Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

rockstarIN

Active member
Dec 26, 2017
425
138
india
Basic mistake with tech specs. The Israelis advertise the Derby-ER with a capability 80% to that of the Meteor and the Aim-120D, with a 160Km range, is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER. It has at least 50% more range (or greater) than the Astra Mk1 or RVV-SD. It's in the same class as the K-77M. It comes with a dual pulse motor, but I don't think you understand what that means, so forget about it. But I can dumb it down saying you can estimate its range to be anywhere between 150-200Km, closer to 200 than 150. The Derby ER's advertised range of 100Km is at medium altitude, and at that range Astra Mk1 is somewhere around 50Km, RVV-AE is somewhere around 35-40Km. In simple terms, it comes with a GaN based seeker, dual pulse motors and extremely modern navigation, and none of the missiles on offer to us are its match. Only the Meteor is superior due to its kinematic capabilities, but not the electronics. It's obvious when even the 160+Km Aim-120D is expected to be only half as capable as the Derby ER.

Second mistake, comparing the MICA's capabilities with another missile, when the main idea behind the MICA's design has less to do with the missile itself and more to do with the platform firing it. You can put a Meteor on an MKI, but you won't get the chance to use it against a MICA-equipped Rafale. MICA has been designed to kill stuff more effectively at closer ranges, which is why the smaller form factor compared to regular BVR missiles. It's built for a very different combat philosophy. But I doubt you are ever going to be allowed into seminars that will explain that.

Another thing you obviously do not know about the Russians is the downgrades. The actual range of the R-77-1 that the Russians use is over 130Km. But the export model, the RVV-SD, is basically a whole new missile, with new electronics, new motor, new warhead, new fuel, all inferior to the original, hence the inferior acceleration and inferior range. With the RVV-SD, all they did is match the Aim-120C5/7 because it's good enough. But the IAF can't afford good enough, they need the best that's available. And it's obvious Derby ER is just that. The Israelis and French do not downgrade weapons like the Russians do, which is why you get top quality from them and that's the reason why most of our acquisitions have moved away from Russia.

If Derby-ER is damn good as you said, why did not yet ordered by IAF or even integrated with MKI?

IAF could have purchased and integrated the same with MKI with its emergency purchasing power with US$400 per acquisition like we did in kargil scenerio with M2K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milspec

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
If Derby-ER is damn good as you said, why did not yet ordered by IAF or even integrated with MKI?
That's what I have been complaining about since June. The IAF decided to go for Derby only in 2019. And the integration and flight testing of a BVR missile is a lengthy process and they should have started the process much earlier, at least in 2017, when IIRC the missile actually became available. But I suspect the IAF wanted Meteor, and when that didn't go anywhere, they decided on Derby.

The thing is Meteor, Derby ER etc became available only recently for export. So decision-making has taken the usual amount of time, which is quick by our standards, in fact anyone's standards. MBDA rejected Meteor for MKI and LCA only in 2018, so we picked Derby in 2019, that's definitely very quick. Post which comes the usual contract negotiation delays.

IAF could have purchased and integrated the same with MKI with its emergency purchasing power with US$400 per acquisition like we did in kargil scenerio with M2K.
Can't buy anything without completing the integration process first. It's a 2-year process, and there's a good chance it hasn't even begun, and hopefully I'm wrong about that. The previously revealed date is the missile will become available on the MKI only in 2022. Hopefully some will come in earlier for the first 32 LCAs.

The switch to a western missile was basically part of the MLU process, so the timeframe is fine. It's just that the Chinese have advanced way too fast, to the point where even the Americans are now busy making a stopgap missile which they plan on inducting in 2022.
 

JustCurious

Member
Aug 2, 2020
46
35
India
Oh boy, going forward please don't include me in your wet dreams.
We have a successful Astra Missile based on which LSP commenced with an order of 248 missiles. Astra is supposed to be a 110km missile, and even then we will continue to order, R27, Derby and Mica's all of them categorically with lesser range and R77RVV SD's with equivalent ranges in thousands. That doesn't make any sense, but thats a pattern in most of your posts.


Stop gap for what? negotiating better commissions as always?


Indian BVR both procurement, as well as development, is not up to par and the Air force will pay for it. We all know who is capable of analysing what, I am not here dancing with Pom Poms for the Defence ministry, which seems to be your real passion.
The contortions that you have to put up to, is just amusing to watch.
Don't mind...Or mind, if you will - but your recent posts are all about ad-hominem, slurs, allegations, accusations & inexorable exaggerations - which allude towards a lack of objectivity & know-how of the subject.

Quite a waste of space & time for yourself & readers. @randomradio knows what he is speaking about, which is readily discernible from the methodology of his assessments & quality analysis in his posts.

Anyone lurking on this forum can see the stark difference between your & his posts. His posts are mostly valuable info that can be readily corroborated. Falcon & vstol jockey very well understand who is the SME on this forum, & they concur with this fact.

Anyway - your time, your keyboard, your choice. Peace
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
Don't mind...Or mind, if you will - but your recent posts are all about ad-hominem, slurs, allegations, accusations & inexorable exaggerations - which allude towards a lack of objectivity & know-how of the subject.

Quite a waste of space & time for yourself & readers. @randomradio knows what he is speaking about, which is readily discernible from the methodology of his assessments & quality analysis in his posts.

Anyone lurking on this forum can see the stark difference between your & his posts. His posts are mostly valuable info that can be readily corroborated. Falcon & vstol jockey very well understand who is the SME on this forum, & they concur with this fact.

Anyway - your time, your keyboard, your choice. Peace
Don't dismiss @Milspec. He's an excellent poster. The last few months he seems down 'cause I think Trump's likely to lose this time. :p
 
Last edited:

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,845
2,301
United States
Don't mind...Or mind, if you will - but your recent posts are all about ad-hominem, slurs, allegations, accusations & inexorable exaggerations - which allude towards a lack of objectivity & know-how of the subject.

Quite a waste of space & time for yourself & readers. @randomradio knows what he is speaking about, which is readily discernible from the methodology of his assessments & quality analysis in his posts.

Anyone lurking on this forum can see the stark difference between your & his posts. His posts are mostly valuable info that can be readily corroborated. Falcon & vstol jockey very well understand who is the SME on this forum, & they concur with this fact.

Anyway - your time, your keyboard, your choice. Peace
Sure thing: (y)
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,845
2,301
United States
Alright, @JustCurious lets try Objectivity this time around with our SME. No Adhominems whatsoever.

Ready Random:

Lets look at Derby ER from your posts

Basic mistake with tech specs. The Israelis advertise the Derby-ER with a capability 80% to that of the Meteor and the Aim-120D, with a 160Km range, is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER. It has at least 50% more range (or greater) than the Astra Mk1 or RVV-SD. It's in the same class as the K-77M.
Not much of technicality to discuss here, but this claim needs to be backed up by some content. Maybe precedence or some rationale to explain why a company engaged in selling a product would intentionally undermine its own flagship product.

Is there any precedence,
what are the corresponding altitudes for other aam that rafael makes > Python II, III, IV, V, Derby,
Are all ranges under reported?

It comes with a dual pulse motor, but I don't think you understand what that means, so forget about it. But I can dumb it down saying you can estimate its range to be anywhere between 150-200Km, closer to 200 than 150. The Derby ER's advertised range of 100Km is at medium altitude, and at that range Astra Mk1 is somewhere around 50Km, RVV-AE is somewhere around 35-40Km.
This is your claim
Derby Estimated Range : 150-200km (ignoring that has range is 33% allowance )
Astra published range : 110KM
RVV AE: 80 km
Now to objectively make this claim, I am sure you are basing this off the test altitude for all three of these ranges published.
So for the 100 KM Dual pulse motor tests by which Rafael established this medium-altitude range, there surely will be some data to compare it to the corresponding ranges for Astra, RVV-AE, Aim 120, Meteor?

So very simple questions:
What is the Altitude these ranges are catalogued at?
What was the barometric pressure at which the test was conducted?
Was the flight path straight or was there any gain in altitude?


