Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

shingen wrote:

AIM-120D is just maximizing what the 120 already does.

You are essential correct. The three largest components in the 120D are virtually unchanged. These would be the body/controls, warhead, and motor.

What has changed is the inclusion of a 2-way datalink, GPS based INS, improvements to the ECCM functions, and improvements in the flight profiles (enabled by the GPS and 2-way datalink) that improve the range substantially.

F-16.net Sponsor

Let's make sure we all understand how the motors work. My understanding is that a dual pulse motor involves a boost pulse and sustain pulse. I think all the AMRAAM C's and later have this. My understanding is that the R-77 and MICA are single pulse, a boost and then they glide.

No, dual-pulse is where the motor actually shuts off at some point and then re-ignites later in the flight.

Dual-grain / dual phase / dual-propellant is what you are thinking of.

Minor correction. According to this ATK doc, the PEP motor (120C5-120D) is a "boost only" grain configuration.

SpudmanWP wrote:

No, dual-pulse is where the motor actually shuts off at some point and then re-ignites later in the flight.

Dual-grain / dual phase / dual-propellant is what you are thinking of.

Minor correction. According to this ATK doc, the PEP motor (120C5-120D) is a "boost only" grain configuration.

That's a neat trick.. how does one shutoff then re-ignite a solid fuel rocket?

Scorpion82

Quote:

Good luck with your bet that a missile with a few seconds boost stage will achieve a similar range performance as a missile with up to 120 seconds boost, sustainment and terminal engagement burning ramjet motor.

R-77 successor(s) are supposed to have new motors.

Quote:

And for that matter up to date these so called "new" missiles are to a large extend upgraded variants of earlier designs, once again the Russians try to fool the public and the dumb crowd happily swallows it.

Unlikely they would equip PAK-FA with AAMs of early design.

New missiles for PAK-FA (based on Vympel report):

Izd. 750(760) - R-73 successor. New seeker, inertial control system, datalink receiver for target updates, new rocket motor with a longer burn time, internal carriage in a weapons bay, improved turning capability. Production planned to start in 2010.

Izd. 300 (K-MD) - the most modern short-range missile, which is not based on R-73. Production planned to start in 2012.

Izd. 180 and Izd. 180-PD - both are R-77 successors. 180-PD - ramjet version. New seeker, range could be increased by 2 - 3.5 times. Production planned to 2010.

Izd. 810 - new R-37 for internal weapons bays (2013).

Quote:

R-37 in service? Any substantial proof to back that up? Or is a test firing enough for you to claim a weapon is in service?

Why not? R-37 was in limited production. Small amount of modernized MiG-31 (M/BM) could be equiped with these missiles.

Quote:

Look at how the R-37 and the other long range stuff works. There's a reason that there are no analogs in the west.

It works quite well against cruise missiles and their aerial carriers, AWACS aircraft, aerial tankers, UAVs.

primorsky wrote:

R-77 successor(s) are supposed to have new motors.

I agree that there are new motors and electronics, but it's asinine to say it's an all new missile, when it uses the same body/controls as the earlier R-77 variants. That's akin to saying that the AIM-120D isn't an AMRAAM. For what it's worth, these new R-77s are supposed to have ranges in the 150-175km class.

Quote:

Izd. 750(760) - R-73 successor. New seeker, inertial control system, datalink receiver for target updates, new rocket motor with a longer burn time, internal carriage in a weapons bay, improved turning capability. Production planned to start in 2010.

Upgraded R-73(i.e. R-74)

Quote:

Izd. 300 (K-MD) - the most modern short-range missile, which is not based on R-73. Production planned to start in 2012.

Ok, this does appear to be a new missile.

Quote:

Izd. 180 and Izd. 180-PD - both are R-77 successors. 180-PD - ramjet version. New seeker, range could be increased by 2 - 3.5 times. Production planned to 2010.

New versions of R-77s. By the way, it's the seeker's range that has increased 2-3.5 times, not the missile's. The ramjet powered variant if and when it's deployed is in the 175km class range.

Quote:

Izd. 810 - new R-37 for internal weapons bays (2013).

Correction- new R-37 period. There aren't any R-37s that are currently fielded on any aircraft, in any configuration.

Quote:

It works quite well against cruise missiles and their aerial carriers, AWACS aircraft, aerial tankers, UAVs.

