lights an end-game booster. And for close range shots the booster could be ditched immediately after launch.

Not taking credit for that idea, I think I saw it as a proposal to replace the AIM-54.