RWR Missile Launch Logic Tree

I haven't been involved in this conversation but, FWIW, I agree that there isn't a CW illuminator involved. I come up with a slightly different translation of Alpha's passage but the gist is the same:

The basic differences between the RHS (radar homing head) 9B-1101К and the previously produced Radar Homing Head arose from the lack of a specialized illumination transmitter in the aircraft's radar suite (illumination is accomplished as part of the aircraft radar suite's pulse train) and existed as part of the Radar Homing Head's inertial system and radio correction channel which drastically enhanced the missile's launch range. Depending on the situation, after launch, the missile itself by means of the Radar Homing Head approaches the target in either the normal manner or along a specialized trajectory determined by algorithms implemented within the Radar Seeker Head.

 

Work on the (RSH) 9B-110K was memorable due to the extensive testing it received. The two suites in which missiles with these Radar Homing Heads were utilized (one for the MiG-29 and one for the Su-27) used different software and functioned very differently. At times, the accuracy of the BRLSs' (airborne radars') operational algorithms had to be checked with missile launches. Finalizing these suites resulted in dozens of launches.

 

Nor have I run into anything in the real-world manual (so far) to suggest that there is.

Mig-25 and earlier jets had a entirely separate antenna and transmitter from the main tracking radar for SARH illumination. From an engineering perspective, this is something worth bragging about as its certainly highlights the complexity of the system.

That would explain why in one book about cold war era soviet fighters, it was explained how later upgraded variants of Mig-23 and then later Mig-25 with R-24 and later R-40 were capable to perform a "silent launch" as missiles started to support LOAL and the R-24 got max 10 second inertial/datalink guidance when it didn't require target illumination until in terminal phase, when the pilot turned radar On (as it was possible to turn radar even off or turn away for that moment) or locked the target for illumination for last second intercept.

A lots of all kind limitations seems to have been there in first variants, like incapability to carry SARH + IR pairs as both seekers required specific black box for FCS, so it was always carried in identical pairs, until they got them both to be in one and it was then possible ripple fire in BVR first the IR and then SARH second later, wait the missiles to get close to the target while the radar checked the range every 3.5 seconds and guided missiles over datalink and then pilot locked radar again to target for SARH illumination.

It is difficult to track all the variants and models when what were taken in operational use, as a lot of upgrades were mentioned to be done in the field, so it is more like "take the box out, put new box in" without much more documenting. And then there is lots of secrecy where pilots didn't know what they really had, or they were just told not to do something while the system was totally capable to do something very neat and special, and then official pilot books didn't have a word about things in fear of spies and them ending to enemies hands, so only very special pilots and engineers got to know the exact capabilities of the systems.

But this wasn't just for the soviet era, as the same thing happened on the US side, where even instructor pilots didn't get to know all the functions or didn't ever train for the war time procedures.

And now we are in a small kind "black box" era as well as while the "iron curtain" has been gone for decades, we are starting to lose the insights of the systems and capabilities by people simply passing away, who had the information that wasn't written anywhere or ain't the books that can be now found after first cold war has been long gone.

I agree with you re:guidance, especially since the seeker was not using a slotted array antenna. There may be other issues as well, but I think the kinematic performance is very clear in that quite since they mention the E versions.

In the end, the datalink isn't terribly uses unless you can chuck the spear from beyond seeker range.

Also, despite the ranges I posted, the DSR cue on the eagle radar tends to show up at a little over half those stated ranges.

I have read somewhere that it was accepted that seeker performance was not competitive and that the push to introduce INS/radio correction on the R-27R was really seen as a way to compensate for that rather than to trying to "out-perform" the US equivalent.

Few years ago I was reading a declassified air force analytics about russian SARH missiles capabilities and tactics used, one point that was mentioned was that when the illuminator was on other platform than the missile itself, the missile receives a stronger echo against "stealth" aircrafts like F-22 that is designed to reflect the signals everywhere else than toward the origin. And that makes it dangerous as alone individual shooter can start maneuver to another angle from the launched missile to maximize its reception, or when a launching platform is off-angle from the guiding platform at closer range.

The dangerous element in the SARH is that someone needs to illuminate target in the terminal range, but can stay "hidden" until last seconds, but still required to operate in the area even for non-maneuvering target. And it is heavy workload for pilots to communicate the tactic through who is shooter and who is guiding and timing all of that, why it helps a lot when wing lead or GCI can just assign everyone their targets and methods and take the complex tactics for them who has great situational awareness and no increased stress levels to fly aircrafts simultaneously while in combat.

That would explain why in one book about cold war era soviet fighters, it was explained how later upgraded variants of Mig-23 and then later Mig-25 with R-24 and later R-40 were capable to perform a "silent launch" as missiles started to support LOAL and the R-24 got max 10 second inertial/datalink guidance when it didn't require target illumination until in terminal phase, when the pilot turned radar On (as it was possible to turn radar even off or turn away for that moment) or locked the target for illumination for last second intercept.

This is a very incorrect idea. All of those systems required illumination from the very start. Don't start conflating modern radar features with old stuff. The ONLY way to perform a silent launch with any sort of useful PK was to use the T versions.

The stuff you wrote up is literally nothing but your imagination. There's a whole bunch of steps required to launch a SARH missile, and that includes tuning the missile to THE GUIDANCE WAVEFORM when the trigger is pulled, before the missile actually separated. Same with data required to produce english bias commands (initial steering) etc. You don't get that without STT. So you have to illuminate. Let me put it another way: You don't get a choice. Want SARH in the air? Illuminate.

The only known SARH missiles that are launched under command or other type of dlink guidance with a terminal follow-up come from SAMs, never from aircraft. But those systems were much larger in size and they could be more complex - they were literally designed to do such things in order to handle raids.

And then there is lots of secrecy where pilots didn't know what they really had, or they were just told not to do something while the system was totally capable to do something very neat and special, and then official pilot books didn't have a word about things in fear of spies and them ending to enemies hands, so only very special pilots and engineers got to know the exact capabilities of the systems.

That's just a lot of BS.

And now we are in a small kind "black box" era as well as while the "iron curtain" has been gone for decades, we are starting to lose the insights of the systems and capabilities by people simply passing away, who had the information that wasn't written anywhere or ain't the books that can be now found after first cold war has been long gone.

We're gaining lots of insight, you just like to make up stuff. Those systems were simply never designed to do the things you're claiming. Flat out not capable, nor did it make sense for a whole bunch of reasons.

Few years ago I was reading a declassified air force analytics about russian SARH missiles capabilities and tactics used, one point that was mentioned was that when the illuminator was on other platform than the missile itself, the missile receives a stronger echo against "stealth" aircrafts like F-22 that is designed to reflect the signals everywhere else than toward the origin. And that makes it dangerous as alone individual shooter can start maneuver to another angle from the launched missile to maximize its reception, or when a launching platform is off-angle from the guiding platform at closer range.

... I wonder why stealth was designed against all of those SARH SAMs then ... there are specific directions in which the radar energy is reflected. Your airborne opponent taking advantage of them is highly unlikely since he doesn't control your aspect, nor his own missile's location. And BTW, how's he illuminating a stealth aircraft to begin with?

The dangerous element in the SARH is that someone needs to illuminate target in the terminal range, but can stay "hidden" until last seconds, but still required to operate in the area even for non-maneuvering target. And it is heavy workload for pilots to communicate the tactic through who is shooter and who is guiding and timing all of that, why it helps a lot when wing lead or GCI can just assign everyone their targets and methods and take the complex tactics for them who has great situational awareness and no increased stress levels to fly aircrafts simultaneously while in combat.

I know they are antiflutter weights... and I did not say every mig25 was like that... it depends on what is installed and for whom (spo3, spo15, etc.). What is sure is that these have no illumination function :)

Your photo shows recce variant cockpit and even those within all 70's didn't had RWR ( because SPS had warning capability, later starting from 1978 late RBK's and RBF, RBT, BM got SPO-15 and some earlier aircraft were modernized ). But from fighters only about 40 late export machines received SPO-15. Soviet fighters variants flew all service life without RWR. In 1971 SPO-10 was deleted from aircraft equipment list and dismantled from earlier produced aircrafts. Why?. No idea, probably because MiG-25 was defence interceptor and wasn't intended for fight with others fighters.

That sure: anti-flutter function and IFF antennas only.

I haven't been involved in this conversation but, FWIW, I agree that there isn't a CW illuminator involved. I come up with a slightly different translation of Alpha's passage but the gist is the same:

Thanks for the improved translation :) . I don't speak Russian and rely on Google to come up with something comprehensible and we all know how that can turn out - especially when it involves technical terms.

I agree with you re:guidance, especially since the seeker was not using a slotted array antenna. There may be other issues as well, but I think the kinematic performance is very clear in that quite since they mention the E versions.

