OKB-4/Bisnovat/Molniya R-98 "Advanced Anab" AAM

[Blitzer9856]

(R-98MR under the right wing, R-98MT under the left wing)

I was kind of surprised when I didn't find a thread on this missile. I decided to compile the information I personally know about it and start a thread.

From my personal writing:

The R-98 used to be the main weapon of the Su-15TM Flagon interceptor. Its semi-active radar-homing derivative was the one used to shoot down the Korean Airliner during the year of 1983.

Originally conceived as the R-8, it was soon modified to the R-8M ("M" for "modifitseerovannaya" (modified)), made compatible with aircraft equipped with the Oyrol radar, mostly used on the Sukhoi Su-11 interceptor.

The R-8M, also came in 1961 in two variants: the R-8MT, and the R-8MR (IR and SARH respectively). Those were also improved into the R-8MT1 and R-8MR1, which saw an increased operational altitude envelope, to 300 m - 23,000 m and it is thanks to the improved autopilot and newer seeker heads; especially the R-8MT1, the new IR seeker head gave it round-the-clock capability. Changes have also been made to the missiles' airframes, featuring reinforced wings enabling them to turn tighter at low altitudes.

Two years later (in 1963), the R-98 was conceived as the main weapon of the Su-15. Based on the older R-8, new models of each the IR and SARH deriatives were conceived. The objective was to improve on their reliability and nose immunity to countermeasures, as well as increasing their power supply. The changes that ocurred were promising; the IR version became all-aspect (beat the US by 15 years in all-aspect IR missile seekers!), featuring the new TGS-14T seeker-head, while the SARH version received the more reliable PARG-14-VV. The autopilot and fuse were also improved, and the rear-fairing was reshaped to become perfectly cylindrical instead of the tapered design. The new missiles were designated R-98R and R-98T. Another important change was the new PRD-143 rocket motor, which unlike the older PRD-141 of the R-8, produced 13,400 kgf of thrust instead of 11,200 kgf.

As the Su-15 interceptor evolved into the Su-15TM, so did the R-98. A new PARG-16 semi-active radar-homing seeker head was installed in the R-98R which improved its reliability. Other than that however, not much changed. The new missiles were designated R-98MR and R-98MT (SARH and IR respectively). The main changes were to make the previous R-98s compatible with the Taifoon-M radar of the Su-15TM.

The R-98MR was capable of engaging targets from 2,000 - 21,000 m in head-on mode, and from 500 m - 24,000 m in pursuit mode, and its maximum kill range was 24 km in head-on and 16 km in pursuit.

These missiles were usually loaded under PU-2-8 racks. The usual setup was two GSh-23 guns in two gunpods, R-60/R-60M dogfight missiles and two R-98MR or R-98MT AAMs or one of each (so 2 x R-60/R-60M + 1 x R-98MR + 1 x R-98MT sometimes).

Quoting:

The usual setup was two R-60/R-60M dogfight missiles and two R-98MR or R-98MT AAMs or one of each (so 2 x R-60/R-60M + 1 x R-98MR + 1 x R-98MT sometimes).

Despite this, in some cases the Su-15TM had the APU-60-2 / APU-60-II launchers which allowed it to carry four R-60/R-60Ms and two R-98s, bringing the count to six missiles.



I think it's impressive that the USSR had all-aspect heat-seeking missiles in 1963, although possibly the worst ones in history.

The specifications for the R-98MR are as follows, from my information:

• Length: 4.18 m (164.56 in)
• Wingspan: 1.22 m (48 in)
• Body Diameter: 275 mm (12.2 in)
• Weight: 285 kg (628 lb)
• Speed: Mach 2
• Burn time: 2.5 - 6s
• Flight time: 40s
• Propulsion: PRD-143 single-stage solid rocket propellant motor (thrust: 13,400 kgf)
• Warhead: 40 kg (88 lb) HE
• Guidance: Semi-Active Radar-Homing
• Range: 24 km max (15 mi)
• G overload (launch limit): 3G
• G overload (target): 3G
• G overload (Air): 14G
• IRCM: No
• ECCM: No
• Aspect: All-Aspect

 

[GARGEAN]

I have a HUGE doubt that IR version was all aspect. I have a big suspicion that confusion comes from SARH version of R-98 becoming front engagement capable over R-8. There is extremely little possibility for IR one to be all aspect in those years, aside from using photocontrast guidance like on Strela-1, but then it would have even more limitations than already limited by atmospheric conditions Strela-1.

