Für Suchoi.Net, habe Dir mal den thread aus dem englischen Forum kopiert. Vielleicht kannst DU daraus was gebrauchen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does any one have any clue about the real combat range of the R-73 ? some sources say 30 km and some say 11 ! and when it is in visual guidance patern , what would be the range ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working in the field of IR spectroscopy with some russian colleagues I had the opportunity of using some russian IR transparent windows available at low price from russia. The quality of these products is very low by every standard (poor industrialzation, polishing, thickness, contamination by lubricant ...). So I would regard with care every claim of superior performance in the field of IR sensor (seeker head or IRST, FLIR, missile warning systems ...).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With other words, Torpedo, you mean if the window in front of the seaker-head of the R-73 is not "clear" enough because of low quality of production, the missile will not be able to acquire targets over extended ranges?
To be more precise reg. Kfadrat's question, the data available around in the West (a good example is the article by David Hughes, "Russians Offer AA-11s to McDonnell Douglas," Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 4, 1995, p. 25) state, that with the help of the HMS, the R-73M1 (which was sold to - for example - India, Germany, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, China, and was tested by the PLAAF in March 1996 against flares) is supposedly capable of being fired against targets at 45° off-boresight and up to a range of 12.4 miles. The R-73M2 up to 60° off-boresight at a range of 18.6 miles.
From what I understand, such ranges don't mean, that a MiG-29 or Su-27 will now be able to really fire at targets under given circumstances and at exactly such long ranges, but rather, that they will be able to fire at targets at high off-boresight angles, that the missile will be able to make high-g turns along parabolic tracks (thus travelling over longer distances) without loosing the energy and still remaining locked-on on the target.
BTW, the same article claimed, that the Russians are developing the R-73M3, with 90° off-boresight capability and that for BVR engagements the R-73 can be cued with the IRST of the Su-27s.
In another article by the same author (David Hughes, "Luftwaffe Mig Pilots Effective with Archer," Aviation Week and Space Technology, October 16, 1995, p. 39) it was claimed, that during mock combats in 1994, German MiG-29-pilots were not only able to outmanoeuver US F-16s in 60% of engagements, but also to acquire their opponents with the help of the HMS and the R-73 at much longer ranges.
Compared to R-73, the AIM-9M supposedly is capable only of acquisition at 27.5° off-boresight and up to distances of 4.8 miles.
However, these advertised performances might not have anything in common with the reality.
AKM74 indicated one possible weakness (see "What's with AIM-9X bashing"): "Also R73 probably lacks processing power for the seeker, which would limit its ECCM capability compared to the AIM9M, even if it does have superior capabilities in other areas."
Additionally, Percy mentioned in the discussion "F-14 and its performances" (Section "Aircraft Performances"), that the R-73 "is not really much better than an AIM-9L. The current service version (R-73M) does not have the expanded off-boresight acquisition capability, or the nifty stuff that Vympel are said to have put into the R-73M-2 missile. However, the 'Dash-Two' is still not in production and may never be. Some rumours have been rattling around recently about French tests which have shown the missile to be very flare hungry. Think AIM-9M-1/2. Reports from Africa say performance is very patchy. The R-73 looks increasingly like another immature Russian 'superweapon' used by the West to scare up funds for missile procurement."
Consequently, IMHO, it is now a question how much do the bad standards of the production and lower level of available technology of different items for the R-73 - as indicated by Torpedo - influence (in negative sense, as Percy pointed) the capability of the R-73 to acquire targets - foremost - at advertised ranges and off-boresight angles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit surprised and sceptical about this supposed flare-hungriness of R-73. It doesn't really take all that much signal processing to build a pretty flare-resistant seeker and if the Russians could do it even with lowly MANPADS, one would figure they could do it with a big R-73 as well. I could imagine that under certain aspect angles the very first variants might go for flares if they don't have dual-band IR/UV seekers (I don't know - do they?), but surely not on a regular basis and surely not the later models...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that with the R-73 having a dual-band IR/UV seeker is a matter of some discussions. Some people swear it is equipped with such, other say it is not.