Yes but the quote started by saying that the R-27R(and T) didn't perform to specifications and fell short of the claimed superiority over the AIM-7F - then said that the R-27E version was much improved and did exceed the Sparrow by a large margin. What I meant by the quote being unclear was whether this was due to improved kinematic performance alone or also involved improvements to guidance.....and as I mentioned, I have read something to suggest that it did.

In the end, the datalink isn't terribly uses unless you can chuck the spear from beyond seeker range.

No but that was what the account I read suggested - i.e. a way of trying to match launch ranges despite having missile seeker heads with shorter acquisition range.

Also, despite the ranges I posted, the DSR cue on the eagle radar tends to show up at a little over half those stated ranges.

Ok - so they could be a little "pumped-up" as well?

Few years ago I was reading a declassified air force analytics about russian SARH missiles capabilities and tactics used, one point that was mentioned was that when the illuminator was on other platform than the missile itself, the missile receives a stronger echo against "stealth" aircrafts like F-22 that is designed to reflect the signals everywhere else than toward the origin. And that makes it dangerous as alone individual shooter can start maneuver to another angle from the launched missile to maximize its reception, or when a launching platform is off-angle from the guiding platform at closer range.

 

The dangerous element in the SARH is that someone needs to illuminate target in the terminal range, but can stay "hidden" until last seconds, but still required to operate in the area even for non-maneuvering target. And it is heavy workload for pilots to communicate the tactic through who is shooter and who is guiding and timing all of that, why it helps a lot when wing lead or GCI can just assign everyone their targets and methods and take the complex tactics for them who has great situational awareness and no increased stress levels to fly aircrafts simultaneously while in combat.

I honestly don't believe in the feasibility(or practicality) of "buddy illumination" for SARH missiles as some kind of super capability. No offense, but I think you have a very simplified idea of how SARH works, what it involves and what restrictions it imposes on the carrier - there is a reason why everyone(including the Russians) have moved away from it :) .

I also remember reading that the development of the R-27ER(which btw seems to have been operational around 1987 vs. 1984 for the -R) also involved modifications to the guidance system e.g. ability to launch from higher altitudes(which makes sense) - i.e. wasn't just a matter of sticking a larger motor section on the R-27R as the "modular concept" could give the impression of.

Canb you elaborate more or have a source for this? Interesting info..

Yes but the quote started by saying that the R-27R(and T) didn't perform to specifications and fell short of the claimed superiority over the AIM-7F - then said that the R-27E version was much improved and did exceed the Sparrow by a large margin. What I meant by the quote being unclear was whether this was due to improved kinematic performance alone or also involved improvements to guidance.....and as I mentioned, I have read something to suggest that it did.

The 27R and 27ER have the same guidance - the front section is or is supposed to be the same, with a replaceable rocket motor.

No but that was what the account I read suggested - i.e. a way of trying to match launch ranges despite having missile seeker heads with shorter acquisition range.

Yep, it would leave the sparrow stuck with no datalink, and slower.

Ok - so they could be a little "pumped-up" as well?

I don't think so ... I just re-checked my sources. No DSR cue is visible in the real examples I have (either sanitized or our of scope range) and the -34's don't necessarily show true range.

... I wonder why stealth was designed against all of those SARH SAMs then ... there are specific directions in which the radar energy is reflected. Your airborne opponent taking advantage of them is highly unlikely since he doesn't control your aspect, nor his own missile's location. And BTW, how's he illuminating a stealth aircraft to begin with?

Oh it was against SAM....

No amount of GCI will help you with this. This tactic is used by suppressed SAMs and it is LOW Pk. It is literally a last-ditch effort to do something. It's not something you do in a single-person cockpit. There exist manual guidance modes (I don't know what they do, they're listed in classified supplements :P ) for a bunch of aircraft, but again, those are backups for use in a heavy ECM environment.

And in war time all operate inside heavy EW....

Sorry, it was a DCS world where you have just 1 or 0 for radar... *snap*.

I honestly don't believe in the feasibility(or practicality) of "buddy illumination" for SARH missiles as some kind of super capability. No offense, but I think you have a very simplified idea of how SARH works, what it involves and what restrictions it imposes on the carrier - there is a reason why everyone(including the Russians) have moved away from it :) .

You can say that for the ex-pilots training for that... Military documents about its threats for defensive forces etc :D

And there is reason why SARH is still manufactured, sold, used.... But you can think that ARH is some kind super magic seeker always superior to SARH.

And there is reason why SARH is still manufactured, sold, used.... But you can think that ARH is some kind super magic seeker always superior to SARH.

