I knew most of it (not all, and some of it only from an instinctual standpoint), and in some aspects of my life I "implemented" it. But listening to it in one video really helped pull some strings together, and remember that, yes, ultimately the pilot or the crew make their own decisions in combat, regardless of "standard operating procedures" (which are really just "suggestions" to fall back on, not carry out rigidly). So when a flight profile and circumstances of the attacking plane and its missile, the missile's "kill zone" can be represented as a volume of space that changes depending on what its target does, and the "job" of the target plane is to manipulate this volume (I think some call it a missile envelope?) in relation to "Time". When the plane shrinks this volume enough or in the right "shape", it effectively escapes the Missile's kill zone. So if you're the targeted plane that's being chased by the missile, your "evasive maneuvers" or flight paths are dependent on different missile characteristics, circumstances of its launch, and other information like weather - and this is where "Poker" and "Creativity" and "Intuition" kind of hit my "light-bulb" (or reminded me of something I take for granted) - it's possible to mis-train your people with "standard responses" which might brain-wash your pilots and trainees into automotons, because they'll rarely - perhaps NEVER - be apprised of the exact circumstances of the engagement - fog of war - pre-programmed responses are futile, even dangerous, because the pilot and crew need the ability (and the freedom) to apply critical thinking in a dynamic combat situation. That's really what "training" is supposed to "hone" and "sharpen", not take away.
Only found your videos a couple weeks ago. Love them! Reminds me of when I used to find this kind of info from Jane's Guides when I was younger. Great research and knowledge.
The most overlooked thing about AAMs is actual production numbers and types of the latest missiles in service. I was almost surprised to learn the Russians still rely on the Ukraine for R-77 production, and have rarely been seen with R-77s on their own fighters, while China and India have purchased and operated with hundreds of the export model R-77 RVV-AE missiles over the past 2 decades. Another overlooked thing is quality control with continuous testing and validation of operational samples against high-maneuverability fighter target drones that employ countermeasures. The US currently shoots QF-16C Block 25/30 target drones with live AIM-120C7 and D AMRAAM variants on a regular basis. What other nations can afford to shoot down their own fighters like that with fully-instrumented test ranges and high fidelity telemetry, with onboard and long range HD cameras tracking everything?
The R-77 was originally developed starting in the 90’s but stalled till the early 2000’s due to the fall of the USSR. R-77 were exported to many countries, but the original R-77 was never accepted in to Russian service (it was seen as sub par compared to what was promised and deemed unnecessary at the time, the R-27 was still a great missile and in many ways it still is). The first R-77 that was accepted into service with Russia was the R-77-1 that had updated seeker head and improved kinematic performance. This was in 2015… and even today, R-77-1’s are outnumbered by R-27’s when spotted on Russian aircraft. People keep saying stuff about the R-77M, which supposedly has an AESA seeker, no lattice fins for improved kinematic performance, and various other performance upgrades, but if we see this missile in service anytime soon it won’t be in large numbers. It will probably get the other R-77 treatment, with a protracted development and induction into service, even more so with sanctions and the Ukraine conflict. In the meantime, they’ve outfitted R-27’s with the Agat 9B-1103K active radar homing seeker, on the extended R-27 airframe designated R-27EA with range of 130km and R-27EM with 170km range, so for the time being it should add to the active radar homing capabilities of the RuAF. The R-77/R-77-1 is still no match for AMRAAM C&D nor is the R-27EA/EM. But in the Ukrainian conflict, they’re still vastly superior to Ukraines old stock of R-27R/ER/T/ET which are 30-40 years old at this point and ARH versions of the R-27 should still prove a potent match for older non updated MiG-29/Su-27. Ukraines AF is completely unequipped to deal with the semi-modern Russian AF, with 30-40 year old Sukhoi 27’s and MiG-29’s that haven’t been updated in decades and have more than likely had sub par maintenance over the years. Against a near peer adversary, like China or the US, the Russian Air Force wouldn’t fare as well.
@@zooweemama911 When we did technical exploitation on the full-up R-27s from East German inventory, they were utter trash, couldn't even hit a straight-and-level target drone over the UK and Florida live fire range complexes. The R-73 was a different story, and had a very high pk in visual range, oncluding off-boresight. I've always wondered how many Western appliances and dual-use electronics the Russians had to acquire to upgrade their R-27 series. R-27 has a lot of volume to play with for sure, but with the state of their pathetic semiconductor industry, and reliance on European and Taiwanese electronics, I just wonder how they would even standardize the components, maintenance, test units, and train personnel to operate those missiles. The fact that they're using Su-34s in low altitude bombing and rocket pod profiles does not reflect well on their weapons industry, as they have lost 10 of them now. These and some other facts make me seriously question their ability to actually improve the R-27 across the fleet.
@@LRRPFco52 This is true; however as is typically the case with Russian export gear it’s probably downgraded to some extent compared to their stock. Iirc correctly as well, those were base version R-27R/T without the extended range and upgraded avionics. Who knows how downgraded they were though. Yes, the R-73 with HMCS was a big surprise to the NATO countries. I think the R-73 was a big part of why the AIM-9X was rushed into development and service, the 9M was too close in performance to the R-73 and we wanted the edge. MUCH of the early work on Soviet air to air weapons was spurred on due to the N Vietnamese sending over jettisoned US A-A weapons, namely the sparrow and sidewinder. The R-13M is almost a carbon copy of the 9D and 9G used by naval aircraft, and obviously the R-3S/K-13A is a 1:1 of the 9B. I have read that early sparrow variants were also copied for development of the Soviets early BVR missile, but this was dropped due to lackluster performance of the early sparrow variants. The war in Ukraine has proven that Russias military is all but inept.
@@zooweemama911 East Germans had full-up MiG-29A 9.12A with the same ECM, IFF, and weapons as Russian VVS. East Germans were so by-the-book that the Russians entrusted them, and they were so forward-deployed relative to USAFE and NATO air forces. Other nations got the monkey model MiG-29A 9.12B without ECM and IFF. Soviets acquired the Honeywell VTAS, and Hughes AIM-9G systems developed for the USN F-4J SEAM in the late 1960s to make the HMS and R-73 for the MiG-29 and Su-27. I've looked at the helmet-tracking boxes from VTAS, as well as those from the MiG-29A, and they copied the shape of the box, circuit architecture, and SERNO/MFG placard tag down to a "T". UK, Taiwanese, and US transistors, integrated circuits, and full boards have been identified in numerous weapons and avionics found in Russian missiles and aircraft wreckages in Ukraine. Their semiconductor industry is a sad and pathetic joke. The only SC company they have that I'm aware of went bankrupt in Dec 2019, and was seized by the government. It begs the question: How will they maintain a developmental and production volume to satisfy the demands of the air, land, and naval forces?
Hi. Thank you for your videos. I think you should get a second, thorough look at how simmers can use DCS in a realistic way. They actually use the strategies you describe as real-life, ie cranking as soon as possible (in BVR) to bleed the enemy's missile energy. And long range missile DO loft in DCS (their guidance algorithms being a very hot topic...) I’m not saying that the numbers are right in the sim, because I don’t know, and even the developers don’t pretend so (but they try to get close). The fact is that real life fighter pilots use this sim/game (for what it is) and seem quite pleased, so... They will emphasise that it’s impossible for a commercial product to simulate everything, and that there are of course areas in which data couldn’t be revealed or/and used, but they also state that the overall experience is pretty accurate. Just saying ;-) Falcon BMS could/should also be stated here as a highly regarded sim platform, but I just don’t use it.
First: thank you a lot for explaining things. A lot of lightbulb moments for me overall. Second: this video had two lightbuld moments for me. One thing in this video I didn't know and had no chance of deducing was that the air-to-air missile actually glides most of its trajectory. The second thing was the load factor rating of missiles. Most of other really important considerations you voiced were a logical consequence of these two or things I already knew. For example, I used to paddle a lot (I still paddle, just not a lot), and there are some maneuvers that feel like exchanging kinetic energy for turn (and the rate is enormous, btw).
Thanx for explaining the fact that an aircraft can," outrun"..a missile. During the SA/Angolan Bushwar..SAAF Mirage F1CZ's,fired certain French designed IR missiles at Mig23BM's in certain dogfights..but the range for engagement rapidly grew outside the IR missiles' kinetic range,and the Migs just lit afterburners and outflew the missiles,which then exploded in the heat tracks,way behind the Migs..where the F1 pilots,out of pure frustration could only look on. This was vividly told in one of our great pilots' books,Vlamgat..the F1story,.by Brig.Dick Lord. When outside of kinetic range..ie about 6 km and growing..it's useless to fire an IR heat seeker!
The airliner I fly has a maximum load factor of 2.5G. But that is really more to do with keeping the aircraft light. I've never heard of someone's bones breaking at 3.8G, perhaps some one with a health issue. Most people are fine at 3G with no training at all which I have done in aerobatics flights. Even a 2G turn requires a bank angle of 60 degrees, which is well above rate one turns used for IFR flying, normally 17-25 degrees angle of bank. The main G loads airliners suffer are in turbulence.
You're overthinking one part and underthinking another part. On a civilian aircraft, you have small children and elderly. No harnesses and no high-g flight suits. If you secure an egg inside a metal tube so it can't move, you can shake it and swing it and spin it with all your strength, egg will be fine. Do the same with much less strength but the egg is able to bounce around, egg will not be fine.
@@EdgewiseSJ you don't need G suits for any of the forces I was talking about. You do need to be seated, but that's about it. Tossing people around in the cabin would be a problem but that's actually about oscillating forces more than the magnitude. +1 to -0.5G oscillations would harm people who are not wearing their seatbelt by virtue of them hitting things and therefore having their weight supported on an object or angle that you would never normally do. Your bones won't break at 3.8G, they will at 1G if you ankle is twisted because you weren't seated and were floating a moment ago. You need to get above 50G to start cracking bones for people with skeletal issues, healthy people can endure over 100G with bruising but no fractures. I have completed high G turns with no flight suit and a normal physique. 6G and -2G respectively. Your egg example is probably not what you think it is. An egg being thrown doesn't brake because it is only being accelerated at a few G. It brakes when is hits a wall because it's being accelerated at a much higher G. When you threw the egg it was say 3G over 1s, this gives a velocity of 30ms. When it hits the wall at 30ms and has to decelerate to zero over 0.1s (Probably less), the G (Which is a measure of acceleration) will be much higher, perhaps 30G or more, and so the egg brakes.
Hi Richard, thanks for watching. Almost the entire channel is dedicated to missiles, there is a playlist here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jr5ntU7ku0s.html if you haven't watched already. If you have any question, remember that there is going to be a Q&A in December, so you can put your questions here tinyurl.com/y4g528lt If you support me on Patreon or Subscribestar you are entitled to unlimited questions ... Cheers!
That is why, all you simmers out there : In a long range engagement, get as much energy going as you can before launch. If you get both a speed and alt. advantage, you can shoot sooner.
Why at 7:30 do you say that the target's movement has very little impact on RMax? You obviously know that's not true because you talk about it later on while talking about dodging missiles. And last second jinks can defeat missiles, particularly if the missile's running out of energy. Missiles can pull more g than jets, sure, but jets have sustained power and can pull 7-9g pretty much whenever they want. A missile that's been off burn for a while might not be able to make a sustained tight turn to continue intercepting, particularly given how fast they stall.
I listened again that point and it may be a bit unclear, actually. What I mean is that the PK of a lob trajectory is less sensitive to target maneuver than a straight one for energy management reasons, not that Rmax doesn't depend at all from the target movement. Coming to the second point: I agree with you, but I wanted to criticize what you see in films and most games, which is the sharp turn in front of a missile with the engine still burning.
If a missile is launch from a f 22 raptor at 60 nautical miles range from your 6 o clock your are dead both the amrams scorpion D missiles will take out both engines and there goes the su 35 boom
Hi I love your video as always. build video about countermeasures it will be very interesting. the quality of information are not matter there is some hater. Go on please
While i agree that you cant outmanouver a modern +20G missile An older missile, say aim9e going mach 2 is going to have a much wider turning circle than a saber or mig17 doing a 10g turn at mach 0.9
9:50 is just not correct from a physics pov. A turn radius of an object turning with 20g while flying 3km/s is wider than a turn radius of an object flying 1km/s with a 9g turn. If the Missile and the plane would fly at the same speed, the g tolerance would be comparable. With the missile being faster, a turn that would mean 9g for a fighter can mean more than 10g for a missile. Evading missiles is possible. Also, missiles aren't flying directly at the target, but anticipate the point of impact. This point of expected impact can be altered by a plane in a tiny amount of time by flipping around and pulling max g the other way.
A lot of AAMs will do 30g and higher. The short amount of time a missile spends in the terminal phase is usually not long enough to allow a practical response like you describe, especially a reversal. If an active seeker missile is dropping down at Mach 2.5 to Mach 3.6, the closure rate shrinks reaction time into a few seconds at most after the maximum ordinate. A fighter aircraft simply can't change speed and direction enough to have a practical effect on terminal guidance, which is why ECM is leaned on so heavily. The best defense is to avoid staying within WEZ after missile approach warning, but active seeker missiles that receive mid-course guidance without triggering the RWR prevent the target fighter from knowing there is a missile homing on it, until the terminal phase where the missile's seeker goes hot. With latest generation of missiles takes these things to new levels of preventing missile cueing detection, ECCM, with more advanced rocket motor propulsion and dual-mode propulsion like on the Meteor. If you're down in thicker air, then there is more ability to maneuver, but if you're that defensive already, you've become a missile magnet anyway.
If you need to use air to air missiles get in the 6 o clock position behing your enemy to fire missiles . Other than that and your enemy will not let you fire . Simple as that becouse your enemy has radar and infrared sensors and will detect you .
This is far too simple of a statement and is void of any real research into actual missile behavior. There have been numerous frontal and frontal/oblique high aspect missile shots dating back to the 1960s, which have only increased in frequency of occurrence once all-aspect IR missiles and active seeker radar missiles were introduced in the 1970s. Rear quadrant missile solutions are only a part of the full spectrum of weapons employment zones.