BTW, some interesting photos and explanations about testing of R-73 can be found here:
aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/R-73.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the R-73s
Our Air Force uses R-73M1s (reportedly only a quantity of 44 was acquired for 28 MiG-29s...) so I have some infos about it. For me it's a world-beater...but just on paper, folks.
Tose ranges are not real at all, and as with all missiles, drops down heavily from rear aspect and low level. That 30+ km is just a theoretical ballistic data. When one has to calculate the firing-range borders for example...you know if you launch this from high level, it can fly as far as 30 km and can hit a fisherman in the head...
One of the big setbacks of the Archer is the limitation imposed on delta h between launcher and target. It's just 3000 meters (10000ft). Somebody compared nine limas and mikes to R-73s...I don't think Sidewinder has the same limitation (Falklands shot from dive against a low flyer, delta h around 5 km).
The dead zone around the sun is 15 degree, with AIM-9L it's just 5.
About flare/tgt discrimination...it's all about flare frequency. A well timed salvo of flares can misguide anything, from close in it can white out even IIR seekers. In the Archer which uses a sensitive, but "traditional" seeker, several circuits of IRCCM is built – for the weaponeers I talked to it's invincible, altough the above mentioned method made them thinking a bit. Actually there's a number given with every IR-seeker on the freq of flares it can successfully discriminate (it' measured in 1/s). It's not about high-tech, it's just physics: with enough false IR-sources it's possible to suppress that of the real tgt. Turn down gain? Lose sensistivity below the level of the real target...
I think it's enough of R-73 for today.
Anyway, did you know that the 'guaranteed' service life of the R-73 after removed from it's storage container is just ONE year? With flight hours it falls down rapidly...
(Not just Russian missiles have these problems, just look at R-530,-550 performance during Deny Flight and Allied Force...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the latest GAO report on the F-18E/F.
An AMRAAM on a regular jet might get 350-400 flying hours before it is beat to death.
On the F-18E/F it is......... 50 hours (lots of vibration) they are concerned about all the other weapons it can hang. Hopefully they can fix this....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about a 9L missile hitting anybody at low level from 5km away in a tail chase?
You said: >One of the big setbacks of the Archer is the limitation imposed on delta h between launcher and target. It's just 3000 meters (10000ft). Somebody compared nine limas and mikes to R-73s...I don't think Sidewinder has the same limitation (Falklands shot from dive against a low flyer, delta h around 5 km).<
FLT LT Dave Morgan said on describing FLT LT Bertie Penfold's shot on an Argentinian Nesher (..I mean Dagger) on 1/5/82 that 'it definitely was a long shot' and this was a kill achieved in a high altitude fight and from a distance of around 5 km. At low level I doubt that a 9L could shoot somebody down from 5km and certain that no Falklands kills at low level were achieved from 5km. In fact LT Dave Smith of 800NAS killed an A-4 on 8/6/82 and he thought his missile barely reached the Skyhawk that was flying at sea level around 3km away (2miles). I believe Dagger killer LT Martin Hale of 800NAS fired a 9L but missed on 21/5/82 from a SIMILAR range as that Dave Smith fired on 8/6/82 (ie. not much more than 3km) and the missile fell short. 2 days later of course in a very similar intercept he fired at a Dagger from 800 meters away only and didn't miss... It is interesting that 800NAS had a nearly 86% PK (Probability of Kill) as it shot down 12 argentinian fighters in 14 launches! Martin Hale fired just on the edge of the envelope hoping to catch the Dagger that was moving west very fast but just fell short... and Clive Morrell (as already mentioned by me and Tomcat in the 'Past conflicts' section) had a missile suffering a malfunction after launch - probably the only malfunction in 26 launches...all in all a nearly perfect performance from both pilots and missile...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------