And there's also a reason why you don't see any newly developed AAMs using SARH. It's old technology, ARH is superior in pretty much every way.

SARH is being ditched for ARH so yes ... ARH is some kind of magic seeker always superior to SARH :)

It's all about money. Ex-military pilots have squeaked about such training yes, but no one actually does this because it causes a huge problem:

It turns two weapons platforms into one due to EMI. You can't even operate your radar is search when the other guy is illuminating - and, having spoken directly to a MiG-29 instructor, this entire tactic is sort of 'LOL' and the main idea is to run the opponent out of 120's before getting anywhere inside 15nm.

The problem for a MiG-29 here is that said opponent will probably just run them out of fuel. The only real application of buddy illumination that I know of is SAM blinking, and it requires data-links.

Let's make this very clear, in a 2v2 the 'buddy illuminating' pair is at a disadvantage, because one guy is retreating while the other's illuminating, and they leave one aircraft un-covered. The retreating guy has a 120 on him so he's not coming back for a heater shot.

And let's not forget that this idea of 'buddy illumination' vs a stealth aircraft is pure BS to begin with - you're not going to be illuminating something you can't detect, and you have almost zero control over that aircraft's aspect and thus being able to stay in its very narrow radar spike. You have even less control of what your missile is doing, and it's not going to stay inside that spike ... it will literally eat air or chaff.

This is a very incorrect idea. All of those systems required illumination from the very start. Don't start conflating modern radar features with old stuff.

Yeah, old stuff, like even latest R-33, R-40 and R-27... Old stuff you say.

The ONLY way to perform a silent launch with any sort of useful PK was to use the T versions.

The stuff you wrote up is literally nothing but your imagination.

Good, then my imagination really knows how to read and listen.... Then you don't have any worry when you don't have so great "imagination".

There's a whole bunch of steps required to launch a SARH missile, and that includes tuning the missile to THE GUIDANCE WAVEFORM when the trigger is pulled, before the missile actually separated. Same with data required to produce english bias commands (initial steering) etc. You don't get that without STT. So you have to illuminate. Let me put it another way: You don't get a choice. Want SARH in the air? Illuminate.

Yeah... Keep going....

The only known SARH missiles that are launched under command or other type of dlink guidance with a terminal follow-up come from SAMs, never from aircraft. But those systems were much larger in size and they could be more complex - they were literally designed to do such things in order to handle raids.

Yeah... Yeah yeah....

That's just a lot of BS.

Wasn't it just imagination? Now it is lots of bullshit?

We're gaining lots of insight, you just like to make up stuff. Those systems were simply never designed to do the things you're claiming. Flat out not capable, nor did it make sense for a whole bunch of reasons.

It is nice what attitude you have...

Oh yeah... Sorry, my imagination just kicked in again... You don't even exist...

Yeah, old stuff, like even latest R-33, R-40 and R-27... Old stuff you say.

:megalol:

So you don't even know, right? :)

Yes, all of this is old. Decades old, as in three of those. And every single one of those systems illuminates when you pull the trigger or requires you to illuminate before you pull the trigger. Period, end of story.

Yeah, old stuff, like even latest R-33, R-40 and R-27... Old stuff you say.

Canb you elaborate more or have a source for this? Interesting info..

No it was just something I came across at one point - IIRC in a historic account for the development of Russian air-to-air missiles. But I am not sure about the authenticity(i.e. who exactly wrote it), but it did sound like someone with an insight, so I thought it worth to mention in connection with the quote GG posted.

The 27R and 27ER have the same guidance - the front section is or is supposed to be the same, with a replaceable rocket motor.

Yes thats the general perception and perhaps it is the same, but the account I referred to claimed otherwise - namely that the guidance was modified which btw also should involve a longer reach of the datalink. But again I don't know about the accuracy of this information.

But then there is also the matter of the WCS of the MiG-29 not being compatible with the -ER unless modified for the purpose. It does seem to suggest that something is different - e.g. how would it determine whether a target is within missile launch parameters of the extended range version if it isn't integrated as a separate entity and identified as such when hanging on the launcher? :)

I guess their WCS' might not have been very programmable at that time or just didn't have room for expansion :)

I would also agree that you might need an updated guidance module with the longer rocket motor - I would assume that as of that point in time, the homing heads on the E and non-E are supposedly the same, with some older non-updated inventory left over to be used up.

However, there are a lot of things that remained the same, for example the 60 second operating limit :)