RedMercury
Junior Member
Now that is some spicy news (re: plasma stealth). Do you have a source I can look at or more details?
New J-10 thread II
- Thread starter wlchang
- Start date
- Status
Baibar of Jalat
Junior Member
Great news.
Glad theres some confirmation of Chinese deploying longer range weapons. SD 10 though an achievement has similiar range to Russian and American missiles that were in service over 15 years ago. Them guys have a headstart in deploying a longer range weapon.
On page 3 of the article, it claims:
" 这是西方研究机构制作的一份导弹射程比较图，数据单位是海里。1海里约等于1.852千米。图上美国AIM-120、俄罗斯R-77和中国霹雳 -12这三种世界上典型的现役主动雷达制导中程空空导弹的射程分别约为50、80、110公里。这先前的推测性数据也得到了今天的中国军方新闻报导的证实。可见，中国航空工业高层在珠海航展上接受采访时称“歼-10性能远超外界一切想象”并非是吹牛"
Rough translation, the chart used on the page use nm and not km (1 nm = 1.852 km). AIM-120 and estimated 50 km range, R-77 has 80 km range, and PL-12 has 110 km range.
The article is citing early AIM-120 & R-77 range. From other sources, the range for AIM-120 is:
AIM-120A: 50 km
AIM-120B: 80 km
AIM-120C-5: 105 km
AIM-120D: 165 km
And R-77 range is:
R-77RVV-AE: 90 km (100 km vs. head-on target)
R-77M1: 175 km
So if the PL-12 has ~110 km max range, it's comparable to the AIM-120C5, R-77RVV-AE, and MBDA Meteor (in max range). But still inferior to the latest variants of R-27, R-77, and AIM-120.
On side note, how come we never see A/B/C or Mk.1/2 versions of the MICA AAM?
i think it's overstating PL-12 by quite a bit. When it comes to over 100 km, it's possible to achieve that kind of range, but it would be the ballistic range at high altitude rather than against any kind of meaningful target. Even the oft-stated range of 70 km is not that useful against a maneuvering target.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Exactly, most air to air missiles turn into flying darts after a certain distance as they don't carry enough fuel for the entire range envelope. However, if the target is close enough that the engine still has fuel, that target is automatically dead. Anything else beyond MIGHT have a chance of escaping.
I don't use range per se as something the missile will truly achieve and the effective high PK ratios are usually about half to 30 or 40% of that range.
Having said that, the missile with the longer range will still have a larger effective or NEZ range than the missile with the shorter range. Its still an indication of the kinetic energy capability of the missile.
The problem with the R-77 ranges is that the conditions the Russians use to obtain their ranges is quite a bit more liberal than the Chinese, who deliberately try to match theirs with the US. Which means the tests are done at a certain height, which has less air density and therefore less drag, and the launch aircraft is at a certain speed. The higher the aircraft, and the faster it flies, naturally the missile range will be greater.
Understanding the relationship between the energy of the launch aircraft and the missile means that a potentially shorter ranged missile, fired from a faster and higher aircraft, can produce an effective range as long or even longer than a potentially longer ranged missile from a slower, lower aircraft. Also the relationship of height means that a missile fired from a higher aircraft will travel downward, will travel longer and faster than even the same missile fired from an aircraft at a lower altitude.
Having said that, the missile with the longer range will still have a larger effective or NEZ range than the missile with the shorter range. Its still an indication of the kinetic energy capability of the missile.
The problem with the R-77 ranges is that the conditions the Russians use to obtain their ranges is quite a bit more liberal than the Chinese, who deliberately try to match theirs with the US. Which means the tests are done at a certain height, which has less air density and therefore less drag, and the launch aircraft is at a certain speed. The higher the aircraft, and the faster it flies, naturally the missile range will be greater.
Understanding the relationship between the energy of the launch aircraft and the missile means that a potentially shorter ranged missile, fired from a faster and higher aircraft, can produce an effective range as long or even longer than a potentially longer ranged missile from a slower, lower aircraft. Also the relationship of height means that a missile fired from a higher aircraft will travel downward, will travel longer and faster than even the same missile fired from an aircraft at a lower altitude.
Here's an oldie, but good article on AAM ranges:
"To take one example, the Vympel R-77 has a stated range of 100 km against a head-on target at high altitude, but only 25 km in a stern chase. At low altitude it can fire at head-on targets at 20 km, from which we can guess range in a stern chase is 5 km. (See the above diagram.)
And this is presumably against targets that don't try to evade."
This brings up an interesting question. How are early rear-aspect IR-homing missile's operational range calculated? Obviously, if they cited maximum range, it'd be far from actual combat effective range from tail chase position.
Consider, *IF* an IR homing AAM is rated at 10 km effective engagement range in tail-chase, and that tail-chase range reduced to 1/4th from head-on engagement, that would mean the same missile could do 40 km head-on. Obviously that's not the case, so missile manufactures citing 10 km range for rear-aspect IR missiles voodoo'ed their numbers.
"To take one example, the Vympel R-77 has a stated range of 100 km against a head-on target at high altitude, but only 25 km in a stern chase. At low altitude it can fire at head-on targets at 20 km, from which we can guess range in a stern chase is 5 km. (See the above diagram.)
And this is presumably against targets that don't try to evade."
This brings up an interesting question. How are early rear-aspect IR-homing missile's operational range calculated? Obviously, if they cited maximum range, it'd be far from actual combat effective range from tail chase position.
Consider, *IF* an IR homing AAM is rated at 10 km effective engagement range in tail-chase, and that tail-chase range reduced to 1/4th from head-on engagement, that would mean the same missile could do 40 km head-on. Obviously that's not the case, so missile manufactures citing 10 km range for rear-aspect IR missiles voodoo'ed their numbers.
Quickie
Colonel
'Consider, *IF* an IR homing AAM is rated at 10 km effective engagement range in tail-chase, and that tail-chase range reduced to 1/4th from head-on engagement, that would mean the same missile could do 40 km head-on. '
That would depend on the relative speeds of the IR missile and tail-chased target. Assuming the speed of the IR missile doubles that of the tail-chased target, the head-on range would then be twice the tail-chased range i.e. 20 km. Similarly, if the relative speeds were 3 times, that would translate to a head-on range of 15 km.
That would depend on the relative speeds of the IR missile and tail-chased target. Assuming the speed of the IR missile doubles that of the tail-chased target, the head-on range would then be twice the tail-chased range i.e. 20 km. Similarly, if the relative speeds were 3 times, that would translate to a head-on range of 15 km.
- Status