Current Russian/Ukrainian AAM projects

So there was a recent aricle about RVV-MD2 being allegedly 10years more advanced than current Western/US short range AAM's.

There were speculations that it's an rebirth of old izd.300/K-30 project.

But KTRV showed it at still ongoing Army-2023 expo, and there are really nothing new to see.

10322390_original.jpg

(photo (c) BMPD)

It's an old R-73 airframe, albeit with new seeker window, which points to a new seeker. And new laser rangefinder for detonator.
However, there is no change in the size of transparent window(like there was with AIM-9X), so there is no improvement in aquisition angle compared to original R-73 (75 degree max, IIRC). Aerodynmic scheme is also unchanged.

So I really don't see how it's more advanced than current AIM-9X/Iris-T/ASRAAM.
 
Last edited:
The promo blurb about md2 also said it features a "multi element dual band seeker"
That doesn't sound like an imaging infrared seeker to me.
 
It does actually - "multi element" might well be a literal translation or circumscription of the Russian term for focal plane array.

The thing is, although a R-73 with a new seeker sounds a bit boring (and sure as hell isn't 10 years ahead of its Western equivalents!) it would be perfectly adequate. The kinematics and aerodynamics of the Archer airframe remain easily competitive, the only real drawback is that its envelope is now very bulky in an era of internal weapons bays.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
It does actually - "multi element" might well be a literal translation or circumscription of the Russian term for focal plane array.

The thing is, although a R-73 with a new seeker sounds a bit boring (and sure as hell isn't 10 years ahead of its Western equivalents!) it would be perfectly adequate. The kinematics and aerodynamics of the Archer airframe remain easily competitive, the only real drawback is that its envelope is now very bulky in an era of internal weapons bays.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's seriously accusing it of being inadequate, but the ET piece and fans of a certain letter on social media have been going on about it being a major advance or even a step-change in capabilities. Rather, it looks like a sensible update of an established system.
 
There are also INS + guidance link, like on BVR missiles. Which implies LOAL and increased range (for excample, older RVV-MD stated to have 40km max range), so with both now included, long-range launches might be more effective.
 
It seems to imply that this isnt the clean sheet izd 300 but instead the R-74m2. Would you guys agree with this? Yeah it is hyperbolic. Though I bet it will indeed be a very good missile. I wonder if this is what is going to be used on the tu-160m as a self defense and anti missile system.
 
Trident said:
It does actually - "multi element" might well be a literal translation or circumscription of the Russian term for focal plane array.

The thing is, although a R-73 with a new seeker sounds a bit boring (and sure as hell isn't 10 years ahead of its Western equivalents!) it would be perfectly adequate. The kinematics and aerodynamics of the Archer airframe remain easily competitive, the only real drawback is that its envelope is now very bulky in an era of internal weapons bays.
Click to expand...
Multi element is often mentioned in english literature when talking about 1980s/1990s infrared seekers. Where several detector elements help defeat flares. Dual band is also often mentioned, usually for short to mid ir wavelengths.
While it could be a mistranslation, it's strange that the manufacturer would not boast about imaging infra red outright, instead of using other, descriptions that are more fitting to older technologies.
 
It seems to me that the rear wings (or whatever they are called) have been reduced in span on the RVV-MD2. Which kinda confirm what we saw in the picture from few years ago first showing what is now known to be the RVV-MD2.
 
Haven't found any mention of it here, but back in 2021 apparently the ukrainians were working on some kind of R-77 derivative called UP-277, differing in having normal instead of lattice rudders.
bmpd.livejournal.com

Проект украинской управляемой авиационной ракеты УП-277

Как сообщают украинские СМИ, украинское государственное предприятие Государственное Киевское конструкторское бюро Луч на проходящей в Киеве с 15 по 18 июня 2021 года очередной оборонно-промышленной выставке Зброя та безпека-2021 впервые представило макет…
bmpd.livejournal.com bmpd.livejournal.com
 
missiles.ru

“Армия-2023”. РВВ-МД2

В соответствии с распространенной в преддверии форума “Армия-2023” информацией, заранее стало известно о том, что будет представлена новая управляемая авиаракета класса “воздух-во…
missiles.ru missiles.ru

Saw this article with images of the new rvv-md2/r-74m2. Looks pretty awesome. Over at russiadefenseforum they were translating some of the info from the brochure. Here are some pics from the article above.