 

[Blitzer9856]

I have a HUGE doubt that IR version was all aspect. I have a big suspicion that confusion comes from SARH version of R-98 becoming front engagement capable over R-8. There is extremely little possibility for IR one to be all aspect in those years, aside from using photocontrast guidance like on Strela-1, but then it would have even more limitations than already limited by atmospheric conditions Strela-1.

According to "Soviet-Russian Aircraft Weapons Since WW2" by Yefim Gordon p.41:

The R-98T is equipped with a new infrared TGS-14T seeker head having all-aspect, day/night engagement capability, with an attendant change in the shape and size of the foremost body section. The latter is divided into two bays housing the seeker head proper and its liquid nitrogen cooling system.

I don't believe its all aspect capability was as efficient as the all aspect missiles from the late 70s into the 80s, but it seems that it still had it regardless.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It sounds like a second generation cooled PbS (lead sulphide) or at best PbSe (lead selenide) seeker. This might have a limited head-on-ish capability against a bomber-sized target like a B-58 in full afterburner - normally its more like rear and side versus rear only for uncooled PbS. R-98 was the first SARH AAM in the USSR with head-on capability (R-8 was designed for tailchase engagements only), so I think Gordon's got a bit confused here.

This is nothing at all unusual in the timeframe cited (e.g. Falcon, AIM-9D, R-13M) and inferior to Red Top which had an early InSb (indium antimonide) seeker.

 

[Blitzer9856]

R-98 was the first SARH AAM in the USSR with head-on capability (R-8 was designed for tailchase engagements only), so I think Gordon's got a bit confused here.

Isn't that the R-3R?

And in the book he explicitly refers to the IR model, and right after mentioning the new IR seeker he includes the all aspect capability. Can't be confused with the SARH model.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

If you think Yefim Gordon can't be confused about something then you clearly havent been reading his books very carefully.

R-98 clearly uses a new cooled seeker. I'm less inclined to believe it was all aspect except in very limited situations, and aby suggestion it was early or exceptional in this is plainly incorrect. You might want to read some of the Russian language sources directly.

 

[Blitzer9856]

If you think Yefim Gordon can't be confused about something then you clearly havent been reading his books very carefully.

I'm a reader of his books for a few years now, I know he sometimes he makes several mistakes, but I think this is a case where it's just unreasonable for him to make a mistake.

I'm less inclined to believe it was all aspect except in very limited situations

That's what I'm thinking..

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A very much better source for you:

missiles.ru :: russian missile technology

The K-8 family used various revisions of the S1 IR seeker. Early missiles used successively the S1/S1-200/S1-U. The R-8M used the S1D-58 version and R-8M1 S1D-58M. s far as I can tell they were all uncooled lead sulphide seekers.

The R-98 was just slightly ahead of the R-23 AAM in timings, and the TGS-14T seeker used on the R-98 seems technically the same - nitrogen cooled cooled lead sulphide.

For comparison, the similar (possibly better) R-24T seeker has a headon range of 3km against a cruising F-16, which isn;t terribly good, but can lock onto a Mach 3 SR-71 at 49km. So my point stands. Cooled lead sulphide seekers were hardly new in the mid 1960s - see the Hughes AIM-4 Falcon series.

Incidentally Yefim's book Soviet Russian Aircraft Weapons since WW2 misrepresents the relationships between the different OKBs involved in missiles.

