Russia unveils scary new air to air missile that "can't miss"

reply to post by combatmaster


My sources are IN that world. Several of them work in fields that would have knowledge of counter systems and would at least hint if there was anything like this out there. Every one of them reacted the same way

reply to post by Zaphod58


This new missile is a game-changer (with the usual 'assuming it works as advertised' caveat), but I'm not sure I buy the "it can't miss" part. Admittedly, I'm working from non-classified sources, but I was under the impression that evasive maneuvers against missiles weren't so much about exceeding the tracking rate of the seeker head as they were about forcing the missile to execute (or attempt to execute) maneuvers that it wasn't aerodynamically capable of performing. If that's the case, won't this new missile be vulnerable to similar tactics?

Also, if memory serves (a caveat I'm having to add more and more frequently), didn't the Japanese have an AAM using this same technology in service a few years ago?

Brother Stormhammer
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

This new missile is a game-changer (with the usual 'assuming it works as advertised' caveat), but I'm not sure I buy the "it can't miss" part. Admittedly, I'm working from non-classified sources, but I was under the impression that evasive maneuvers against missiles weren't so much about exceeding the tracking rate of the seeker head as they were about forcing the missile to execute (or attempt to execute) maneuvers that it wasn't aerodynamically capable of performing. If that's the case, won't this new missile be vulnerable to similar tactics?

Russians have a time proven and honoured tactic. They launch swarms of missiles at a target, not one at a time. Their SAM doctrine was ferried over to AAM class, and its an utter nightmare.

Like the SAM belt, they use multiple types of seeker types, and layered overlap. Its a brutally nasty way to fight and it works. It is why VO was so badly needed across a massive spectrum on the 'ATF'.

An AESA in a missile that Russians developed? seriously now, if I was driving anything bar a Growler or F22 I'd pray daily and nightly to never, ever meet this in the skies. Dodge one? maybe. Three? Have a nice day..

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


That's part of it. The other part is to get out of the sight of the missile and make it lose you by going blind. The problem with the AESA antenna is that the missile is going to be able to react sooner, so you are going to have to let it get closer before starting that maneuver. That means you're going to have to cut it extremely close, and are risking getting into the kill zone of the missile.

Oh and do not over look that one AESA can talk to another AESA. This is important as this missile could in theory get off system targeting information, fly in with its active seeker OFF, then say last two miles go active and wham in for the kill.

reply to post by Astr0


Add in the LPI of AESA, and you have a really frightening concept, where you have three K-77Ms flying along "talking" to each other, and no one sees them coming because of the radar. Even knowing what I know about our black projects, this missile scares the hell out of me.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Astr0

 

Add in the LPI of AESA, and you have a really frightening concept, where you have three K-77Ms flying along "talking" to each other, and no one sees them coming because of the radar. Even knowing what I know about our black projects, this missile scares the hell out of me.

I'd wager a pretty penny that we will within a 3 to 5 year slot see a new fairing or pod hanging off every combat aircraft in the US arsenal - F-35 Included.

reply to post by Astr0


I wouldn't touch that bet for all the gold in the world. I say 5 years is the longest we'll go without seeing it. They're going to dump money that the EW guys have always dreamed about having into defeating this.

Could the russians convert this system for use in other types of rockets? air to ship etc? or is it only air to air?

reply to post by boymonkey74


Theoretically they could, and fairly easily. But the larger missiles, like anti-ship missiles, are easier to detect and defend against (easier in the sense that you can see them in radar as opposed to an air to air missile).

so..strapped onto a Cessna or a hang-glider,one of these missiles could take out some of the most advanced fighters?
epic

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thx for this thread. Sounds to me like more evidence of the hideous genocidal treason of the O, the Destroyer in Chief . . . preventing advances for us; destroying readiness; spending our equipment and manpower willy nilly for naught . . . . etc.

Horrific. May all such evil doers reap what they have sown, and that speedily.

I don't know how far off the US is with its UCAV technology, but I wonder if it will be too far-fetched and impractical to see a manned fighter plane being escorted by a complement of maybe 3 to 4 expendable 'satellite' UCAV's as a defensive component to counter those 'sure-hit' missiles, in maybe 10 years, perhaps? I mean if it all boils down to quantity versus quality, those self-thinking drones could possibly be programmed to distract, jam or maybe even shield or block incoming missiles. You know, sort of like what you see in those classic space arcade games where you get a power-up of tiny escorts circling around your spaceship.

reply to post by smirnoffsky


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by all2human


That 'active protective system' looks quite effective at least for tanks, but I can't seem to imagine fast-moving fighter planes flying under unpredictable weather conditions actually using such a system. And it activates only upon close proximity, so it sounds a bit too risky. I suppose if they can develop a similar air combat counterpart then that would be great.

reply to post by smirnoffsky


I totally agree, but the tech is out there
you can bet the west has some pretty cool tricks too,and isn't advertised..

Zaphod58
reply to post by Astr0

 

They're going to dump money that the EW guys have always dreamed about having into defeating this.

Your lips to God's ears, my friend.

reply to post by Bedlam


Oh I suspect we're going to see money dumped into EW finally that we haven't seen in a long long time. It's about damn time too.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

The biggest part of the US inventory is non-stealthy aircraft like the F-15/F-16, and will be for a very long time at this rate. While the F-22 and F-35 will have a decent survival rate against these, just because of the detection ranges, the non-stealthy fleet is dead. It's just going to be a matter of if they can get their missiles off before they die or not, and if they can get them off in a high enough Pk for them to hit (BVR typically has a very low hit rate).

But yes, it is going to come down to having enough numbers to survive long enough to get into kill range before they get shot down. Until they can come up with a new EW platform and defenses for this, if a fight happens, it's going to be ugly, and not in our favor.

This is where the military's laser weapons and countermeasures program will come in. Current CMWS with it's RDS and LDS sub-components are only adequate for antiquated missile designs such as old MANPADS, and SA systems.

CMWS will soon be getting reworked to not only provide chaff and flare countermeasures, but "hot" laser technology that can either destroy the missile itself or simply incapacitate the guidance system on the nose.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It will miss if it itself is hit with a defending missile!

If the missile has a radar that cannot be evaded, the only way to defeat it would be to either block or jam the radar or shoot the thing with another missile.

The counter to a missile that won't let go is to design a counter missile that replicates it's host aircraft radar signature exactly and using metamaterials incorporated into the aircraft itself, alter the radar properties of the aircraft deploying the counter missile...the missile would have the aircraft's signature locked into it's targetting computer and won't let go...but if the counter missile had a duplicate radar signature, and the aircraft chaged it's own...the missile that won't let go will chase the radar signature it has in it's computer, the counter missile iow and not the aircraft that has changed it's own signature.

Then again, aren't military aircraft being fitted with high power lasers?

Surely a computer could easily target and shoot a sustained burst of laser energy at an incoming missile, whether that missile had a great radar or not? At the very least, this ought to disrupt the missiles targetting systems if not destroy it outright?

failing that...a gun system that can fire 16K rounds a second (short concentrated bursts) would do as well to reduce the threat from such a missile.