Best Air to Air missiles?

Between the AIM-120's and the AIM-9x, anything within 100K will be toast. One awesome combination.




seekerof

The Russian R-27RE has a range of 120 clicks...just to let you know...

Even though the US wont be facing SU-30's with R-27's any time soon, they still need to be prepared for it...

Don't let your pride screw with you, just SEE what's happening here...

The Russian R-27RE has a range of 120 clicks...just to let you know...

Even though the US wont be facing SU-30's with R-27's any time soon, they still need to be prepared for it...

Don't let your pride screw with you, just SEE what's happening here...

True, but all these ranges are maximum and who the hell knows what the actual zone of no escape are for both the latest Slammer and the '27ER...

Anyhow, I have full confidence in out forces and believe that the 120D should be more then enough when equipped on a reduced RCS or fully stealth fighter. None the less, i believe that we should look into development of a more advanced BVR missile.

One wonders when long range lasers will be able to be fielded as seeing that some of our fighters will be getting short range lasers in the near future. Just how far and maneuverable can a reasonable size missile get before it hits design limits?

Just keep this in mind, Raw advertised range is not an accurate indication of what will happen in battle. In order to sell more missiles to customers it would be advantagous to exaggerate. The question is just how usable is that extra range? And are both side measuring the same thing? And even if they are measuring the same thing, is it better to have an AA-12 which has a 30 percent chance of hitting its target, albiet at a longer 65 mile range, or an AIM-120 with a 99 percent chance of hitting it's target at 45 miles?

Originally posted by Cowboy
Just keep this in mind, Raw advertised range is not an accurate indication of what will happen in battle. In order to sell more missiles to customers it would be advantagous to exaggerate. The question is just how usable is that extra range? And are both side measuring the same thing? And even if they are measuring the same thing, is it better to have an AA-12 which has a 30 percent chance of hitting its target, albiet at a longer 65 mile range, or an AIM-120 with a 99 percent chance of hitting it's target at 45 miles?

Very true! Most of the time the missile is dead and only being guided by its control surfaces shortly after launch.
Best ranges are from when fired above at a target while closing in on the missiles position.

Any missile fired from it's absolute maximum range is close to being a "hail mary" pass. It might be useful because it would make the target aircraft defensive first, but don't expect a sure kill even from an AMRAAM. Usually the missile is getting mid course guidence because it's internal radar is only detecting the target towards the end game phase of the flight, and thus is jam sensitive in its mid course phase. Also, at the end of the rocket motor's range the missile will glide several more miles at least, and that may be what the Russians are "adding" to their impressive Adder's range. Which would make sense because both the AMRAAM and the ADDER are roughly the same size, and the ADDER has the unique guide vanes which increase maneuverablity, but must definately increase drag as well. The problem is that any missile has no energy at the end of the motor range, and if it has no energy it has no ability to maneuver. The very best shot is well within the maximum range of a missile (within its "envelope") because it would then be able to chase a jinking fighter.
However, with that in mind I would not expect the US to advertise the performance of its latest, and even those AMRAAMs in service. I would not be suprised to find out that the two or three "motor upgrades" we have see as part of each AMRAAM upgrade would not unpleasantly suprise any Russian design trying to take on an F-15, especially an F-15 with the phased array radar they are testing in Elmendorf AK.

Okay guys, you win, I give up...

It's not my duty to try to convince you, just know I think otherwise

and i highly doubt even the AMRAAM has a 99% hit probability...

But I will refrain from any other comments because it's useless...

Beyond visual range nearly always means that the missile must have an autonomous
active radar.

Remember the facts about radar interception.

Roughly, radar power returned trails off as the *fourth* power of distance.

There is always some minimal signal level necessary upon receipt to be
above the noise floor of the detection electronics system, or be above
the "jamming" noise floor from other non-target sources.

So basically beyond a certain range it is very difficult to get a lock on,
and closer in, it is very easy---if all planes have equivalent radar cross section.

Note that a missile will be limited in its radar power (battery?) whereas an aircraft, if
it chooses to go active, can get plenty of electrical power off the turbine.

So a missile's radar range is more limited than an aircraft's, hence two equivalent non-stealth aircraft can light each other up going active at a range before either missile would be able to lock on. If they fire at very long range, there is a high chance the
missile will run out of fuel, and if they close to closer range, there is a good chance of getting killed themselves.

A principal advantage of good stealth is if you can get your stealthy aircraft
to within the range of your active missile while still not being detectable even to the
higher power aircraft radar on the other guy's plane. That is a huge advantage, as
the opponent now has to try to evade the missile, while there is simultaneously some
unknown to him aircraft also chasing.

If you can have a postive offset---enemy radar can't detect your aircraft at a range
where your missile can detect the enemy aircraft---it seems like you would have a huge advantage.

No doubt this envelope in range is likely to be reasonably well known and certainly programmed into the attack computers of something like the F-22.

This seems to be far more advantageous than increasing the range of a non-stealthy missile on a non-stealthy aircraft more (at major cost to weight).

In the Gulf War 1, the M1 tanks had a moderately higher range on their main guns
than the Iraqi opposition tanks. And the M1 gunners knew this, and with the
sophisticated mapping, could very accurately map out the position of friendly and
hostile tanks. They stayed slightly out of the Iraqi tank range, and inside their own;
in a major tank battle all Iraqi tanks were destroyed and no US tanks were destroyed.

Same idea. If you can just get a small range offset, and you know it, and you know where
the other person is, you can turn it into a large advantage.

How well do stealth airplanes hold up against looking-down awac type planes?

The prime advantage of stealth is the first look first shot first kill capabillity, but suppose you get spotted by one of the newer chinese awacs and they command a jetfighter to launch one of those bought in russia longer range missiles ? I think you definately gonna need that new laser technology...

On another note I was thinking of some cruise missile intercepter using steel nets that would only be erected at night (so they won't show up on satellite pictures) at strategical likely passageways. Many air attacks occur at night anyway to make the job harder on airdefense , well, it could works both ways...?

The nets could either be designed to shock the missile with high voltage or just let go from the posts, wrap around the missile and create a lot of drag on the missile, I would think that a large 5000 pound net, would create considerable drag on the missile , plus the whole thing is passive, it doesn't need advanced radar and guidance systems for interception, it does need however a large infrastructure to cover wide areas and secrecy, otherwise the flight plans of the missiles will just be altered to avoid the nets.

In Belgium and France they catch a lot of birds for consumption, putting nets on strategical known bird migration routes...



[edit on 27-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 27-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Okay guys, you win, I give up...

It's not my duty to try to convince you, just know I think otherwise

and i highly doubt even the AMRAAM has a 99% hit probability...

But I will refrain from any other comments because it's useless...

Sorry but I was trying to make a point with the 99 percent comment.(I don't doubt it is less than that)

Various shades of gray wiill dominate rather than Black and White.

I just see more white with the AMRAAM / F-15 combination at BVR than the Soviet/Russian...

That might reflect my bias, but that is where I am from huh?

I just love it how most say if, a big if a stealthy fighter where to be detected it would be dead.

It's still light-years ahead of any other fighters in the air in the electronics sector, its jammers are unmatched and it more then fierce in a knife fight.

But whatever, go ahead for the sake of argument�

I don't understand why people think that the US would invest BILLIONS into stealth while vulnerable to any present or future concevable threat, because we wouldn't... Example, many, usually Russian, want us to believe that stealth can be shot down with their newer S-300 and S-400 series of long range SAM and the admittidly powerful Mig-31 phased array radar. The reality is that the US produced stealth precisely for these newer systems, not the old SA-2s that we fought off in Viet Nam. Stealth works on some very sound laws of physics, and the bottom line is that even if it is detected, it is probably too late at that point, and you can bet the US is staying ahead of the threats to stealth, even with these newer and impressive Russian systems. And please notice that the US has ramjet technology, for many years and extremely high speed missiles are no major leap for the US to produce into weapons, but instead we have put stealth into our latest JASSM and strategic ACM. There is a very good reason for this decision, stealth works and gives a significant advantage to those who use it. If a missile is detected it can be shot down, even very fast ones. The Navy has done this for decades now in their anti-ship missile defense systems.

reply to post by ChrisRT


yeah, they had man launched nukes.
see but they were area defense weapons, as they said; not air defence weapons.

AIM-9X
en.wikipedia.org...-9X
www.sci.fi...


The best dog-fighting missile
With its steerable tail surfaces and thrust vectoring no plane can out turn it.

Then the older modals were hard to run from.

I am from NWC China Lake so i have to back the winder as the best missile.
www.navy.mil...

Well considering the aim9 had about a 25% hit chance in the first gulf war. Maybe today the hit propability has doubled. The sparrow had a 9% hit chance in GW1. Maybe the Most modern amraam has about 40% hit chance.
I got these hit chances from a big book about fighters of which i forgot the name atm. Ill dig it up if you guys are interested but its not the newest.

I wonder what the hit propabilities are for the other AA missles in service.

I have watched a over 30 AIM-9 test shots at China Lake and never saw one miss.
Every year the navy takes a few AIM-9s out of there new shipments and there storage stocks and tests them to insure that there are no problems on the production line or in the missile they have in storage ready to go to the fleet.

These missiles are used to train pilots and are fired at drones that are trying to evade being hit.

The only reason for a winder to miss is the pilot made a bad/imposable shot.
or the enemy decoy flares worked and the winder IR sensors can tell the deference in most cases.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by ANNED]

Problem with missile kill probability based on historical facts is that many A2A engagements in the 90’s occurred with western fighters defending strike packages, and escorting fighters may have made shots that had a low probability of success in order to defend the package. In short PK is not an arbitrary number, it’s wholly dependant on the circumstances of the launch.

The best? AMRAAM - D. The AIM-120’s seeker package has been upgraded 6 times since the early 90's, and the D model introduces features like a 2 way data-link which can transmit seeker generated data back to the launch platform. Apparently it has a dual rate rocket motor so it can retain energy for longer.

Perhaps the new RAMJET missiles under development will become the leaders soon, then after that, JDRADM. Also, what about Python 5? Apparently they're really good WVR missiles...

[edit on 22/2/2009 by C0bzz]

Is the real problem here that in a "real war" situation and the tactics will dictate the success of the missile. We can all compare range of missile (or speculated range), but that's all pants because the key statistic is the "no escape zone" and to a significant extent that figure is unknown / unpublished / debatable etc...

I think the current stock of missiles are all pretty formidable and in the hands of a competent airforce using the right tactics they would all prove sufficiently potent...

Examples of current missiles of worth include...

ASRAAM
AIM-9X
AMRAAM
IRIS T
MICA
Python 5
A-Darter
R-74, R-77 etc

Future missiles, such as Meteor just add more capability...

Cheers







[edit on 22/2/2009 by paraphi]

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
First of all, you don't have to be so rude and immediatly say: Wrong...

That's f@$&ing harsh man...

Cruise missiles are not very manauverable targets, they are essentially like fast UAVs and is less of a challenge to shoot down than aircraft banking away and deploying counter measures...common sense.

Speed is not much of an issue if they fly in straight lines which cruise missiles often do, they head toward their target heading and from there fly in a straight line, perhaps occasionally avoiding terrain...

But the AIM-54C is phased out now for a good reason...

Get real, not even America makes the perfect weapon...

But fighter planes are maneuvrable targets? Here is the list of kills with the AIM-54 missile, during Iran - Irak war:

unidentified fighter - 4
MiG-21- 4
MiG-23 - 12
MiG-25 - 11
Mirage F1 - 12
Su-22 - 7
MiG-27 - 2
Tu-22 - 5
Xian H-6D - 1
Super Etendard - 1
SA321 Gazelle - 1
C-601 missile - 1

A table with air to air missiles with some basic specifications:


1) maximum range

Novator K-100 400 km
R-37/AA-13 "Arrow" 398 km
R-33S/AA-9 "Amos" 228 km
AIM-54 Phoenix 200 km
R-77M1/AA-12 "Adder" 160 km
AIM-47 Falcon 160 km
R-33/AA-9 "Amos" 160 km
R-33E/AA-9 "Amos" 130 km
R-27AE/AA-10 "Alamo-E" 130 km
R-27ER/AA-10 "Alamo-C" 130 km
R-27ET/AA-10 "Alamo-D" 120 km
AIM-120C AMRAAM 105 km
Meteor 100 km
Astra 100 km
Mitsubishi AAM-4 100 km
PL-12 100 km
R-27R/AA-10 "Alamo-A" 80 km
Aspide 75 km
PL-11 75 km
AIM-120A AMRAAM 70 km
R-27T/AA-10 "Alamo-B" 70 km
MICA 60 km
V4 R-Darter 60 km
TC-2 Sky Sword II 60 km
PL-10 60 km
R-40/AA-6 "Acrid" 60 km
Derby 50 km
AIM-7M Sparrow 50 km
R-24R/AA-7 "Apex" 50 km
Skyflash 45 km
R-73M2/AA-11 "Archer" 40 km
Super 530 37 km
Mitsubishi AAM-5 35 km
AIM-2000 IRIS-T 25 km
R-4R/AA-5 "Ash" 25 km
R-98/K-8/AA-3 "Anab" 23 km
Python 5 22 km
PL-9C 22 km
R530 20 km
AIM-9 Sidewinder 18.2 km
AIM-132 ASRAAM 18 km
PL-5E 18 km
Python 4 15 km
Python 3 15 km
R550 Magic 2 15 km
Mitsubishi AAM-3 13 km
Red Top 12 km
MAA-1 Piranha 10 km
AIM-4 Falcon 9.7 km
AIM-26 Falcon 9.6 km
K-9/AA-4 "Awl" 9 km
R-60/AA-8 "Aphid" 8 km
R-13M/R-3R/AA-2 "Atoll" 8 km
PL-7 7 km
Firestreak 6.4 km
RS-2US/K-5MS/AA-1 "Alkali" 6 km
Shafrir 2 5 km
Shafrir 1 5 km
Ruhrstahl X-4 4 km
Fireflash 3.1 km
Taildog SRAAM 2 km
Henschel Hs 298 1.6 km


2) maximum speed

R-37/AA-13 "Arrow" 6 Mach
AIM-54 Phoenix 5 Mach
R-77M1/AA-12 "Adder" 4.5 Mach
R-27AE/AA-10 "Alamo-E" 4.5 Mach
Super 530 4.5 Mach
R-40/AA-6 "Acrid" 4.5 Mach
R-33S/AA-9 "Amos" 4.5 Mach
K-9/AA-4 "Awl" 4.11 Mach
AIM-120 AMRAAAM 4 Mach
Meteor 4 Mach
MICA 4 Mach
Aspide 4 Mach
Derby 4 Mach
Mitsubishi AAM-4 4 Mach
AIM-7F Sparrow 4 Mach
Skyflash 4 Mach
Python 5 4 Mach
Astra 4 Mach
PL-12 4 Mach
PL-11 4 Mach
AIM-47 Falcon 4 Mach
Python 4 3.5 Mach
Python 3 3.5 Mach
Novator K-100 3.26 Mach
Red Top 3.2 Mach
AIM-132 ASRAAM 3 Mach
R550 Magic 2 3 Mach
AIM-2000 IRIS-T 3 Mach
Mitsubishi AAM-5 3 Mach
PL-9C 3 Mach
R-24R/AA-7 "Apex" 3 Mach
Firestreak 3 Mach
AIM-4 Falcon 3 Mach
R530 2.7 Mach
R-60/AA-8 "Aphid" 2.7 Mach
AIM-9 Sidewinder 2.5 Mach
R-73M2/AA-11 "Archer" 2.5 Mach
PL-5E 2.5 Mach
PL-7 2.5 Mach
RS-2US/K-5MS/AA-1 "Alkali" 2.5 Mach
RS-2US/K-5MS/AA-1 "Alkali" 2.35 Mach
Shafrir 1 2 Mach
MAA-1 Piranha 2 Mach
PL-10 2 Mach
R-98/K-8/AA-3 "Anab" 2 Mach
Fireflash 2 Mach
AIM-26 Falcon 2 Mach
R-4R/AA-5 "Ash" 1.6 Mach
Ruhrstahl X-4 0.93 Mach
Henschel Hs 298 0.76 Mach


3) warhead

AIM-26 Falcon 250 ton equivalent
R-40/AA-6 "Acrid" 70 kg
AIM-54 Phoenix 61 kg
R-37/AA-13 "Arrow" 60 kg
R-4R/AA-5 "Ash" 53 kg
Novator K-100 50 kg
Henschel Hs 298 48 kg
R-33S/AA-9 "Amos" 47.5 kg
AIM-47 Falcon 45.5 kg
AIM-7M Sparrow 40 kg
R-98/K-8/AA-3 "Anab" 40 kg
Skyflash 39.5 kg
R-27AE/AA-10 "Alamo-E" 39 kg
R-24R/AA-7 "Apex" 35 kg
Aspide 33 kg
PL-10 33 kg
Super 530 31 kg
Red Top 31 kg
TC-2 Sky Sword II 30 kg
R530 27 kg
K-9/AA-4 "Awl" 27 kg
AIM-120A AMRAAM 23 kg
Derby 23 kg
Firestreak 22.7 kg
R-77M1/AA-12 "Adder" 22 kg
Ruhrstahl X-4 20 kg
AIM-120C AMRAAM 18 kg
Astra 15 kg
R550 Magic 2 13 kg
RS-2US/K-5MS/AA-1 "Alkali" 13 kg
PL-7 12.5 kg
MICA 12 kg
MAA-1 Piranha 12 kg
PL-9C 11.8 kg
RS-2US/K-5MS/AA-1 "Alkali" 11.3 kg
Python 5 11 kg
Python 4 11 kg
Python 3 11 kg
Shafrir 2 11 kg
Shafrir 1 11 kg
AIM-132 ASRAAM 10 kg
AIM-9 Sidewinder 9.4 kg
R-73M2/AA-11 "Archer" 7.4 kg
PL-5E 6 kg
R-60M/AA-8 "Aphid-B" 3.5 kg
AIM-4 Falcon 3.4 kg