It'll only work under very ideal circumstances, against a non-manuevering target, that's not defended by other assets. Tankers and AWACS will be heavily defended, and there's no way a UAV will be targeted at 300km.

primorsky wrote:

But its thrust is very close to 35000 lbs. 15700kg is little bit less than 35k lbs (my bad in previous posts).

But you don’t have 15700kg of thrust. Max thrust is 15000kg. However the main problem is insufficient thrust @ mil power.

primorsky wrote:

Taking it into consideration, PAK-FA would be fighter jet with rather good thrust-to-weight ratio to achieve excellent performance with the current 117 engine.

If 1.3 Mach supercruising speed is enough…

primorsky wrote:

R-37 is 22-years old Soviet missile, Actually, it's in service for two decades in RuAF (MiG-31).

No it’s not. And just because its development started 20 or so years ago doesn’t mean it’s an old missile. It’s development program was dropped for some years.

primorsky wrote:

Current R-77's descendant (RVV-SD) is missile with a claimed range, that is well comparable to Meteor and AIM-120-C7 and (by their specs).

I don’t think so. RVV-SD has its range increased by ~35% compared to RVV-AE. This means that it’s in AIM-120A class.

primorsky wrote:

R-37 was developed in late 1980's. It's not new missile actually.
It was tested on modernized MiG-31 with successful aerial target engagement at ~300 kilometers in 1994.

Right, it was in development in late 80s, early 90s and then the development process was halted.

primorsky wrote:

Practical range of AAM is very relative term (It depends so much on condition-related factors).
Since when AIM-120D was tested in its full 180km range(as it claimed)?

You’ll never know. It’s highly classified.

popcorn wrote:

That's a neat trick.. how does one shutoff then re-ignite a solid fuel rocket?

There was some serious work in the field on reducing the burn rate on solid fuel rockets. Perhaps its a slow down in the burn rate rather than a complete shut down and re-ignition.

madrat wrote:

popcorn wrote:

That's a neat trick.. how does one shutoff then re-ignite a solid fuel rocket?

There was some serious work in the field on reducing the burn rate on solid fuel rockets. Perhaps its a slow down in the burn rate rather than a complete shut down and re-ignition.

Or could you have two co-axial pipes conbtaining solid fuel. The first iignites and burns out to provide the initial boost. After coasting for an appropriate time, the second pipe ignites to iniate the end-game maneuvering.

exec wrote:

I don’t think so. RVV-SD has its range increased by ~35% compared to RVV-AE. This means that it’s in AIM-120A class.

At least on paper the R-77 exceeds the earlier AMRAAM versions with regards to max range (90 km vs 75 km). The RVV-SD is claimed to offer a range of 110 km vs 105 km in the C5. Note that these are max values, not combat values and those are from public sources.

Scorpion82 wrote:

exec wrote:

I don’t think so. RVV-SD has its range increased by ~35% compared to RVV-AE. This means that it’s in AIM-120A class.

At least on paper the R-77 exceeds the earlier AMRAAM versions with regards to max range (90 km vs 75 km). The RVV-SD is claimed to offer a range of 110 km vs 105 km in the C5. Note that these are max values, not combat values and those are from public sources.

The C5 is normally attributed with >105km range.

Well, if we want to use wikipedia as our source then of course even the RVV-AE might have a better range than the AIM-120A Wink

@Primorsky
"It works quite well against cruise missiles and their aerial carriers, AWACS aircraft, aerial tankers, UAVs."

No, it does not for the reasons I outlined above. A long range misile has a limited amount of energy. The strakes on the R-37 are draggy and every time it turns to match a course change by the target it loses more energy because of drag. If the missile is locked down so it can go farther than it has larger area to search when it turns its radar on. There is little advantage in such a missile against missiles and the anti HVA mission is not viable against defended targets. I hope they do use them against UAVs', personally I keep a sledgehammer handy in case a fly's buzzing gets out of hand.

SpudmanWP wrote:

No, dual-pulse is where the motor actually shuts off at some point and then re-ignites later in the flight.

Dual-grain / dual phase / dual-propellant is what you are thinking of.

Minor correction. According to this ATK doc, the PEP motor (120C5-120D) is a "boost only" grain configuration.

So the AMRAAM motor doesn't have a sustain phase? That can't be right.

It is. The above doc, from the mfg, makes that very clear.

Quote:

This motor represents an all-boost design that delivers a significant increase in performance as compared to the baseline production motor.

Quote:

Features
• All boost propellant grain design

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

superior agilty over the f-22