PXL_20230814_083104384-1024x771.jpg

IMG20230814112925-1-1024x770.jpg

PXL_20230814_083301391-1024x771.jpg

IMG20230814112842-1024x770.jpg
 
Specifications:
Maximum launch range (meaning target range, not flyout range): 50km
Max target speed, Mach(km/h): 2(2500)
Warhead: continuous rod
Guidance: INS with mid-course update + passive IR seeker and aero gas dynamic guidance
Launch mass: 117kg
Length x diameter x wigspan (rudders), m: 3.1 x 0.37 x 0.434 (0.385)

lancer21 said:
It seems to me that the rear wings (or whatever they are called) have been reduced in span on the RVV-MD2. Which kinda confirm what we saw in the picture from few years ago first showing what is now known to be the RVV-MD2.
Click to expand...
looks like you're indeed right, here wigspan is stated as 0.434m, official data for R-73 is 0.51m
 
Last edited:
Anduriel said:
Specifications:
Maximum launch range (meaning target range, not flyout range): 50km
Max target speed, Mach(km/h): 2(2500)
Warhead: continuous rod
Guidance: INS with mid-course update + passive IR seeker and aero gas dynamic guidance
Launch mass: 117kg
Length x diameter x wigspan (rudders), m: 3.1 x 0.37 x 0.434 (0.385)
Click to expand...
Say what?
 
Alifzero said:
View attachment 706306Export(?) RVV-MD2 brochure
Click to expand...
RVV-MD2
Specifications:
Launch mass: up to 117kg
Dimensions, mm
Length: 3100
Diameter: 170
Wingspan: 434
Rudder span: 385
Cueing angles:
at pylon: +-60deg
at trajectory: +-180
Target altitude range: 0.02-20km
Max target G load: up to 12
Firing range:
max target front hemisphere: up to 50km
min target rear hemispehere: 0.3km
Seeker and guidance: multi-element two-band IR seeker + INS + mid-course update
Seeker lock on range, target: F-15 frontal hemisphere, engines at MIL thrust, q=15deg, target altitude = 5km, free background: 10km
Cooling system time at uninterrupted readiness mode, with a standard balloon volume of 7.3L, hours: 6/12(using special cyclogram).
Warhed: continuous rod
Warhead weight: 8kg
Detonator: radar detector with lowered restrictions on min altitude, laser detector with increased number of beams
Motor: single-mode rocket motor with increased overall thrust impulse
Max target height difference: 5km
Max target speed: 2500 km/h
Pk, target fighter: 0.6-0.8
GFuided flight time: 38s
Max flight
hours on pylon: 60
Storage time: 10years
 
Last edited:
Good question. I seem to recall that these are pretty normal numbers for Russian/soviet missiles as far as shelf life and air time goes. The seeker arming time span seems much improved tho. I think these are pretty normal figures for times before a required overhaul. I've heard our missiles have longer shelf lives but I'm not sure.
 
Anduriel said:
GFuided flight time: 38s
Max flight
hours on pylon: 60
Storage time: 10years
Click to expand...

That Guided flight time is some good improvement over 23-28 seconds for earlier R-73 variants. The storage time is also improved by about 2 years.

Typical Russian A2A missiles, export at least have storage life of 8 years. The missile come with a "calendar" to predict the remaining life of the missile. This is for RVV-AE.

R-77-3.jpg
 
That's honestly a pretty slick trick, and interesting markings...

I may have to steal that idea for a story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re RVV-MD2/R-74M2, also noticed the first row of control surfaces is gone, so it's only 2 rows now. On the earlier R-73/74 variants there are 3 rows of surfaces on the nose.
 
Last edited:
The first row aren't control surfaces but weather-vaning air-data (AoA/side-slip angle) sensors. These may have become redundant with the introduction of an INS into the guidance system.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I see some discrepancies between the number of missiles claimed per airframe, and the number illustrated (with the latter being plausible).

However, it does seem to support the idea that the RVV-BD isn't cleared for internal stowage.

I've generally assumed that an I-810 derived ("R-37 class") missile was being developed for the PAK-FA, given that ti appears to have 700kg ejectors and given the potential benefits of having the additional kinematic performance and seeker diametre (which allows more development potential/growth in performance to match low observable targets). However, I suppose it might also be plausible that the stealth configuration of the Su-75 will be limited to the RRV-SD, with the RVV-BD class weapons carried externally only?
 
I've seen a snippet of info that says the Su-57 could carry up to 10 Izd. 810 AAMs (tailored for internal carriage), 4 in the bays, 4 under the wings and 2 under intakes. There was also a R- designation, though not sure if that info is supposed to be public

Probably such a configuration is as likely as the F-14 carrying 6 AIM-54s operationally, ie most likely not in any day to day operations.

