Ameircan Planes vs. Russian Planes

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Much of the AA-11's performance has turned out to be myth. The effective range is basically the same as the AIM-9M, and the seeker is inferior in some respects because of lower optics qaulity. It however have a somewhat bigger warhead going for it and vectored thrust which bleeds off less energy then using all fins.

Really, that's interesting. But I've also been told that the Americans weren't guessing by claims alone. They actually managed to get a couple Archers to play with, and those tests supposedly said it was a superior weapon. What made them do a re-evaluation?

May I ask whether they decided that the large off-boresight quality was also a myth? After all, it was used in mock sims.

[phongn]

Much of the AA-11's performance has turned out to be myth. The effective range is basically the same as the AIM-9M, and the seeker is inferior in some respects because of lower optics qaulity. It however have a somewhat bigger warhead going for it and vectored thrust which bleeds off less energy then using all fins.

Really, that's interesting. But I've also been told that the Americans weren't guessing by claims alone. They actually managed to get a couple Archers to play with, and those tests supposedly said it was a superior weapon. What made them do a re-evaluation?

May I ask whether they decided that the large off-boresight quality was also a myth? After all, it was used in mock sims.

That maneuverability advantage may have been enough to clinch it.

[The Dark]

Much of the AA-11's performance has turned out to be myth. The effective range is basically the same as the AIM-9M, and the seeker is inferior in some respects because of lower optics qaulity. It however have a somewhat bigger warhead going for it and vectored thrust which bleeds off less energy then using all fins.

Really, that's interesting. But I've also been told that the Americans weren't guessing by claims alone. They actually managed to get a couple Archers to play with, and those tests supposedly said it was a superior weapon. What made them do a re-evaluation?

May I ask whether they decided that the large off-boresight quality was also a myth? After all, it was used in mock sims.

That maneuverability advantage may have been enough to clinch it.

That would make sense given the post earlier stating that they wanted Archers until the AIM-9X came out, since the -9X is supposed to be vectored thrust (IIRC).

[Sea Skimmer]

Much of the AA-11's performance has turned out to be myth. The effective range is basically the same as the AIM-9M, and the seeker is inferior in some respects because of lower optics qaulity. It however have a somewhat bigger warhead going for it and vectored thrust which bleeds off less energy then using all fins.

Really, that's interesting. But I've also been told that the Americans weren't guessing by claims alone. They actually managed to get a couple Archers to play with, and those tests supposedly said it was a superior weapon. What made them do a re-evaluation?

May I ask whether they decided that the large off-boresight quality was also a myth? After all, it was used in mock sims.

Most of the claims about the Archer came between the time Germany was unified and when the USAF got a bunch of them from Moldova along with a regiment of real Soviet specs MiG-29's. After the US tore them apart it was found that some things that where assumed at first glance where incorrect.

Off boresight is real, but how effective it is is unknown, and the sighting system weighs alot. Thats fine for attack helo pilots, but pulling high G's it can greatly strain a pilots neck.

[Vympel]

Most of the claims about the Archer came between the time Germany was unified and when the USAF got a bunch of them from Moldova along with a regiment of real Soviet specs MiG-29's. After the US tore them apart it was found that some things that where assumed at first glance where incorrect.

Off boresight is real, but how effective it is is unknown, and the sighting system weighs alot. Thats fine for attack helo pilots, but pulling high G's it can greatly strain a pilots neck.

?? NATO pilots have been training against the Luftwaffe MiG-29s for the past decade. They used the HMS versus Archer combination all the time against their opponents- the German Fulcrum pilots called it Grand Slam. They've had plenty of time to figure out how effective it is- their's an article on it on Lockheed's magazine website, IIRC. The report was hardly 'ho-hum'. I'd take a MiG-29 over an F-16 in a dogfight anyday.

The latest R-73M2 Archer has 40km range due to an improved rocket motor (meaning a larger no-escape zone, not that any pilot would fire it at that range), improved seeker with 180 degree FOV (i.e. 90 degree off-boresight capability), digital re-programmable control avionics, improved resistance to IRCM, and an integrated counter-countermeasures (ICCM) combines four different techniques and has an algorithm that will allow the missile to shift its aim from the engine of a targeted aircraft to the middle of the airframe in the final milliseconds of an intercept.

I should also point out that anyone introducing pilots into a thread about warplanes is perpetrating a quite obvious red herring.

[m112880]

American planes have better range due to increase fuel tanks plus better avionatics in the planes. The main difference though is how russian and american pilots are tought to fight. Russian pilots were taought to alwasy follow the commands of the gound controller and the avioncs in the planes are not as well. American planes have better avioncs because they were always tought to think for them selves and not to relay on others.

[Sea Skimmer]

Most of the claims about the Archer came between the time Germany was unified and when the USAF got a bunch of them from Moldova along with a regiment of real Soviet specs MiG-29's. After the US tore them apart it was found that some things that where assumed at first glance where incorrect.

Off boresight is real, but how effective it is is unknown, and the sighting system weighs alot. Thats fine for attack helo pilots, but pulling high G's it can greatly strain a pilots neck.

The latest R-73M2 Archer has 40km range due to an improved rocket motor (meaning a larger no-escape zone, not that any pilot would fire it at that range).

Of course they wouldn't, because its a 40km ballistic range, if you launch the missile high and fast and it doesn't maneuvered at all it can fly that far before crashing. The effective ranges are less then half that.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Still, it'd be some advantage in a tailchase. The missile with a 40km ballistic range still tends to have better kinematics and can chase a target farther out.

AFAIK, the main limitation for a lot of missiles in a head-on is their sensitivity, the main limitation for an aft-chase is their kinematics.

The Soviets historically do rely use GCI, but they have been getting away from that. In fact, sometimes they supposedly think that the Americans are too reliant on their AWACS control. Or so that story went...

[Vympel]

Of course they wouldn't, because its a 40km ballistic range, if you launch the missile high and fast and it doesn't maneuvered at all it can fly that far before crashing. The effective ranges are less then half that.

You're preaching to the choir