K-5 was designed from 1948 by Department 32 of Beria's KB-1 organisation under D.L. Tomashevich. After Beria's demise, the team was transferred to the newly formed OKB-2 under Grushin. In 1956 Grushin OKB stopped work on improving K-5 to concentrate on the new K-6, and K-5 design work was transferred to KB-455, a small bureau newly formed at the Kalingrad missile factory which was producing the K-5 in series.

OKB-2 later became known as Fakel and after the K-6 proved disappointing largely specialised in surface-to-air missiles, while KB-445 became Zvezda and moved to specialising in air-to-surface missiles starting with Kh-23 (its K-5 lineage being obvious).

OKB-4 Bisnovat / Molniya and OKB-134 Toropov / Vympel competed from the 1950s onwards with the K-8/K-7 missiles respectively. OKB-4 were the early leaders with the K-8, but Toropov got the job of reverse-engineering the AIM-9 Sidewinder, and the two OKBs competed fairly evenly until 1977 when, on the death of Bisnovat, OKB-4 was merged into OKB-134 Vympel.

I don't see any reason for the R-98 being called "Kalingrad" - it was an OKB-4 design, not a KB-455 design. It was most likely mass produced at the Kalingrad factory, but this is not relevant. I've renamed the topic accordingly.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

R-98 was the first SARH AAM in the USSR with head-on capability (R-8 was designed for tailchase engagements only), so I think Gordon's got a bit confused here.

And in the book he explicitly refers to the IR model, and right after mentioning the new IR seeker he includes the all aspect capability. Can't be confused with the SARH model.

Strictly speaking, he is correct in that both R-98R and T were able to be fired head-on if they could achieve a lockon. However, only the juiciest of targets in full afterburner would be detected at any useful range.

The comment "beat the US by 15 years in all-aspect IR missile seekers" is bogus nonsense. I hope that was your phrase and not Gordons, but either way it betrays a total lack of knowledge of AAM development.

 

[Blitzer9856]

The comment "beat the US by 15 years in all-aspect IR missile seekers" is bogus nonsense. I hope that was your phrase and not Gordons, but either way it betrays a total lack of knowledge of AAM development.

I'm not biased, don't take it harshly, I didn't mean it the way you think it was. Obviously my statement not his.

Strictly speaking, he is correct in that both R-98R and T were able to be fired head-on if they could achieve a lockon. However, only the juiciest of targets in full afterburner would be detected at any useful range.

This is what I meant. Regardless of how bad or how strict the frontal lock-on conditions were for the R-98T and MT, they were still all aspect and technically the first ones in the world. But if we're talking all aspect missiles with consistent and good head-on lock conditions that goes to the US with their AIM-9L from 1978.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This is what I meant. Regardless of how bad or how strict the frontal lock-on conditions were for the R-98T and MT, they were still all aspect and technically the first ones in the world. But if we're talking all aspect missiles with consistent and good head-on lock conditions that goes to the US with their AIM-9L from 1978.

Erm. No.

Hughes AIM-4G Super Falcon - 1959 - had a nitrogen-cooled PbS seeker technically very similar with limited all-aspect capability.
Red Top was tested from 1961 and entered service in 1964 as an all-aspect missile with a cooled InSb seeker.

That's two prior examples off the top of my head.

In the later 1960s the Navy AIM-9D (nitrogen cooled PbS) and Air Force AIM-9E (Peltier cooled PbS) were also similar.

Please do some basic research before making such statements.

 

[Blitzer9856]

This is what I meant. Regardless of how bad or how strict the frontal lock-on conditions were for the R-98T and MT, they were still all aspect and technically the first ones in the world. But if we're talking all aspect missiles with consistent and good head-on lock conditions that goes to the US with their AIM-9L from 1978.

Erm. No.

Hughes AIM-4G Super Falcon - 1959 - had a nitrogen-cooled PbS seeker technically very similar with limited all-aspect capability.
Red Top was tested from 1961 and entered service in 1964 as an all-aspect missile with a cooled InSb seeker.

That's two prior examples off the top of my head.

In the later 1960s the Navy AIM-9D (nitrogen cooled PbS) and Air Force AIM-9E (Peltier cooled PbS) were also similar.

Please do some basic research before making such statements.

My bad, forgot about them. It's just an honest mistake.

I'm sure the AIM-9E and D were only rear though..

 

[GARGEAN]

but I think this is a case where it's just unreasonable for him to make a mistake.

It's not just not unreasonable, it's an obvious mistake.

 

[GARGEAN]

I don't see any reason for the R-98 being called "Kalingrad" - it was an OKB-4 design, not a KB-455 design. It was most likely mass produced at the Kalingrad factory, but this is not relevant. I've renamed the topic accordingly.

It's Kaliningrad, not Kalingrad, if we want to be precise)

 

[Bruno Anthony]

This is what I meant. Regardless of how bad or how strict the frontal lock-on conditions were for the R-98T and MT, they were still all aspect and technically the first ones in the world. But if we're talking all aspect missiles with consistent and good head-on lock conditions that goes to the US with their AIM-9L from 1978.

Erm. No.

Hughes AIM-4G Super Falcon - 1959 - had a nitrogen-cooled PbS seeker technically very similar with limited all-aspect capability.
Red Top was tested from 1961 and entered service in 1964 as an all-aspect missile with a cooled InSb seeker.

That's two prior examples off the top of my head.

In the later 1960s the Navy AIM-9D (nitrogen cooled PbS) and Air Force AIM-9E (Peltier cooled PbS) were also similar.

Please do some basic research before making such statements.

My bad, forgot about them. It's just an honest mistake.

I'm sure the AIM-9E and D were only rear though..

It’s not your fault. It’s the Yefim Gordon effect:
“The USSR in the 1950s already had Galaxy’s first photon torpedo made by OKB made up of formerly tractor engineers, given no resources but the threat from the Klingons had to be met!”

Find better resources or at least stay away from bad ones.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Russia made some good AAMs - few people would argue against the R-73 being an excellent weapon. The US could have made something equivalent or even superior a little earlier with AIM-95 AGILE but decided AIM-9L was 'good enough'. It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Not sure the R-98 would be top of anyone's list though.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

I think it wouldn't have been enough to overturn other Western advantages overall, but it would have been a nasty equalizing factor.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

I think it wouldn't have been enough to overturn other Western advantages overall, but it would have been a nasty equalizing factor.

An unpleasant surprise made worse by the fact of considerable research into helmet sights and HOBS missiles in the early 70s.

 

[isayyo2]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

I think it wouldn't have been enough to overturn other Western advantages overall, but it would have been a nasty equalizing factor.

An unpleasant surprise made worse by the fact of considerable research into helmet sights and HOBS missiles in the early 70s.

Not just research, but how many F-4s went out to the fleet with VTAS? A few dozen F-4N/Js for several years and abandoned by 1980.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

I think it wouldn't have been enough to overturn other Western advantages overall, but it would have been a nasty equalizing factor.

An unpleasant surprise made worse by the fact of considerable research into helmet sights and HOBS missiles in the early 70s.

Not just research, but how many F-4s went out to the fleet with VTAS? A few dozen F-4N/Js for several years and abandoned by 1980.

Well said, I forgot about that. Did/does the USAF have a clue as to air to air missiles? USN always seems ahead of the game.

 

[isayyo2]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

I think it wouldn't have been enough to overturn other Western advantages overall, but it would have been a nasty equalizing factor.

An unpleasant surprise made worse by the fact of considerable research into helmet sights and HOBS missiles in the early 70s.

Not just research, but how many F-4s went out to the fleet with VTAS? A few dozen F-4N/Js for several years and abandoned by 1980.

Well said, I forgot about that. Did/does the USAF have a clue as to air to air missiles? USN always seems ahead of the game.

I bet there are some hints in the AIM-82/95 thread

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The USN were well aware of the potential of HMS + wide angle seekers on AAMs. VTAS with Sidewinder wasn't really worth the cost though. Agile was cancelled for cost-saving which made VTAS pointless, plus the US was already looking at developing full HMDs.

AIM-82 info is scarce but I think it was more of an R-60 / AA-8 APHID in size and a dedicated dogfight weapon where AGILE was quite a bit larger.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

It would have hurt a bit to discover that mistake.

Putting it very politely.

I think it wouldn't have been enough to overturn other Western advantages overall, but it would have been a nasty equalizing factor.

An unpleasant surprise made worse by the fact of considerable research into helmet sights and HOBS missiles in the early 70s.

Not just research, but how many F-4s went out to the fleet with VTAS? A few dozen F-4N/Js for several years and abandoned by 1980.

Well said, I forgot about that. Did/does the USAF have a clue as to air to air missiles? USN always seems ahead of the game.

I bet there are some hints in the AIM-82/95 thread

Some of those posts are mines, AvWeek article links related to AIM95.

 

[pathology_doc]

Having a 12 inch body diameter is going to let you put a much bigger IR seeker in there, which might translate to increased sensitivity and the capability to make head-on attacks in 1963. If we can ascribe all-aspect ability to Red Top (as we have been doing since 1963), why not this? I think that claim is reasonable, although what you can lock on to with a Red Top or R-98 in the forward quarter is going to be very different from what a modern (2021) IR seeker can handle.

 

[Blitzer9856]

Having a 12 inch body diameter is going to let you put a much bigger IR seeker in there, which might translate to increased sensitivity and the capability to make head-on attacks in 1963. If we can ascribe all-aspect ability to Red Top (as we have been doing since 1963), why not this? I think that claim is reasonable, although what you can lock on to with a Red Top or R-98 in the forward quarter is going to be very different from what a modern (2021) IR seeker can handle.

Exactly

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Having a 12 inch body diameter is going to let you put a much bigger IR seeker in there, which might translate to increased sensitivity and the capability to make head-on attacks in 1963. If we can ascribe all-aspect ability to Red Top (as we have been doing since 1963), why not this? I think that claim is reasonable, although what you can lock on to with a Red Top or R-98 in the forward quarter is going to be very different from what a modern (2021) IR seeker can handle.

I wasn't saying it wouldn't have limited all-aspect capability, I was disputing Yefim's assertion it was the first missile to have this prior to AIM-9L. 1963 is the start of R-98 design, not in-service date. Su-15 didn't enter service until 1968, R-98 a little later. AIM-9L entered service in 1976-1977, so 15 years is a total fabrication on Yefim's part even if you accept that R-98 was "all-aspect".

Prior art clearly existed not least Red Top whose seeker is technically superior to a cooled PbS seeker in all-aspect capability which is what the R-98 had.

 

[pathology_doc]

Having a 12 inch body diameter is going to let you put a much bigger IR seeker in there, which might translate to increased sensitivity and the capability to make head-on attacks in 1963. If we can ascribe all-aspect ability to Red Top (as we have been doing since 1963), why not this? I think that claim is reasonable, although what you can lock on to with a Red Top or R-98 in the forward quarter is going to be very different from what a modern (2021) IR seeker can handle.

I wasn't saying it wouldn't have limited all-aspect capability, I was disputing Yefim's assertion it was the first missile to have this prior to AIM-9L. 1963 is the start of R-98 design, not in-service date. Su-15 didn't enter service until 1968, R-98 a little later. AIM-9L entered service in 1976-1977, so 15 years is a total fabrication on Yefim's part even if you accept that R-98 was "all-aspect".

Prior art clearly existed not least Red Top whose seeker is technically superior to a cooled PbS seeker in all-aspect capability which is what the R-98 had.

OK fair enough; it seems more like an oversight on his part then.

 

[Blitzer9856]

From the Su-15TM's technical operations manual..