Finally for your logic, given I don't know much about dual pulse motors, please do explain why would the same altitude derate apply for both Solid motors and Dual pulse motors?
Wouldn't bulkhead sensors in the propellant thermal barriers for the PSD account for the change barometric pressure and pre-program the ignitors for an interpulse delay to optimize thrusts, also given most Dual pulse motors can run two distinct Propulsions modes that I recall vaguely from LFK papers, Which mode has the 50% derate in range?
Why would be derated similar to the solid motor, Is there a difference between the thrust curves for the Solid vs Dual pulse, and at what interpulse delay?
If thrust characteristic of the dprm is different to srm why would Dp characteristics be similar?



In simple terms, it comes with a GaN based seeker, dual pulse motors and extremely modern navigation, and none of the missiles on offer to us are its match. Only the Meteor is superior due to its kinematic capabilities, but not the electronics. It's obvious when even the 160+Km Aim-120D is expected to be only half as capable as the Derby ER.
Except it doesn't. Please show me one reference where it claims that the seeker is GaN based? From Rafael, or any paper published on the RF seeker is powered by GaN-based Radar receiver. Now if a Manufacturer is sticking a GaN-based radar, i am sure it's going to advertise it? Or from IAF given it is buying the the Derby ER.

Whats is the extremely modern navigation? what exactly does that mean? Please elaborate.

Astra Conundrum:

From the above, it is quite clear that you claim that Derby ER outranges Astra Mk1 by twice. Literally 50km difference at what you refer to as medium altitude whatever that value might be.

so extrapolating the same, Indian Airforce is intentionally buying Astra Mk1 which is half the operational range, R27ER-a that is 65% of performance (given you apply the same 50% derate unless you have different test results for the ER-1 missile and different de-rate) in the Indian arsenal. Would that be a fair assessment?

Numbers and accuracy:
Incorrect. We ordered 400 RVV-SD, 300 RVV-MD and 300 R-27. That's merely a few hundred missiles each.

Otoh, we have no idea of the number of non-Russian missiles ordered or planned to be ordered. 493 MICA for M2000, XXX MICA and XXX Meteor for Rafale, nearly 400 ASRAAM from UK, 350 Astras, all of these already ordered. Then XXXX (4 digit) Derby ER from Israel. The Derby ER estimate alone should be 500 for LCA and another 1000 for MKI. The overall ASRAAM estimate should be over 3000. Another XXX Astra Mk1s should join the inventory to complement the Derbys. And you can expect at least 1000 MICA-NGs and 500 Meteors coming up with the Rafale production deal through MRFA, alongside more Astras, possibly Mk2. The 200 MWFs planned will likely absorb well over 2000 Astra Mk2/SFDR on its own, alongside at least 1000 WVRAAMs. So merely a few hundred Russian missiles each are a drop in the bucket, not even that.
We ordered 400 R77 I don't know if those were SD/PD. would love to see where it specifically says SD variant. We did not order RVV MD, We ordered R77E. Jane's reference is there my posts look it up.

Lets break down what you have written here. some if it seems odd.
493 mica's for 45 Mirages
500 Derby Er's for 83 /93 LCA's
1000 Derby's for 272 MKI.
For three times the number of MKI's as LCA mk1A, and given it invariable carries 4 BVRAAM at most times, following the ration, I would think MKI fleet would need close to 3000 BVR's.

What are astra's complimenting? Derby or Derby ER not clear? if ER how being half in range per you claim?

The crux of my argument was that BVR development and procurement was not adequate thus acquiring R77/27ER's now, what we procure at a future state whether that is xxx number of Meteors or xxxx numbers of Astra Mk5 , how does that offset the Missile orders you are placing today. For sure you are ordering R77 and R27's because Astra Mk1 was not ready in time (development), and neither any orders have been placed Derby ER (Procurement). If in a restaurant I complain because the food is delayed, the restaurants counter that We will serve you the best biryani next year doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
What we will procure or not is not the question, what is the operational readiness against and fully deployed Aim120C5 is the question.

Lastly Mica Philosophy:
Second mistake, comparing the MICA's capabilities with another missile, when the main idea behind the MICA's design has less to do with the missile itself and more to do with the platform firing it. You can put a Meteor on an MKI, but you won't get the chance to use it against a MICA-equipped Rafale. MICA has been designed to kill stuff more effectively at closer ranges, which is why the smaller form factor compared to regular BVR missiles. It's built for a very different combat philosophy. But I doubt you are ever going to be allowed into seminars that will explain that.
I won't be attending the seminar, but sure you would be kind enough to educate me on the topic. you claim, Meteor on an MKI, but you won't get the chance to use it against a MICA-equipped Rafale, ok what about a Derby ER on a MKI vs a MICA-equipped Mirage 2000, or a RVV - SD equiped Mig29 on a Mica Equipped F1? Or a Mica Equipped Rafale against an Aim120D F35...
Were we comparing Missiles or combat system as a whole?
Given we are specifically talking about the missile system itself and not the launch platform, Please do explain how the small "form factor" helps the Mica. I have seen Mica pretty close, and it's not that different in size from the Derby.
Also by your DERBY ER logic, does the Mica derate to 40Km's at medium altitude to a 100km Derby ER. how does the 40KM Mica Fare against the 100KM Derby ER irrespective of the platform?
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
Alright, @JustCurious lets try Objectivity this time around with our SME. No Adhominems whatsoever.

Ready Random:

Lets look at Derby ER from your posts


Not much of technicality to discuss here, but this claim needs to be backed up by some content. Maybe precedence or some rationale to explain why a company engaged in selling a product would intentionally undermine its own flagship product.

Is there any precedence,
what are the corresponding altitudes for other aam that rafael makes > Python II, III, IV, V, Derby,
Are all ranges under reported?
The ranges reported are correct, the altitude is not. It's like saying the Aim-120 does 20Km at sea level, for example, so the 30Km R-73 outranges the Aim-120. Obviously wrong analysis.

This is your claim
Derby Estimated Range : 150-200km (ignoring that has range is 33% allowance )
Astra published range : 110KM
RVV AE: 80 km
Now to objectively make this claim, I am sure you are basing this off the test altitude for all three of these ranges published.
Missile dimensions are best used for analysis. It rarely goes wrong.

Derby is 3.6m long, has a diameter of 160mm and is advertised to have a range of 50Km.
MICA is 3.1m, 160mm dia, is advertised to have a range of 80Km.
RVV-AE is 3.6m long, 200mm dia, is advertised to have a range of 80Km.

No longer computes. Hence we can estimate the range figures by bringing in other reasons. RVV-AE and MICA-RF have the same range even though the MICA is obviously so much smaller is entirely due to the massive technological difference. The Russians half-assed an export grade missile that they themselves didn't induct. Naturally, Derby's lower range is more due to altitude it was measured at than anything else, and the Israelis did not half-*censored* the design. So MICA and RVV-AE were measured at high altitude, Derby was measured at medium altitude. Hence different figures.

So for the 100 KM Dual pulse motor tests by which Rafael established this medium-altitude range, there surely will be some data to compare it to the corresponding ranges for Astra, RVV-AE, Aim 120, Meteor?
The Aim-120C is merely 20% bigger than the Derby in volume. The tech base is the same. So how is the Derby magically less than half the range of the Aim-120? Obviously doesn't make sense. The Aim-120D is also the same size as the Aim-120C, but does 3 times the range, again, doesn't give the Derby the credit it's due. Hence not an apples to apples comparison.

What you have assumed is the Derby was created from the Python, so it has the same range as the Python. Obviously wrong analysis.

Naturally, the Israelis are not dumb enough to claim without any rhyme or reason that the 150-180Km Aim-120D is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER. Range isn't the only factor in their calculation obviously, but it's not out of the ordinary to expect it to at least match the range, if not exceed it.

Also you can easily extrapolate. The French claim the MICA NG will have twice the range of the MICA. Hence you can estimate it as 160Km. Considering the dimensions and a similar tech base, the Derby ER that's 400mm longer than the MICA, is gonna be above 160Km, closer to 200Km. Possibly more than that, since the Israelis have removed the fuse from the original Derby and combined the seeker and fuse into one unit on the Derby ER. That gives us a whole lot more space for a more powerful motor and extra fuel. Even if the Israelis suck and have managed the same range as the MICA, it's still far more than Astra Mk1, Aim-120C or RVV-SD.

Astra was designed to do 44Km at medium altitude and 80Km at high. But during tests, it killed a drone from 50Km away at medium altitude, which is similar to the performance of the Aim-120C. So for the Derby at merely 20% smaller than the Aim-120, but with 20% lighter weight, it's more than likely that the 50Km range is at medium altitude, which means it will equal the Aim-120C at high altitude.

Dimensions never lie when the tech base is more or less the same.

So very simple questions:
What is the Altitude these ranges are catalogued at?
What was the barometric pressure at which the test was conducted?
Was the flight path straight or was there any gain in altitude?
We can only work on estimates for now, like at what altitude and range a target was destroyed during tests. Not specifics. Which is why 150-200Km is easier to say than something specific, like 193Km. It provides a hint on what range class a missile falls under.

Finally for your logic, given I don't know much about dual pulse motors, please do explain why would the same altitude derate apply for both Solid motors and Dual pulse motors?
Nothing strange. It's simply a more advanced propulsion system using more efficient fuel and better designs compared to what was released 20 years ago on the MICA, Aim-120 and RVV-AE.

It's like expecting newer engines on the Flankers to be more powerful and more efficient than older engines. A duh moment there.

Except it doesn't. Please show me one reference where it claims that the seeker is GaN based? From Rafael, or any paper published on the RF seeker is powered by GaN-based Radar receiver. Now if a Manufacturer is sticking a GaN-based radar, i am sure it's going to advertise it? Or from IAF given it is buying the the Derby ER.
They are not advertising it, I simply know it, because I prowl around for such information.

Last year, a Stunner seeker fell intact on Syrian soil, which was promptly handed over to the Russians. It was confirmed to be an AESA MMW seeker. The Tamir, Derby ER, MRSAM and David's Sling have AESA seekers.

Whats is the extremely modern navigation? what exactly does that mean? Please elaborate.
RLGs/FOGs based INS. AESA seeker+fuse fusion. Simply better stuff.

From the above, it is quite clear that you claim that Derby ER outranges Astra Mk1 by twice. Literally 50km difference at what you refer to as medium altitude whatever that value might be.

so extrapolating the same, Indian Airforce is intentionally buying Astra Mk1 which is half the operational range, R27ER-a that is 65% of performance (given you apply the same 50% derate unless you have different test results for the ER-1 missile and different de-rate) in the Indian arsenal. Would that be a fair assessment?
In order to support our industry of course. Not to mention it's an obvious upgrade over existing missiles (And no, the R-27 is not better than the Astra). Plus no air force operates with 100% modern equipment. This is elementary. The USAF also operates Astra Mk1 class missiles in the thousands alongside the Aim-120D. And in the future, the Americans will operate the stopgap Aim-260 and the definitive LREW alongside thousands of Aim-120Ds. It's the natural progression of things.

We ordered 400 R77 I don't know if those were SD/PD. would love to see where it specifically says SD variant. We did not order RVV MD, We ordered R77E. Jane's reference is there my posts look it up.
RVV-MD is the export model of R-74. No clue what you meant here actually. If you're referring to the RVV-SD, then it's pretty much confirmed information. The same with RVV-MD. When we procure emergency equipment, we are buying the best that's available. Hence we even got the Verba into the list of emergencies.

Lets break down what you have written here. some if it seems odd.
493 mica's for 45 Mirages
500 Derby Er's for 83 /93 LCA's
1000 Derby's for 272 MKI.
For three times the number of MKI's as LCA mk1A, and given it invariable carries 4 BVRAAM at most times, following the ration, I would think MKI fleet would need close to 3000 BVR's.
2000+ would be more or less correct. 4x2xfleet, not counting wastage. But there may be a mix of Derby ERs, Astras and some leftover R-77s and R-27s. So 1000 of those being Derbys is nothing strange. Btw, it's 123 LCAs.

Read post 2427.

What are astra's complimenting? Derby or Derby ER not clear? if ER how being half in range per you claim?
We aren't buying Derbys, we are going for Derby ER only. We have barely 20 Derbys bought for the Sea Harriers that the LCAs are using, but that's not important. Astra complements the Derby ER financially. Refer to the USAF hi-lo combo they apply even for missiles.

The crux of my argument was that BVR development and procurement was not adequate thus acquiring R77/27ER's now, what we procure at a future state whether that is xxx number of Meteors or xxxx numbers of Astra Mk5 , how does that offset the Missile orders you are placing today. For sure you are ordering R77 and R27's because Astra Mk1 was not ready in time (development), and neither any orders have been placed Derby ER (Procurement). If in a restaurant I complain because the food is delayed, the restaurants counter that We will serve you the best biryani next year doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
That wasn't the discussion. You were thinking 1000 missiles is a lot, so I countered that it's barely anything, like buying those 21 Mig-29s or 36 Rafales when the actual requirement is 450-600 modern jets, or as much as 6000 missiles.

Lastly Mica Philosophy:
I won't be attending the seminar, but sure you would be kind enough to educate me on the topic. you claim, Meteor on an MKI, but you won't get the chance to use it against a MICA-equipped Rafale, ok what about a Derby ER on a MKI vs a MICA-equipped Mirage 2000, or a RVV - SD equiped Mig29 on a Mica Equipped F1? Or a Mica Equipped Rafale against an Aim120D F35...
Were we comparing Missiles or combat system as a whole?
Given we are specifically talking about the missile system itself and not the launch platform, Please do explain how the small "form factor" helps the Mica.
Also by your DERBY ER logic, does the Mica derate to 40Km's at medium altitude to a 100km Derby ER. how does the 40KM Mica Fare against the 100KM Derby ER irrespective of the platform?
The type of comparisons you've listed are irrelevant to the real world.

Half the answer is in the design, and the other half in tactics.

As I've pointed out early on, the Aim-120 drops significantly in range at lower altitude. But the drop for the MICA is much less pronounced, since it was made to operate at lower altitudes more effectively than its bigger and heavier counterparts. Hence the shorter, smaller, less draggy design, with bigger fins and greater lift, and pulls more Gs, suitable for greater air density environments. Similarly, the Israelis designed the Derby around the Python thereby retaining some of the low altitude advantages. But they didn't go the whole hog like the French, and decided to increase the length so that it is a half-way missile, capable of doing adequately well at low altitude and at medium/high altitude. Otoh, the Aim-120 and RVV-AE were designed specifically for the medium to high altitudes. Many missiles have been designed around different combat philosophies, which is why the ASRAAM cannot turn like the IRIS-T, but can burn much longer. And in order to complement the low altitude capabilities of the MICA, the French have added the high altitude capabilities of the Meteor.

This brings us to tactics. Air combat is not 1v1. 1v1 happens when your whole team is dead, or when it has training value. Air combat is about groups and teams and involves team work. Take the example of the French. If you put the MICA up against the Aim-120D at medium to high altitude, the MICA will lose, obviously. The French state it so unabashedly. So you have to consider team effort, where the French will send one team out at a lower altitude for an air strike thereby making use of the low altitude advantage of the MICA, while another team engages the enemy at high altitude with Meteors. With Rafale, M2000, Mig-29, MWF and MKI, we get much greater options than the French do.

The MICA was designed as a platform-specific weapon rather than role-specific like all the others. The French like doing their low altitude penetration missions, with fighter jets designed for the job, and the MICA is the best missile for such a mission. Simply put, it's a CCM with the longest range, and comes with 2 seeker options. And the next gen version will double that range. IRIS-T, ASRAAM and MICA follow completely different philosophies as CCMs.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,845
2,301
United States
Missile dimensions are best used for analysis. It rarely goes wrong.

Derby is 3.6m long, has a diameter of 160mm and is advertised to have a range of 50Km.
MICA is 3.1m, 160mm dia, is advertised to have a range of 80Km.
RVV-AE is 3.6m long, 200mm dia, is advertised to have a range of 80Km.
But that kind of now goes againt your own claim.
You claimed R77 AE 's range is Half the range at the altitude claimed for Derby ER... 40kms to 100 km for the D -er.
But for the regular Derby you claim 50KM, which is the advertised range?
So the same Rafael Dense on one hand
accurately provides the ranges for Derby but undercuts the Derby ER by half?




No longer computes. Hence we can estimate the range figures by bringing in other reasons. RVV-AE and MICA-RF have the same range even though the MICA is obviously so much smaller is entirely due to the massive technological difference.
Actually its not , its simple arithmetic based on your own assumptions.
Mica 0.0623m3 Warhead 12 kg RVV AE 0.113 m3 Warhead 22.5kg, Baseline volume / KG for Mica, and RVV AE are , 0.0052 m3/kg. 0.0050 m3/kg thus the similar ranges. Mica is just scaled, smaller because it's carrying a warhead half the size. It's not massive tech difference.

The Russians half-assed an export grade missile that they themselves didn't induct. Naturally, Derby's lower range is more due to altitude it was measured at than anything else, and the Israelis did not half-*censored* the design. So MICA and RVV-AE were measured at high altitude, Derby was measured at medium altitude. Hence different figures.
Attributed Reference if any?



The Aim-120C is merely 20% bigger than the Derby in volume. The tech base is the same. So how is the Derby magically less than half the range of the Aim-120? Obviously doesn't make sense. The Aim-120D is also the same size as the Aim-120C, but does 3 times the range, again, doesn't give the Derby the credit it's due. Hence not an apples to apples comparison.
All of this is based on altitude that you claim the data is published, but have not produced a single reference to the said item?

What you have assumed is the Derby was created from the Python, so it has the same range as the Python. Obviously wrong analysis.

Naturally, the Israelis are not dumb enough to claim without any rhyme or reason that the 150-180Km Aim-120D is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER. Range isn't the only factor in their calculation obviously, but it's not out of the ordinary to expect it to at least match the range, if not exceed it.
Which Israeli , for that matter individual other than you claimed the above? Any reference?
You consistently claim 50 derate from high to medium altitude for SRM and DPRM alike... but wouldn't DPRM have a minimum of two modes, do both modes derate at 50 %, if yes how and at what interpulse delay and at which mode? Whats the change is thrust curve (Pressure to temp)

Also you can easily extrapolate. The French claim the MICA NG will have twice the range of the MICA. Hence you can estimate it as 160Km. Considering the dimensions and a similar tech base, the Derby ER that's 400mm longer than the MICA, is gonna be above 160Km, closer to 200Km.
I will let you poke holes in that one yourself, If you do not realize the mistake let me know.


Derby is 500mm longer than the Mica, Derby ER is lot bigger than the mica not just 600mm, the increased length is to accommodate the bulkheads for the two different grain propellents, thermal barrier, and the PSD. The construction of the airframe itself is distinctly different, I wonder how would you have equivalency here?Mica NG's size is not known.

Possibly more than that, since the Israelis have removed the fuse from the original Derby and combined the seeker and fuse into one unit on the Derby ER. That gives us a whole lot more space for a more powerful motor and extra fuel. Even if the Israelis suck and have managed the same range as the MICA, it's still far more than Astra Mk1, Aim-120C or RVV-SD.
So Mica's range is more than Aim120C or RVV-SD, we will get back to that.

Astra was designed to do 44Km at medium altitude and 80Km at high. But during tests, it killed a drone from 50Km away at medium altitude, which is similar to the performance of the Aim-120C. So for the Derby at merely 20% smaller than the Aim-120, but with 20% lighter weight, it's more than likely that the 50Km range is at medium altitude, which means it will equal the Aim-120C at high altitude.
You keep using medium and high instead of actual altitudes. Feel free to present data, of ranges and corresponding altitude here. All this must come from somewhere, Either you have some reference or spoken to a pilot who did the tests, or the engineers who worked on the system. Anything concrete will suffice, but not conjecture.

Dimensions never lie when the tech base is more or less the same.
Except you keep contradicting yourself when you claim exactly otherwise, :
RVV-AE and MICA-RF have the same range even though the MICA is obviously so much smaller is entirely due to the massive technological difference.

Now lets look at the above two statement as you have indicated.

You specifically mention Derby , Solid fuelled motor derby to be specific has a medium altitude range of 50kms .
And dimensions never lie. By your own assessment of dimensions never lie.
You have
RVV AE 0.113 m3 Warhead 22.5kg
Derby 0.073 m3 Warhead 23 kg

i.e 0.113m3 volume of the RVV-AE pushed a 22.5kg warhead, compared to Derby that is pushing 23kg warhead with 0.073m3 of airframe volume.
If you establish 0.00317 m3/kg(of WH) as 50 Km at what you term as medium altitude, wouldn't that put an RVV- AE at a range of 79.18km from your methodology. Which again contradicts your own claim of 40-45kms for RVV-AE range. Also it puts Mica too at a range of 80kms.

Let me know which one it is.

Would it be possible this entire double range secretly not published by Israeli's is incorrect, and all the while catalogue values of 50, 80 and 80 for Derby, RVVAE and MICA actually correct.


They are not advertising it, I simply know it, because I prowl around for such information.

Last year, a Stunner seeker fell intact on Syrian soil, which was promptly handed over to the Russians. It was confirmed to be an AESA MMW seeker. The Tamir, Derby ER, MRSAM and David's Sling have AESA seekers.
I cannot dispute conjecture and Wishfull thinking, but you till now have produced Zero evidence on the following :
Actual test altitude of Derby ER
Actual Ranges Corresponding to all of the climed ranges for Derby Er
Any reference to GAn Aesa RF seeker.

I will leave it at that.

Also a stunner seeker falling intact from (your medium) altitude at supersonic speeds points to First Fuse failure, seeker failure aswell as physics failure at different levels.


RLGs/FOGs based INS. AESA seeker+fuse fusion. Simply better stuff.
Inertial navigation system on a RF seeker dual data link missile . Are you sure about this? What exactly is fuse fusion, how do you evaluate fuse performance? How is it superior to any contemprary missile?



In order to support our industry of course. Not to mention it's an obvious upgrade over existing missiles (And no, the R-27 is not better than the Astra). Plus no air force operates with 100% modern equipment. This is elementary. The USAF also operates Astra Mk1 class missiles in the thousands alongside the Aim-120D. And in the future, the Americans will operate the stopgap Aim-260 and the definitive LREW alongside thousands of Aim-120Ds. It's the natural progression of things.
We will get back to this at a later stage.




RVV-MD is the export model of R-74. No clue what you meant here actually. If you're referring to the RVV-SD, then it's pretty much confirmed information. The same with RVV-MD. When we procure emergency equipment, we are buying the best that's available. Hence we even got the Verba into the list of emergencies.
typo , R73E was ordered not RVV MD.





That wasn't the discussion. You were thinking 1000 missiles is a lot, so I countered that it's barely anything, like buying those 21 Mig-29s or 36 Rafales when the actual requirement is 450-600 modern jets, or as much as 6000 missiles.



The type of comparisons you've listed are irrelevant to the real world.

Half the answer is in the design, and the other half in tactics.

As I've pointed out early on, the Aim-120 drops significantly in range at lower altitude. But the drop for the MICA is much less pronounced, since it was made to operate at lower altitudes more effectively than its bigger and heavier counterparts. Hence the shorter, smaller, less draggy design, with bigger fins and greater lift, and pulls more Gs, suitable for greater air density environments. Similarly, the Israelis designed the Derby around the Python thereby retaining some of the low altitude advantages. But they didn't go the whole hog like the French, and decided to increase the length so that it is a half-way missile, capable of doing adequately well at low altitude and at medium/high altitude. Otoh, the Aim-120 and RVV-AE were designed specifically for the medium to high altitudes. Many missiles have been designed around different combat philosophies, which is why the ASRAAM cannot turn like the IRIS-T, but can burn much longer. And in order to complement the low altitude capabilities of the MICA, the French have added the high altitude capabilities of the Meteor.
Do you understand that the thrust profile affects range and acceleration?
Also do you understand that you cannot directly compare different thrust profiles. All of your range discussion pivots on one key aspect, Altitude, which you have zero references on the actual values for any comparison. You keep claiming these medium and low and high altitude, show me one reference of your claims with respective altitudes.




This brings us to tactics. Air combat is not 1v1. 1v1 happens when your whole team is dead, or when it has training value. Air combat is about groups and teams and involves team work. Take the example of the French. If you put the MICA up against the Aim-120D at medium to high altitude, the MICA will lose, obviously. The French state it so unabashedly. So you have to consider team effort, where the French will send one team out at a lower altitude for an air strike thereby making use of the low altitude advantage of the MICA, while another team engages the enemy at high altitude with Meteors. With Rafale, M2000, Mig-29, MWF and MKI, we get much greater options than the French do.

The MICA was designed as a platform-specific weapon rather than role-specific like all the others. The French like doing their low altitude penetration missions, with fighter jets designed for the job, and the MICA is the best missile for such a mission. Simply put, it's a CCM with the longest range, and comes with 2 seeker options. And the next gen version will double that range. IRIS-T, ASRAAM and MICA follow completely different philosophies as CCMs.
First lets establish the contradicting ranges that you have mentioned, we will come to tactics after that.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
But that kind of now goes againt your own claim.
You claimed R77 AE 's range is Half the range at the altitude claimed for Derby ER... 40kms to 100 km for the D -er.
But for the regular Derby you claim 50KM, which is the advertised range?
So the same Rafael Dense on one hand
accurately provides the ranges for Derby but undercuts the Derby ER by half?
The numbers I have extrapolated:
RVV-AE's ranges are 35-45Km at medium altitude and 80-90Km at high altitude.
Derby's ranges are 50Km at medium altitude and 100+Km at high altitude.
Astra Mk1's ranges are 50Km at medium altitude and 100+Km at high altitude.
MICA's ranges are XX Km at medium altitude and 80Km at high altitude.
Derby ER's ranges are advertised as 100Km at medium altitude and XXX Km at high altitude.

Actually its not , its simple arithmetic based on your own assumptions.
Mica 0.0623m3 Warhead 12 kg RVV AE 0.113 m3 Warhead 22.5kg, Baseline volume / KG for Mica, and RVV AE are , 0.0052 m3/kg. 0.0050 m3/kg thus the similar ranges. Mica is just scaled, smaller because it's carrying a warhead half the size. It's not massive tech difference.
Half its weight is not half its size. Plus the Derby is still 400mm longer, so the warhead wouldn't make much of a difference to the entire design.

Attributed Reference if any?
Having 20-30% less range while being 20-30% bigger than the Aim-120C is not enough proof? The Russians have only now caught up with the Aim-120C, with a bigger design.

All of this is based on altitude that you claim the data is published, but have not produced a single reference to the said item?
Reference to what? There is no reference, just look at dimensions and analyse with your own knowledge. You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? Simply apply common sense first.

Which Israeli , for that matter individual other than you claimed the above? Any reference?
You consistently claim 50 derate from high to medium altitude for SRM and DPRM alike... but wouldn't DPRM have a minimum of two modes, do both modes derate at 50 %, if yes how and at what interpulse delay and at which mode? Whats the change is thrust curve (Pressure to temp)
The second pulse generally activates when making the kill. So the first mode of the DPRM acts no different from a regular SRM, it only sustains the transit. You are talking about triple pulse motors, where the second pulse adds to the range. Typical red herring, you are not discussing the point.

Anyway the actual performance of the DPRM is not in question, all we need to know is it's better than the SRM.

Derby is 500mm longer than the Mica, Derby ER is lot bigger than the mica not just 600mm, the increased length is to accommodate the bulkheads for the two different grain propellents, thermal barrier, and the PSD. The construction of the airframe itself is distinctly different, I wonder how would you have equivalency here?Mica NG's size is not known.
If the Derby ER is a lot bigger than the Derby, then great, helps my case. You are just hoping that the Israelis suck in comparison to the French, irrespective of the fact that the Israelis have far superior missiles in circulation now.

MICA NG is the same size as the MICA, already known.

So Mica's range is more than Aim120C or RVV-SD, we will get back to that.
MICA NG.

You keep using medium and high instead of actual altitudes. Feel free to present data, of ranges and corresponding altitude here. All this must come from somewhere, Either you have some reference or spoken to a pilot who did the tests, or the engineers who worked on the system. Anything concrete will suffice, but not conjecture.
Meh.

This discussion is not about data, it's about analysing based on the given information, which is extremely limited, by using common sense and logic. It's as simple as saying the LCA's engine consumes less fuel than the MKI's engine. Doesn't require data to know that.

You specifically mention Derby , Solid fuelled motor derby to be specific has a medium altitude range of 50kms .
And dimensions never lie. By your own assessment of dimensions never lie.
You have
RVV AE 0.113 m3 Warhead 22.5kg
Derby 0.073 m3 Warhead 23 kg

i.e 0.113m3 volume of the RVV-AE pushed a 22.5kg warhead, compared to Derby that is pushing 23kg warhead with 0.073m3 of airframe volume.
If you establish 0.00317 m3/kg(of WH) as 50 Km at what you term as medium altitude, wouldn't that put an RVV- AE at a range of 79.18km from your methodology. Which again contradicts your own claim of 40-45kms for RVV-AE range. Also it puts Mica too at a range of 80kms.

Let me know which one it is.
That's not how it works. A lighter missile also consumes less fuel and requires a relatively less powerful motor. You are assuming that except for the weight of the warhead and the dimensions, everything else is the same. You have not considered seeker measurements, fuse measurements, CU measurements etc. Have you considered the reduced weight of all these may compensate for the weight of the warhead? Like the removal of the independent fuse for instance.

Would it be possible this entire double range secretly not published by Israeli's is incorrect, and all the while catalogue values of 50, 80 and 80 for Derby, RVVAE and MICA actually correct.
Wouldn't make sense for them to blatantly lie. They claim the Derby has a 50Km range, the Derby ER has 100Km range, doesn't make sense they would lie about it. I'd much rather go by what air forces do anyway. The IAF prefers the "shorter range" Derby ER than the "longer range" RVV-SD or even the "much longer range" K-77M. There's obviously a reason for that.

I cannot dispute conjecture and Wishfull thinking, but you till now have produced Zero evidence on the following :
Actual test altitude of Derby ER
Actual Ranges Corresponding to all of the climed ranges for Derby Er
Any reference to GAn Aesa RF seeker.

I will leave it at that.
Haha. So that way you don't have an argument either. I used logic and common sense to back mine up. Whereas your logic and common sense says the Israelis are lying and the IAF are fools. The behaviour of the forces is typically the best clue. Why is the IAF choosing the "shorter range" Derby ER over the "longer range" RVV-SD then?

Also a stunner seeker falling intact from (your medium) altitude at supersonic speeds points to First Fuse failure, seeker failure aswell as physics failure at different levels.
What altitude? No one says anything about this. Just that a Stunner seeker fell on the ground. Why on earth are you trying to analyse something entirely irrelevant? All we know for sure is there was confirmation that the seeker that fell was AESA using the MMW frequency, proving that the Israelis have had AESA seekers on missiles for more than half a decade already. That's all you need to take from this.

Inertial navigation system on a RF seeker dual data link missile . Are you sure about this?
Eh, you think missiles don't have INS? Are you sure about this?

What exactly is fuse fusion, how do you evaluate fuse performance? How is it superior to any contemprary missile?
Let's see, maybe a decade or so down the line we may know something.

typo , R73E was ordered not RVV MD.
Based on current reports, all information points to the RVV-SD and RVV-MD.

Do you understand that the thrust profile affects range and acceleration?
Also do you understand that you cannot directly compare different thrust profiles. All of your range discussion pivots on one key aspect, Altitude, which you have zero references on the actual values for any comparison. You keep claiming these medium and low and high altitude, show me one reference of your claims with respective altitudes.
That requires plenty of analysing the information released. OEMs and air forces provide enough clues in order to extrapolate data. Like the IAF's destruction of a target drone using the Astra. And then check similar data from some other manufacturer or OEM. Ask pilots, read the analysis of others etc. You don't do any of this.

What you have done is:
"Rafael says Derby's range is 50Km.
Vympel says RVV-AE's range is 80Km.
Hence RVV-AE beats Derby."

That's your line of argument. Taking things at face value without analysing.

First lets establish the contradicting ranges that you have mentioned, we will come to tactics after that.
Nothing contradicting. You simply don't agree, nothing more to it.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
NO !
It is a 30% improvement that is in the pipe.
Then that won't give the MICA NG a 150Km range, considering published figures. It will only match the Aim-120C. Or does that 30% boost take it to 150Km? Although I think that's unlikely.

Is there some mismatch in the information released? You know the story about the RBE-2AA as well.
 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,563
627
France
Then that won't give the MICA NG a 150Km range, considering published figures. It will only match the Aim-120C. Or does that 30% boost take it to 150Km? Although I think that's unlikely.

Is there some mismatch in the information released? You know the story about the RBE-2AA as well.
SORRY.
It's not a 30% but a 40% range improvement. my bad. Once again, no official data on that. I read that in a defense newspaper called "Defense expert", written by a well known french specialist.

He wrote that the IR seeker MICA NG will have 20km more range than the actual one in a ideal scenario (ie high altitude...) AND a second burst so as to increase the pk.

But even with +40%, we are far from 150km. And we don't need it once we have Meteor. Few years ago, when the follow on for MICA was discused, the emphasis seemed to be put on speed more than range. I don't know now. But it remains likely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: randomradio

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,845
2,301
United States
The numbers I have extrapolated:
RVV-AE's ranges are 35-45Km at medium altitude and 80-90Km at high altitude.
Derby's ranges are 50Km at medium altitude and 100+Km at high altitude.
Astra Mk1's ranges are 50Km at medium altitude and 100+Km at high altitude.
MICA's ranges are XX Km at medium altitude and 80Km at high altitude.
Derby ER's ranges are advertised as 100Km at medium altitude and XXX Km at high altitude.
What is Medium and High altitude defined as: why is there a 50% derate?


Half its weight is not half its size. Plus the Derby is still 400mm longer, so the warhead wouldn't make much of a difference to the entire design.
Still derby is pushing a warhead twice the size of Mica,

Having 20-30% less range while being 20-30% bigger than the Aim-120C is not enough proof? The Russians have only now caught up with the Aim-120C, with a bigger design.
By that logic, Aim120C is quite larger than the Mica, still has a lesser range , so is Aim120C to derated....


Reference to what? There is no reference, just look at dimensions and analyse with your own knowledge. You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? Simply apply common sense first.
Why don't you apply your common sense to your own claim. You seem to think smaller Derby has more range than Bigger RVV AE.




The second pulse generally activates when making the kill. So the first mode of the DPRM acts no different from a regular SRM, it only sustains the transit. You are talking about triple pulse motors, where the second pulse adds to the range. Typical red herring, you are not discussing the point.

Anyway the actual performance of the DPRM is not in question, all we need to know is it's better than the SRM.
and then you claim dprm has the same altitude derate as a SRM? why?



If the Derby ER is a lot bigger than the Derby, then great, helps my case. You are just hoping that the Israelis suck in comparison to the French, irrespective of the fact that the Israelis have far superior missiles in circulation now.

MICA NG is the same size as the MICA, already known.
If that is the case how does Mica NG become twice in range in the same size airframe if the dual pulse doesn't aid in range as you claim above?


Meh.

This discussion is not about data, it's about analysing based on the given information, which is extremely limited, by using common sense and logic. It's as simple as saying the LCA's engine consumes less fuel than the MKI's engine. Doesn't require data to know that.
As well as made up notions:

Like a stunner seeker falling intact in Syria, a BVRAAM missile that is fired Supersonic speeds, missing its target, failing to ignite it's pre frag warhead, and failing thousands of meter altitude to the ground to be found intact, found by the russians.
Or Israeli's denouncing the rest of the world's mechanism of reporting ranges of AAM's at high altitude and instead of reporting their missile ranges only at medium altitude, and only telling you about it.

That's not how it works. A lighter missile also consumes less fuel and requires a relatively less powerful motor. You are assuming that except for the weight of the warhead and the dimensions, everything else is the same. You have not considered seeker measurements, fuse measurements, CU measurements etc. Have you considered the reduced weight of all these may compensate for the weight of the warhead? Like the removal of the independent fuse for instance.
I have not, I used your own logic to prove your claims wrong, you are more than welcome to provide "seeker measurements, fuse measurements, CU measurements" with their attributable references to show me how you arrived at your ranges. As it stands now just from the volume of the airframe ratio: If you claim Derby at 50KM, both Mica and RVV AE come in at 80km ranges, exactly as advertised by MBDA and Vympel.


Wouldn't make sense for them to blatantly lie. They claim the Derby has a 50Km range, the Derby ER has 100Km range, doesn't make sense they would lie about it. I'd much rather go by what air forces do anyway. The IAF prefers the "shorter range" Derby ER than the "longer range" RVV-SD or even the "much longer range" K-77M. There's obviously a reason for that.
I never claimed Rafael was lying. I claimed that you suggesting Rafael publishing it's ranges as medium vs rest of the industry at high is preposterous. thats it. I used your own logic to prove you categorically wrong . Thats it.


Haha. So that way you don't have an argument either. I used logic and common sense to back mine up. Whereas your logic and common sense says the Israelis are lying and the IAF are fools. The behaviour of the forces is typically the best clue. Why is the IAF choosing the "shorter range" Derby ER over the "longer range" RVV-SD then?
There are two things here.
You yourself claimed IAF just ordered RVV -SD ( Which I dont know)
I have never claimed Derby ER has shorter range than RVV-SD, I said it's equivalent.

You claim Derby ER is a 200km range missile , which even Rafael doesn't and thus I called you out on that. You are yet to show a single shred of evidence pointing to the same.


What altitude? No one says anything about this. Just that a Stunner seeker fell on the ground. Why on earth are you trying to analyse something entirely irrelevant? All we know for sure is there was confirmation that the seeker that fell was AESA using the MMW frequency, proving that the Israelis have had AESA seekers on missiles for more than half a decade already. That's all you need to take from this.
If Derby ER had an Aesa seeker, it would be on every brochure for derby ER.

Eh, you think missiles don't have INS? Are you sure about this?
No Im not, feel free to share the INS module on BVRAAM. I would learn something new.


Based on current reports, all information points to the RVV-SD and RVV-MD.
reference? I read Janes it says R73E.


That requires plenty of analysing the information released. OEMs and air forces provide enough clues in order to extrapolate data. Like the IAF's destruction of a target drone using the Astra. And then check similar data from some other manufacturer or OEM. Ask pilots, read the analysis of others etc. You don't do any of this.
Perfect, you seem to suggest you have, least tell me what is the numerical value of High and low altitude and explain how it derated Solid rocket motors by 50 in range. Fell free to throw in any DP to temp curves you have for the same that forms the basis for your derate extrapolation.

What you have done is:
"Rafael says Derby's range is 50Km.
Vympel says RVV-AE's range is 80Km.
Hence RVV-AE beats Derby."

That's your line of argument. Taking things at face value without analysing.
I took your own Dimensions don't lie argument and categorically proved it you, if Derby is 80 KM, both RVV AE and Mica land up at 80. You didn't seem to like that. you don't seem to like the manufacturer's own literature.

You are absolutely right, I haven't analyzed anything in these posts.
Analysis in my world is slightly different.That word has a lot of reverence attached to it. Analysis is based on a lot of data that is diligently collected. Data has to be backed by tests per industry practice standards that need to be conducted at certified facilities with sensors calibrated by the reference standards directly traceable to NIST. So analysis based on testing is serious stuff, and not to be taken lightly.


So these notions that you put forward based on hunches, guesses, fiction and rumors can be termed a lot of things. The term analysis is definitely not one of them.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
What is Medium and High altitude defined as: why is there a 50% derate?
6-9Km and 9-12Km.

It's just a rule of thumb.


And common knowledge.
It can reach up to 110 km when fired from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when launched from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when fired from sea level.

The numbers are wrong, but even local journos know something you don't.

Still derby is pushing a warhead twice the size of Mica,
It's not just warhead. It's seeker + fuse + CU + warhead + engine weight + airframe weight. And then design; lift, drag, CoG etc.

By that logic, Aim120C is quite larger than the Mica, still has a lesser range , so is Aim120C to derated....
No clue what you said here.

Why don't you apply your common sense to your own claim. You seem to think smaller Derby has more range than Bigger RVV AE.
A smaller Aim-120 also has larger range than RVV-AE. What's so confusing about this? Aim-120D is also smaller than RVV-AE but has more than twice the range.

The smaller AMCA will also have more range than Su-30.

and then you claim dprm has the same altitude derate as a SRM? why?
It's just a rule of thumb since a lot of the derate has to do with air resistance rather than the motor itself.

Something of X cross section will face the same amount of drag as something else of X cross section. You see, the dimensions of missiles are more or less the same. A Derby is merely 20mm smaller in diameter than the Aim-120C even though both have the same length. So the external forces acting on the missiles are very much similar, hence a similar derate. The Aim-120 needs more power and consumes more fuel to travel the same amount of distance as the Derby, hence the Derby can make do with lesser amount of fuel.

If that is the case how does Mica NG become twice in range in the same size airframe if the dual pulse doesn't aid in range as you claim above?
Let's see what the correct range is in the future. BON PLAN thinks otherwise.

As well as made up notions:

Like a stunner seeker falling intact in Syria, a BVRAAM missile that is fired Supersonic speeds, missing its target, failing to ignite it's pre frag warhead, and failing thousands of meter altitude to the ground to be found intact, found by the russians.
Or Israeli's denouncing the rest of the world's mechanism of reporting ranges of AAM's at high altitude and instead of reporting their missile ranges only at medium altitude, and only telling you about it.
You do know you can check it, right? It's just a simple Google search.


As explained hundreds of times on the Balakot thread, missile seekers can be found intact even after the warhead explodes.



So please stop applying logic that goes against common knowledge.

I have not, I used your own logic to prove your claims wrong, you are more than welcome to provide "seeker measurements, fuse measurements, CU measurements" with their attributable references to show me how you arrived at your ranges. As it stands now just from the volume of the airframe ratio: If you claim Derby at 50KM, both Mica and RVV AE come in at 80km ranges, exactly as advertised by MBDA and Vympel.
You have to take that up with their respective marketing teams instead. Those who need to know get a different set of details.

There are two things here.
You yourself claimed IAF just ordered RVV -SD ( Which I dont know)
I have never claimed Derby ER has shorter range than RVV-SD, I said it's equivalent.

You claim Derby ER is a 200km range missile , which even Rafael doesn't and thus I called you out on that. You are yet to show a single shred of evidence pointing to the same.
Nobody will give you "evidence", you need to figure it out yourself, which is the very point of this exercise.

If Derby ER had an Aesa seeker, it would be on every brochure for derby ER.
Why?

No Im not, feel free to share the INS module on BVRAAM. I would learn something new.
It incorporates active radar with an inertial reference unit

In long-range engagements AMRAAM heads for the target using inertial guidance and receives updated target information via data link from the launch aircraft.


It's common sense that a missile won't know its own position without an INS.

reference? I read Janes it says R73E.
Since when is Jane's a good source for non-western systems. They have an absolutely terrible track record there.

I took your own Dimensions don't lie argument and categorically proved it you, if Derby is 80 KM, both RVV AE and Mica land up at 80. You didn't seem to like that. you don't seem to like the manufacturer's own literature.
So why does the RVV-AE have the same range as MICA?

You are absolutely right, I haven't analyzed anything in these posts.
Analysis in my world is slightly different.That word has a lot of reverence attached to it. Analysis is based on a lot of data that is diligently collected. Data has to be backed by tests per industry practice standards that need to be conducted at certified facilities with sensors calibrated by the reference standards directly traceable to NIST. So analysis based on testing is serious stuff, and not to be taken lightly.


So these notions that you put forward based on hunches, guesses, fiction and rumors can be termed a lot of things. The term analysis is definitely not one of them.
It looks to you that way because you do not even have the general knowledge necessary to engage in this topic. You don't know what the various altitude differences are. How missiles behave at different altitudes. Why missiles are designed the way they are. And finally you apply a very different logic to how OEMs advertise without understanding the underlying constraints involved. Hell, you don't even know BVR missiles carry something as basic as an INS.

Look at the amazing logic you have already shown. The difference between Derby, Aim-120C and RVV-AE is just 20mm in diameter, and the length is the same 3.6m. Derby is 160mm, Aim-120C is 180mm and RVV-AE is 200mm. You have no problems believing the Aim-120C significantly outranges the RVV-AE by a large margin, but you have a lot of problem believing the Derby cannot even match the Aim-120C even though the Israelis have a proven track record of having developed significantly superior electronics for their missiles. It's obvious you do not have a base to even stand on in this discussion.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Bon Plan

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,845
2,301
United States
6-9Km and 9-12Km.

It's just a rule of thumb.


And common knowledge.
It can reach up to 110 km when fired from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when launched from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when fired from sea level.

The numbers are wrong, but even local journos know something you don't.
Both the articles and the graph actually disprove your derate notion of 50% medium altitude.


A smaller Aim-120 also has larger range than RVV-AE. What's so confusing about this? Aim-120D is also smaller than RVV-AE but has more than twice the range.

The smaller AMCA will also have more range than Su-30.
Goes against exactly what you say about dimension and it's effect, Doesn't it? Which points towards propellent energy and chemistry a driving factor behind range an not just airframe size.


It's just a rule of thumb since a lot of the derate has to do with air resistance rather than the motor itself.

Something of X cross section will face the same amount of drag as something else of X cross section. You see, the dimensions of missiles are more or less the same. A Derby is merely 20mm smaller in diameter than the Aim-120C even though both have the same length. So the external forces acting on the missiles are very much similar, hence a similar derate. The Aim-120 needs more power and consumes more fuel to travel the same amount of distance as the Derby, hence the Derby can make do with lesser amount of fuel.
This shows how much you know about the topic, that graph that you pasted, look at it carfully and understand what the delta P stands there for.
There is very specific equation for the effect of barometric pressure on the volumetric air delivery.

Let's see what the correct range is in the future. BON PLAN thinks otherwise.



You do know you can check it, right? It's just a simple Google search.


As explained hundreds of times on the Balakot thread, missile seekers can be found intact even after the warhead explodes.



So please stop applying logic that goes against common knowledge.



You have to take that up with their respective marketing teams instead. Those who need to know get a different set of details.



Nobody will give you "evidence", you need to figure it out yourself, which is the very point of this exercise.



Why?
If Derby ER had an Aesa Seeker it would be the headline on it's brochure. For the same reason MBDA puts it on it's press release for the Mica NG>

It incorporates active radar with an inertial reference unit

In long-range engagements AMRAAM heads for the target using inertial guidance and receives updated target information via data link from the launch aircraft.


It's common sense that a missile won't know its own position without an INS.
alright let me rephrase, Does Derby ER use inertial guidance ? You claimed it has superior RLS for inertial guidance right?
Secondary, do all BVR's have inertial guidance, Say active homing ones which depend on datalink from aircraft?

Since when is Jane's a good source for non-western systems. They have an absolutely terrible track record there.
Better than a one I haven't seen, point to one , post the reference for RVV MD specific. That would be better, right?


So why does the RVV-AE have the same range as MICA?
Primarily becuase MBDA and VYmpel say so, if you dont like that, I can use your own volume idead and show you same volume/weight of warhead by your logic, either way 80km.



It looks to you that way because you do not even have the general knowledge necessary to engage in this topic. You don't know what the various altitude differences are. How missiles behave at different altitudes. Why missiles are designed the way they are. And finally you apply a very different logic to how OEMs advertise without understanding the underlying constraints involved. Hell, you don't even know BVR missiles carry something as basic as an INS.
Let's address the above backwards, INS is guidance mechanism not available on every unit, I know you are not aware of that fact, and it was the simplest way to expose the above where you read INS on a Amraam and transposed it to every BVR... that tells the deduction methodology you utilze. I might not be invited to seminars you attend but I was in the group for R27P's and KH 35's presentation at 11brd.


Look at the amazing logic you have already shown. The difference between Derby, Aim-120C and RVV-AE is just 20mm in diameter, and the length is the same 3.6m. Derby is 160mm, Aim-120C is 180mm and RVV-AE is 200mm. You have no problems believing the Aim-120C significantly outranges the RVV-AE by a large margin, but you have a lot of problem believing the Derby cannot even match the Aim-120C even though the Israelis have a proven track record of having developed significantly superior electronics for their missiles. It's obvious you do not have a base to even stand on in this discussion.
Lets get this right:
Dimensions of solid fuelled aircraft indicate range is your theory - not mine. I used the same to disprove everything you have written here. I did not propound the theory, i just used your own idea to prove you categorically wrong about everything you have written. I don't subscribe to either the methodology or your claimed values. It something for you to reconcile with yourself.

Altitude and range have linear derate is something you presented and equally effects SFRM and DPRM. you yourself disproved that from your nifty little graph and the Astra reference provided when questioned.

Lastly, you claimed, DPRM behaves exactly like SFRM until the second stage, which I am guessing is barrier burnout mode, and doesn't affect range. But at the same time apparently Mica NG in the same size frame increases range to twice...That tells us how much you know more than me about "Dual pulse" that apparently I don't have the capability to understand.

Now for the above line
Aim120C range > RVV AE
although RVV AE Size > Aim120C
So it's not just about size, its type of nozzle, Aerodynamics, quality of fuel, igniter efficiency, acceleration.

in the same breath
Derby size< RVV AE
So it must be equal to AIM120C is false equivalency, (not to mention negating your own dimension theory) when the manufacturer himself claims 50km. Your own Size logic puts RVV AE ahead. and there is not a single shred of evidence presented to show Derby's 50 KM's corresponding altitude.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
Both the articles and the graph actually disprove your derate notion of 50% medium altitude.
Hardly. The article in question uses incorrect numbers, that's all.

Goes against exactly what you say about dimension and it's effect, Doesn't it? Which points towards propellent energy and chemistry a driving factor behind range an not just airframe size.
I already told you to consider the tech base to be similar when it comes to such things.

If Derby ER had an Aesa Seeker it would be the headline on it's brochure. For the same reason MBDA puts it on it's press release for the Mica NG>
Nope. Because of the fact that the missiles have GaN seekers and did not bother to call it that is merely their own prerogative.

alright let me rephrase, Does Derby ER use inertial guidance ? You claimed it has superior RLS for inertial guidance right?
Secondary, do all BVR's have inertial guidance, Say active homing ones which depend on datalink from aircraft?
Of course they do. Even if aircraft have datalinks, the missile needs INS.

Better than a one I haven't seen, point to one , post the reference for RVV MD specific. That would be better, right?
Wrong source is worse than no source.

Since you are on Twitter (I'm not), then why don't you drop a tweet at a bunch of pros on there and find out for yourself? There's HVT and Thakur that I know of. Then there's obviously all the journos you know of already. If you drop your background on your convo, I'm sure they will reply to you. Answers don't come easy.

Primarily becuase MBDA and VYmpel say so, if you dont like that, I can use your own volume idead and show you same volume/weight of warhead by your logic, either way 80km.
Dude, you haven't understood. Did you even bother to read what I said:
RVV-AE's ranges are 35-45Km at medium altitude and 80-90Km at high altitude.
MICA's ranges are XX Km at medium altitude and 80Km at high altitude.


I am not disputing the 80Km range of both RVV-AE and MICA. What I'm asking is how a 3.1mx160mm missile has the same range as a 3.6mx200mm missile? Why is a missile designed to be agile have the same range as a much larger missile that's been designed for speed and range?

Let's address the above backwards, INS is guidance mechanism not available on every unit, I know you are not aware of that fact, and it was the simplest way to expose the above where you read INS on a Amraam and transposed it to every BVR... that tells the deduction methodology you utilze. I might not be invited to seminars you attend but I was in the group for R27ET's and KH 35's presentation at 11brd.
Haha. Okay. It looks like you don't know what the INS is for. So forget it. Anyway the fact is the INS is necessary for pretty much everything that flies on its own. All BVR and WVR missiles have INS.

Lets get this right:
Dimensions of solid fuelled aircraft indicate range is your theory - not mine. I used the same to disprove everything you have written here. I did not propound the theory, i just used your own idea to prove you categorically wrong about everything you have written. I don't subscribe to either the methodology or your claimed values. It something for you to reconcile with yourself.

Altitude and range have linear derate is something you presented and equally effects SFRM and DPRM. you yourself disproved that from your nifty little graph and the Astra reference provided when questioned.
This is how discussions end up, with the one losing the discussion devolving to specifics with no data since he finds solace in the fact that it's not easily available, when the discussion should be focused on the general instead.

Also that graph diverges when more range is involved. Hence why a 500-600Km range missile reduces to merely 100-200Km at low altitudes. The graph was only to point out that range drops with a drop in altitude.

Here's one more suitable for the subject.


You can see it drop from 80Km at high altitude to 40Km at medium altitude. And then to 20Km at low altitude. This gives you the 50% drop rule of thumb.

Lastly, you claimed, DPRM behaves exactly like SFRM until the second stage, which I am guessing is barrier burnout mode, and doesn't affect range. But at the same time apparently Mica NG in the same size frame increases range to twice...That tells us how much you know more than me about "Dual pulse" that apparently I don't have the capability to understand.
Eh, I've already said let time prove what's up with MICA NG.

Now for the above line
Aim120C range > RVV AE
although RVV AE Size > Aim120C
So it's not just about size, its type of nozzle, Aerodynamics, quality of fuel, igniter efficiency, acceleration.

in the same breath
Derby size< RVV AE
So it must be equal to AIM120C is false equivalency, (not to mention negating your own dimension theory) when the manufacturer himself claims 50km. Your own Size logic puts RVV AE ahead. and there is not a single shred of evidence presented to show Derby's 50 KM's corresponding altitude.
That's exactly what I said, the Russians half-assed their R-77. You must give equivalence when comparing the same tech base when it comes to the US and Israel, even the French. It's not out of the ordinary to expect that the US and Israel are using similar propulsion technology, whereas the Russian tech is half-assed and outdated. The very reason why the MICA comfortably matches the RVV-AE in range, while the Derby and Aim-120 comfortably outrange the RVV-AE. By extension, the bigger Derby outranges the MICA as well, since the tech base for the propulsion system is the same.

So you prefer to apply logic to the difference between RVV-AE and Aim-120, but deny the same logic, literally only for equivalence, to the difference between Aim-120C and Derby. Even with exactly the same technology used in the propulsion and fuel, the Derby and Aim-120C will have the same range. Because the Derby compensates for its smaller size by being equally lighter. The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range.

This argument is far, far, far better and much more closer to reality than your argument that the Derby's range is a ridiculous 45% that of the Aim-120C instead even with similar tech base and missile dimensions. It's ridiculous to even assume the Derby has lower range than the MICA. My size logic in fact supports the very theory I have put forth.

So if the Derby has the same range as the Aim-120C, and the Israelis claim the ER doubles that range, then it's obvious the Derby ER has twice the range of the Aim-120C and by extension the RVV-SD as well. Even if we say the Derby doesn't match the Aim-120C's range, at least it's more than that of the MICA's. So, even if it's between 80 and 100Km, and you double that for the Derby ER, you still get much greater range than the Aim-120C and RVV-SD.

Hence going back to the original point of the discussion, that the Derby ER is far more capable than the RVV-SD, and that's why the IAF are planning on making the Derby ER their primary BVR missile for the LCA and MKI. And this is not even considering the significantly superior GaN AESA combined with the fuse alongside a very advanced INS, or even the fact that Israeli missiles have longer lifespan, cheaper LCC and use battle proven technologies compared to Russian equivalents.

PS: I have seen a pic of the AESA seeker of the Tamir, its derivative is now on the Derby ER, which is why this discussion is all fun for me. So I know, you don't. Which is why I find it really funny that you rely on Israeli advertisements. I probably even have the pic somewhere, dunno where though. Don't think it's in my current PC though.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,685
6,118
India
SORRY.
It's not a 30% but a 40% range improvement. my bad. Once again, no official data on that. I read that in a defense newspaper called "Defense expert", written by a well known french specialist.

He wrote that the IR seeker MICA NG will have 20km more range than the actual one in a ideal scenario (ie high altitude...) AND a second burst so as to increase the pk.

But even with +40%, we are far from 150km. And we don't need it once we have Meteor. Few years ago, when the follow on for MICA was discused, the emphasis seemed to be put on speed more than range. I don't know now. But it remains likely.
So that will put the missile in the 100-120Km category if we go by published figures.

But yeah, I guess with the Meteor providing the top cover needed, MICA can be further developed for agility instead.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,845
2,301
United States
So you prefer to apply logic to the difference between RVV-AE and Aim-120, but deny the same logic, literally only for equivalence, to the difference between Aim-120C and Derby. Even with exactly the same technology used in the propulsion and fuel, the Derby and Aim-120C will have the same range. Because the Derby compensates for its smaller size by being equally lighter. The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range.
[/QUOTE]

This is great, you can just keep arguing with yourself in this:
Your Statements:

The Derby is 20% smaller than the Aim-120 and is also 20% lighter, thereby requiring 20% smaller motor and 20% lesser fuel to achieve the same range. (Smaller missile same range)
It's ridiculous to even assume the Derby has lower range than the MICA . My size logic in fact supports the very theory I have put forth. (Smaller missile not same range)

Then it's obvious the Derby ER has twice the range of the Aim-120C and by extension the RVV-SD as well.
(But I already told you to consider the tech base to be similar when it comes to such things. Not Applicable SFRM vs DPRM)

You really think a smaller MICA has more range than a bigger Derby? (No but Smaller Derby has more range than Aim120 and RVV AE)
 
Last edited: