The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat

Thought i would post this article on Russian BVR combat for everyone . It has good information for those looking at different missile types and ranges.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

It doesn't have good information on missiles and ranges. APA is well known for significantly embellishing Russian hardware and ignoring similar capabilities on the west side.

It doesn't have good information on missiles and ranges. APA is well known for significantly embellishing Russian hardware and ignoring similar capabilities on the west side.

lol, not to dispute your info entirely, but truly accurate info is hard to come by, outside actual technical manuals (assuming even that is not partially embellished). Plenty of sources are apt to significantly bolster western stats and downplay eastern stats. I remember watching a History Channel special on attack helicopters saying the Hind was withdrawn from Soviet Afghan War because it was prone to chopping off its own tail with the main rotor...

I am unable to find a single incident of that happening to the Hind.

Although a cursory search did come up with this :

Edit

And this, an Mi-8

While it's very likely, even highly probable it can do the same thing, I'm unable to find any example, let alone it being related to Afghanistan. I know, OT (sort of). I won't elaborate further.

lol, not to dispute your info entirely, but truly accurate info is hard to come by,

I've been working on 'accurate info' for years. APA's isn't just not accurate, it is deliberately skewed. They had a basic agenda that is known if you look at the author's histories:

Get Australia to buy F-22s instead of F-18's or F-35's (Never going to happen)

Get Australia to buy refurbishment/upgrades for F-111's from APA's owners (Never going to happen)

You CAN get good basic info out of APA, but you have to know to sort their particular bias out. As you read more of the site, you'll start seeing it. Or you'll just swallow it hook, line and sinker.

outside actual technical manuals (assuming even that is not partially embellished).

What a typical statement. :) No, they're not embellished, people's lives depend on them.

Plenty of sources are apt to significantly bolster western stats and downplay eastern stats.

You must mean entertainment.

I remember watching a History Channel special on attack helicopters saying the Hind was withdrawn from Soviet Afghan War because it was prone to chopping off its own tail with the main rotor...

Yep, entertainment.

While it's very likely, even highly probable it can do the same thing, I'm unable to find any example, let alone it being related to Afghanistan. I know, OT (sort of). I won't elaborate further.

Couldn't care less about the history channel though - I care more about people citing sources which openly manipulate data and ignore other data in order to push their own agenda :)

While some stuff from the history channel is usable, just like APA, you need to find backup for it.

BTW, in case it's not terribly obvious as to what APA does, it's like this:

All Russian missile ranges they list are performance for 50000' mach 2 co-altitude co-speed non-maneuvering launches - same stuff that's listed on wiki.

All western missile ranges are taken either straight out of wiki as well, but they typically list mid-altitude subsonic co-altitude co-speed ranges. The difference is huge.

APA likes to assume that 'red' has data-links and sensors that somehow the west doesn't have to can't use. The also like to list non-existent missile versions for 'red' etc. etc.

What a typical statement. :) No, they're not embellished, people's lives depend on them.

Typical of what? Somebody who recognises how the world works? Developers hype their products, sometimes inflating capability to sell. Lockheed isn't any less susceptible to corruption and bs speels than any other commercial entity :)

There are occasional scandals about various defense contractors doing that vary thing, in addition to bribes and all manner of chicanery. Thus my statement that, while far more prone to accuracy (and in particular a wider data set helping you draw a fuller picture), they're not necessarily bulletproof simply because the "book" says so and so.

As for History Channel, yeah, I agree it's entertainment. They don't really vet anything that goes on there. I was just citing it as an example :) Nor was I defending the site referred to.

I would also agree, regarding weapon stats, that an accurate table should reference the speed and altitude related to the given data. Ideally, imo, they should reference mid-altitude, transonic speeds, so you know to hit it in the head quite a bit if you're lower/slower, or lift it up a bit if you're higher faster.

Then again, they're providing that info as approximations, not anticipating keyboard warriors needing it on a virtual life or death basis :)

Typical of what? Somebody who recognises how the world works?

The opposite.

Developers hype their products, sometimes inflating capability to sell. Lockheed isn't any less susceptible to corruption and bs speels than any other commercial entity :)

Pilots don't need this stuff, so the services test the aircraft on their own and produce performance charts and manuals. They do very extensive testing, and this is why technical manuals are not embellished. Brochures? Commercials? Sure.

There are occasional scandals about various defense contractors doing that vary thing, in addition to bribes and all manner of chicanery. Thus my statement that, while far more prone to accuracy (and in particular a wider data set helping you draw a fuller picture), they're not necessarily bulletproof simply because the "book" says so and so.

They're quite bulletproof. What they're not is complete - we get access to certain things, but we don't get access to the truly juicy details. For example, you might get the F-15's performance charts. They're real, they're made by flying the plane. You probably won't get access to their advanced BFM/ACM training and details on how to fly this thing to the edge in the entire envelope. And good luck getting your hands on the RWR symbols. But the stuff that you DO get is not embellished.

As I said before, these manuals are used by people whose lives depend on them.

Then again, they're providing that info as approximations, not anticipating keyboard warriors needing it on a virtual life or death basis :)

Indeed. In any case, any and all info found easily on the internet, with few exceptions, is woefully inadequate. I mean, what does 'maximum range' even mean?

Yeah, I've read it a lot. I love it! A few questions:

1-Does the Su-35S weapon chart listing for the R-77 (as in, 2 on each of the center under-fuselage pylons) go for all the variants (including the R-77M-PD), or just the baseline R-77 (the one in DCS)?

2-If so, then would this loadout be reasonable? The loadout is: ECM (2xL175M pods), 2xR-73M, 4xR-77M-PD (on the center under-fuselage stations), 2xR-77P-PD, 4xR-77T-PD.

3-Lastly, what's the R-77-1?

1-Does the Su-35S weapon chart listing for the R-77 (as in, 2 on each of the center under-fuselage pylons) go for all the variants (including the R-77M-PD), or just the baseline R-77 (the one in DCS)?

I'm sure it goes for all variants that actually exist. That would be RVV-SD.

2-If so, then would this loadout be reasonable? The loadout is: ECM (2xL175M pods), 2xR-73M, 4xR-77M-PD (on the center under-fuselage stations), 2xR-77P-PD, 4xR-77T-PD.

No, since those variants don't exist.

3-Lastly, what's the R-77-1?

Some upgrade that was supposed to be done in the past. At this point it's RVV-SD produced in Russia.

 

Some upgrade that was supposed to be done in the past. At this point it's RVV-SD produced in Russia.

RVV-SD is the export designation - R-77-1 is the domestic name for the same missile(like R-77 vs RVV-AE) :) .

Apart from that you are right - lots of nonsense and variants that might have been suggested at one point, but never materialised(IR, passive radar and ramjet powered variants).

Thanks for the clarification Alfa :)

You are welcome :)

I'm sure it goes for all variants that actually exist. That would be RVV-SD.

 

 

 

No, since those variants don't exist.

 

 

 

Some upgrade that was supposed to be done in the past. At this point it's RVV-SD produced in Russia.

So, what variants are in production? At least the R-77M/T/P without the -PD?

So, what variants are in production? At least the R-77M/T/P without the -PD?

No - just the RVV-AE and the new RVV-SD.

Another victim of APAs incredibly accurate reporting :D

So, um, how do I know what's accurate? I love the R-77, so I just really like info on it. One more thing: How do the Su-35Ss carry 2 R-77s on EACH of the center fuselage stations?

Sort of unrelated, but I've seen some sites that say certain variants of the Flanker (like the Su-30MKM, for example) can carry 2xR-27R/T, and 6xR-27ER/ET. Shouldn't it be 8xR-27R/ER and 2xR-27T/ET?

Probably. The body pylons usually don't have the coolant, so any ETs mounted there will be for transport.

Probably. The body pylons usually don't have the coolant, so any ETs mounted there will be for transport.

Yes but you are confusing cause and effect :) - the AKU-470 ejector racks don't have coolant for the IR versions of the R-27, because these cannot use ejector racks.

Only two -T/ETs can be carried(any variant of the Flanker). There are only two pylons compatible with the IR version(s) of the R-27 - these are also the only ones from which rocket pods can be used...hence the availability of a dual rack for those.

The two extra inner wingpylons on later Flanker variants are too close to the engine inlets for rail launchers(must employ ejector racks just like the fuselage stations) and again, the R-27T/ET cannot use ejector racks(-R/ER can use both types of launchers).

So the maximum R-27 load is:

Su-27: 6x R-27R/ER or 4x R-27R/ER and two R-27T/TE

Su-30MKx: 8x R-27R/ER or 6x R-27R/ER and two R-27T/TE