Given the above, i guess the Su-57E could carry up to a maximum of 6 RVV-BDs (R-37M, Izd. 610M iirc) under wings and intakes, since the RVV-BD is not tailored for internal carriage.
 
Avimimus said:
However, it does seem to support the idea that the RVV-BD isn't cleared for internal stowage.

I've generally assumed that an I-810 derived ("R-37 class") missile was being developed for the PAK-FA, given that ti appears to have 700kg ejectors and given the potential benefits of having the additional kinematic performance and seeker diametre (which allows more development potential/growth in performance to match low observable targets). However, I suppose it might also be plausible that the stealth configuration of the Su-75 will be limited to the RRV-SD, with the RVV-BD class weapons carried externally only?
Click to expand...

TMA1's post provides the answer: RVV-BD =/= Izd. 810. So yes, the former (which is basically the R-37M in Russian domestic service) cannot be carried inside the Su-57 bays (chiefly because only the upper control surface pair folds), whereas the Izd. 810 can.
 
Last edited:
Some range estimates based on the dimensions. This time i assume 4.2 m length.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1745294250907197517
View: https://vxtwitter.com/Flankerchan/status/1745294250907197517


The modeled trajectory would be Loft glide (or boost glide) and Boost-coast "direct fire". For launching condition, two conditions are estimated. Subsonic (M 0.9) and Supersonic/supercruise (M 1.5) With launch altitude of 12000 meter. Target are assumed to be in 10000 meter for Loft glide which, typical operational altitude of an AEW aircraft. While for "direct fire" are Co altitude which could be representative for fighter aircraft.

The assumed launch weight would be 650 Kg. Heavier than Izd 610 (RVV-BD) As i use methods of estimate from E Fleeman's tactical missile design. The weight prediction there actually assume 671 Kg which i corrected (well Agat seeker is light afterall + Digital IMU and autopilot) to 650 Kg.

Propellant load is assumed to be 250 Kg. The weight breakdown is as follows :

1704953461666.png

Engine + accs is the weight of the rocket motor casing and nozzles without the propellant. GCS stands for Guidance and Control System. The battery is surprisingly heavy as i assume Thermal battery, 10 KW power requirement for 700 seconds of flight (100 seconds more than R-33).

The resulting range with those assumptions :

1704954500773.jpeg

and speed-range diagram
1704954535888.jpeg

Well one can see 11-12% increase in range from supersonic launch. Also visible the Apogee. Could be excessive tho.
 
Can you perhaps add a lofted trajectory that doesn't go quite that high? An apogee of 30 - 40km would ensure the missile does not spend so much time at altitudes where air density (or rather lack thereof) precludes course correction by aerodynamic control surfaces. Your lofted trajectories basically have the missile unable to react to even mild mid-course updates for 300 of the 450km flight, which may then require very aggressive turning during the final 50km or so. Even against an AEW aircraft that's probably a bit tight (it flies a race track, rather than a nicely predictable straight line).
 
Last edited:
Avimimus said:
I'm quite curious about how increased diametre and weight (i.e. more battery) could possibly be used to improve seeker performance
Click to expand...

Increased battery endurance allows the missile to still able to guide itself, long even after motor burn out, allowing high apogee glide phase where the missile using its control surfaces to do things like energy management maneuver and of course use of higher power radar seeker.

While large diameter is basically allows larger antenna means longer range and narrower beamwidth which basically improved angular resolution. The following is some benefit of larger diameter missile

1704992455660.png

Trident said:
Can you perhaps add a lofted trajectory that doesn't go quite that high? An apogee of 30 - 40km would ensure the missile does not spend so much time at altitudes where air density (or rather lack thereof) precludes course correction by aerodynamic control surfaces. Your lofted trajectories basically have the missile unable to react to even mild mid-course updates for 300 of the 450km flight, which may then require very aggressive turning during the final 50km or so. Even against an AEW aircraft that's probably a bit tight (it flies a race track, rather than a nicely predictable straight line).
Click to expand...

Sure thing, which obtained by adjusting the angle of the missile during coast, with something flatter. In this one it's where the Apogee is limited to Below 45 Km. Not giving the previous 400+ km range but still respectable 300-350 Km. Maybe it can reach more if i can assume higher L/D (In my model for glide phase, i assume L/D ratio of 3). The missile also retain somehow more "energy" in shape of velocity.

Range-HeightVelocity-range
1704992646014.png 1704992686471.png
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom