RVV-SD - R-77 with extended range?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well, let us then just call it what it is. The RVV-SD missile is available now.

 

You can call it whatever you like: "in development ", "ready for production", "completed", etc.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, and now I found out different. Silly lattices :D

 

You claimed that it did. One just need to search through your posts and will find several times you stating the R-77 HAD a greatere range then 120A.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Too late now ... :smilewink:

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

Yeah, and now I found out different. Silly lattices :D

[GGTharos]

The only thing it's too late for is breakfast.

 

I'm sorry to shatter your glass russian superiority world ... but the R-77 is a failure.

 

Russia doesn't really want to buy it, the Chinese don't really want to buy it, nor do the Indians - heck, they're complaining about its poor state.

 

And it doesn't out-range anything but a sidewinder. Sorry! ;)

 

Too late now ... :smilewink:

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[Pilotasso]

here we go again :D

[Mustang]

here we go again :D

 

Too late now ... :smilewink:

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

Oh noes!!111 :fear:

Edited November 29, 2009 by Mustang

[Alfa]

:D This dispute has become rather funny.

Indeed and it is becoming funny because you clearly like to argue for the sake of arguing.

This thread is specifically about this new longer ranged RVV-SD design and I merely pointed out the obvious in response to this post:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=790285&postcount=10

...namely that it clearly has a bigger engine, which in turn accounts for the increased length, weight and longer launch range.

If you compare the pictures of the RVV-AE and RVV-SD and general specs accompanying them you can see that, aside from length and weight, the designs are otherwise similar - same body diameter and same aerodynamic designs. This means that the increased launch range cannot be down to a reduction in drag, while the increased weight by itself would have a negative impact on range.

This leaves only a change to the rocket motor to explain extended launch range and since the published specs state that it is a single stage engine, we can further deduce that this change simply involves a lengthened motor section - more "fuel" for increased burn time.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

I was under the impression that they are doing more to it than that - but it could indeed be that this is either there to just mitigate range issues alone or maybe it is an interim solution.

[topol-m]

...namely that it clearly has a bigger engine, which in turn accounts for the increased length, weight and longer launch range.

If you compare the pictures of the RVV-AE and RVV-SD and general specs accompanying them you can see that, aside from length and weight, the designs are otherwise similar - same body diameter and same aerodynamic designs. This means that the increased launch range cannot be down to a reduction in drag, while the increased weight by itself would have a negative impact on range.

This leaves only a change to the rocket motor to explain extended launch range and since the published specs state that it is a single stage engine, we can further deduce that this change simply involves a lengthened motor section - more "fuel" for increased burn time.

[/size][/font]

 

There you go again :laugh:

Ok it has a new engine. So what? It was clear it doesn`t achieve 37% more range with magic. Is this engine so important to you for some reason? I mean you would like to dissect it and to see the differences with the original one or you are doing some university work about the specific engine? I don`t get it. :huh:

[Alfa]

^^^^

 

I was under the impression that they are doing more to it than that - but it could indeed be that this is either there to just mitigate range issues alone or maybe it is an interim solution.

 

They could well be doing more to it(new seekerhead, improved INS), but as far as the overall design goes it does appear to be a straigth forward range boost via a longer motor section - along the lines of the R-27R -> R-27RE.

 

I think it is indeed an interim solution - as Evil mentioned they are apparently working on a new BVR missile, called RVV-BD, for arming the PAK-FA, but despite the "RVV" prefix it does not sound as it will have much in common with the old RVV-AE.

 

Thats also why I don't really believe that a ramjet version of the RVV-AE is in the works.

[Alfa]

There you go again :laugh:

Ok it has a new engine. So what? It was clear it doesn`t achieve 37% more range with magic.

 

Thats all I am saying :)

 

Is this engine so important to you for some reason?

 

Considering that the thread is specifically about this new RVV-SD and that the most noticable difference between this and the old RVV-AE is exactly a new engine, I think the answer to your question should be obvious.

 

Unlike you I don't see any need to dissect the missile to figure out that the engine is different. If I had a chance to take it apart I would be more interested in the "intelligent" parts of the missile - e.g. whether they replaced the 9B1348E seeker with one of AGAT's newer seeker designs.

[Trident]

The R-77 is a kinematic lemon. It did and does not have greater range than 'competing missile'. These lattices WILL be removed eventually since the only thing they add is MASSIVE DRAG.

 

I'd like to know where this notion originates, because from what I've been able to gather lattice control surfaces do NOT carry a huge drag penalty (if indeed any at all) at speeds outside the transonic region (where the lattice 'chokes'). Since air-to-air missiles rarely operate in this condition (launch preferably at supersonic speed, endgame velocity for a successful shot also comfortably in excess of Mach 1), the disadvantage is minimal and may well be outweighed by benefits.

 

If the R-77 does have a kinematic problem it is more likely to be caused by other issues, for example inferior propellant performance or a lower fuel fraction due to bulky guidance and seeker electronics.

 

A much more serious drawback of lattice fins is RCS.

[GGTharos]

It came from someone who knows far better than I.

 

However, I'll grant you that an explanation wasn't forthcoming and the devil is in the details.

I seem to recall the lattice does in fact carry a penalty which going straight, but performs better in turns than a convention fin - maybe I remember wrong. Either way, it would one of many factors, as you say, and perhaps not even the most important one :)

[topol-m]

Considering that the thread is specifically about this new RVV-SD and that the most noticable difference between this and the old RVV-AE is exactly a new engine, I think the answer to your question should be obvious.

Unlike you I don't see any need to dissect the missile to figure out that the engine is different.

 

I don`t feel such need. After all it`s not a radical engine change. The engine is the same type, ok it`s a little bigger so what. More important is the overall performance of the missile, detailed info of which we will not be given access to. And even more important than its precious new engine is if there is any interest for it. So far there isn`t at least such hasn`t been declared officially. I bet PAK-FA will be armed with far better AAMs and this RVV-AE upgrade could result just a short-lived unrealized project.

[Alfa]

If the R-77 does have a kinematic problem it is more likely to be caused by other issues, for example inferior propellant performance or a lower fuel fraction due to bulky guidance and seeker electronics.

 

Well I doubt the bit concerning "bulky guidance and seeker electronics" - the seekerhead(9B1348E) weighs 16 kilograms, which seems rather insignificant considering an overall launch weight of some 175 kg. The warhead is some 22 kg, which is roughly the same as that of the AMRAAM......so :hmm: .

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I'm sorry to shatter your glass russian superiority world ...

There is no need for this kind of language GGTharos. Specially from the forum moderator.

 

The fact is, with which you appear to agree here, the lattice do make the missile more maneuverable. The missile size (amount of fuel) is about the range. Since R-77 is larger then competing missiles, it most likely has somewhat lager range. Even with some, supposedly, "draggy" latices.

 

RVV-SD adds to that range with, again supposedly larger motor, or more space to add fuel. And RVV-SD is available and it can be installed on F-16 too.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

Edited November 29, 2009 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[GGTharos]

Bulky is also space. Keep in mind a lot of space was made available in the missile for the 120 due to miniaturization of electronics.

 

Well I doubt the bit concerning "bulky guidance and seeker electronics" - the seekerhead(9B1348E) weighs 16 kilograms, which seems rather insignificant considering an overall launch weight of some 175 kg. The warhead is some 22 kg, which is roughly the same as that of the AMRAAM......so :hmm: .

[Trident]

Well I doubt the bit concerning "bulky guidance and seeker electronics" - the seekerhead(9B1348E) weighs 16 kilograms, which seems rather insignificant considering an overall launch weight of some 175 kg. The warhead is some 22 kg, which is roughly the same as that of the AMRAAM......so :hmm: .

 

The upshot being that I can't quite see the R-77 as a kinematic lemon (at least by the standards of its day) ;) Unlike the AMRAAM, the deployed state of the art has stagnated, allowing the US missile to leapfrog the Adder's range capability by a combination of electronics miniaturization (resulting in a better fuel fraction, with or without a larger motor) and advanced shaped trajectories. However, I see no reason why the Russian missile would not do what it says on the box - in the early 90s it was very much a competitive design.

 

GGTharos is right in saying there is a certain drag disadvantage to lattice control surfaces, but that it is not the main factor in the inferiority of the R-77 to later AIM-120 marks. Propellant performance is probably also not very different, so most of the blame does reside with the electronics (weight, size and capability to perform energy efficient trajectories). Every inch of length not taken up by guidance and seeker is available for more rocket fuel - without data on the AMRAAM's guidance system it is hard to say how good 16kg is.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Trident

[Alfa]

Bulky is also space. Keep in mind a lot of space was made available in the missile for the 120 due to miniaturization of electronics.

 

Perhaps GG but I doubt internal space was an issue as far as limiting the size of the R-77's propulsion section.

 

Besides, I was under the impression that the R-77 actually has a larger motor than the AMRAAM(at least -A version)?.

[Force_Feedback]

All this talk about an obolete missile that was only made for export. For the PAK-FA they're already testing a new kind of A-A missiles, so those will be interesting, the RVV-AE was a nice missile, and it's upgraded a bit for the export customers, but that's it, it's not some kind of radical redesign (like the Aim-120D).

 

And even then, the Meteor will spank both the Aim-120D and the R-77 quite hard.

[Pilotasso]

R-77 and RVV-AE are 2 different missiles, the later doesnt have datalink. Thats why india and china are developing their own.

 

However as we can see there are intents to have the RVV series in russian service wich will probably cover that shortcoming. It remains to be seen what part of it will be cut off (if thats the case) for export.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Pilotasso

[topol-m]

A serious update is needed to keep R-77 competitive. Be sure though the russians will come up with something much more interesting in the coming years. :thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

I am already aware of the R-172. :D

 

LOL...nice...sig

[topol-m]

 

LOL...nice...sig

 

:D It`was specially made as a response to another one ;)

[Boberro]

LMAO :megalol: