Ill defined performance parameters and how they mislead

[Tempest II]

Was going through the Russian export weapons catalogue here: RosOboronExport and can across this below page. For the first time I have seen the marketing guys separate missile performance by target type. We see it a lot for the radar but not the missile. I am assuming here that beyond 50km the missile will have a less kinetic energy to hit an agile and evading fighter, but still good enough for engage a bomber.


This then makes question the “maximum ranges” we see for most missiles. It is very likely these maximum ranges are for the “easy targets” and will be a lot less for the evading fighter.


It sounds/is obvious when you think about it, but generally we miss/forget that reality. This applies to many other systems we discuss and compares here, talking of the crude/high level figures without defining the conditions or tests.

 

[SipahSalar]

I see no problem with the numbers used. The statistics used are when you push something against its very extreme limits. Just as maximum speed for different cars.

 

[Tempest II]

Not saying it is a problem. I am commending how they have indicated different targets instead of just using the "max 80km " and hope to subconsciously lead people to think the 80km is against a fighter.

 

[Manindra]

Not saying it is a problem. I am commending how they have indicated different targets instead of just using the "max 80km " and hope to subconsciously lead people to think the 80km is against a fighter.

Mostly ad given on the base of Fighter size target but Russian give Bomber also neither people misled 80 km for Fighter.
Now the question arise that the range differ on attitude. There would different range on sea level compare to 50,000 feet.
Even , this range would be on head on chase.
So, basically if they have to give all performance parameters then they have to print a hand book for it.
Well, with increasing fighters who equipped with DRFM based EW suite it would be also erase risk of long range BVR & mostly kill would be achieved by 20 to 40 km area.

 

[Tempest II]

Interesting what you say about Russian ranges being against bombers. I had always assumed fighters. In fact I default to think the missile range to be the same regardless of target type.

There is a good article on the ACIG (Tom Cooper) forum discussing US vs Russian vs Chinese MRAAMs, giving the test conditions such as launch and target speed, and altitudes. These test condition details change the whole meaning of the results.

Was going through the Russian export weapons catalogue here: RosOboronExport and can across this below page. For the first time I have seen the marketing guys separate missile performance by target type. We see it a lot for the radar but not the missile. I am assuming here that beyond 50km the missile will have a less kinetic energy to hit an agile and evading fighter, but still good enough for engage a bomber.


This then makes question the “maximum ranges” we see for most missiles. It is very likely these maximum ranges are for the “easy targets” and will be a lot less for the evading fighter.


It sounds/is obvious when you think about it, but generally we miss/forget that reality. This applies to many other systems we discuss and compares here, talking of the crude/high level figures without defining the conditions or tests.

From the ACIG forum

Some translations and points discovered by Hyperwarp in the AFM concerning an magazine published article of an interview with the designer of the SD-10.

"Efective combat altitude 0-25Km.
Ability to engage target 10kms higher or lower than launch altitude.
Range at 10Km altitude at M1.2 target at same altitude =70Km.
No escape zone for F-16 type target = 35-45km
Max overload=38G, Speed =4M
Plans to be also used as SAM system."

"Designer was asked at end to rate BVR AAMs. He rated Meteor as best BVR AAM, then AIM-120C, then his SD-10, then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Skyflash at equal fourth, then Derby, and last of all, MICA."

"What the designer said is that they used the same way AIM-120 calculated its range. target and launch aircraft flying at each other at 1.2 mach and at 10000 metres. The range is 70 km under such circumstance.
Also interesting is the designer basically said the russians "cheated" with R-77, as they calculated the max range with target and launcher flying at each other at 1.5 mach and at 12000 metres altitude."

A more detailed translation by Dongdong posted in the AFM forums:

"I just bought the BING GONG KE JI magazine with the SD-10 designer interview. The interview is pretty informative. Add my points for translation:

Ahout the max shot range:
The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head). AIM120’s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russian’s propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77’s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Km’s altitude; each has 1.5M’s velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldn’t only consider parameters isolated with each other. In fact, our SD-10’s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77’s.

About ranking MRAAM:
Designer : It’s not easy to rank …..Various persons have various standards…
First of all, Euro’s Meteor should be No.1. This missile’s performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israel’s Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however it’s a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM.

Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77’s, so SD-10’s overall performance is better than R-77’s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77’s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didn’t use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.

SD-10’s milestones:
Designer: We started the pre-research work for advanced radar guidance air to air missile in mid of 1980….
Phase1:mid of 1980 to beginning of 1990, key technologies study
Phase2;Started from mid of 1990, sub-systems development
Phase3:Started from end of 1990, missile overall performance verification test
Phase4:After entering 21st century, demo verification test
Now, the development of SD-10 has been completed."

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The important part always is what is the kill ratio at 80-90 % distance of the missile range for a fighter aircraft type target. That is where you see the real difference between the Russian and American BVR missiles. The americans have a much higher kill probability.