Originally Posted By: ckfinite
Yes, I agree, R-77 is inferior to most AMRAAMs. However, R-77 provides evidence that the Russians have the ability to produce operational ARH seekers, and could probably be used as a base for an ARH 48N6, unless there's something more fundamental about R-77 that I'm missing.


The R-77 is their first-gen attempt at miniaturizing an ARH seeker. The R-37 has one (... has it actually entered service though, or is it still cancelled?).

As for the 48N6, part of the reason why they don't use ARH is cost. The PAC-3 and I believe 9M96/E are ARH, and they're specifically used as hit-to-kill (At least PAC-3 is) with the explosive payload used to increase kill probability.

The larger missiles like 48N6 don't need the accuracy of the other two, and instead can be driven more efficiently within a larger error of their targets - the warhead takes care of the rest.

That's my assumption anyway.

Quote:
I was engaging in some minor hyperbole - you obviously can't swap around seekers like that. SM-6 does demonstrate that the sensor technology is not entirely orthogonal, though, in that an ARH AAM seeker system was developed into a ARC SAM seeker. Is there some difference between the AMRAAM seeker and the R-77 seeker that makes this easier for the former and more difficult for the latter?


Sure, the technology is based heavily on the 120, much like some proposals for certain missile upgrade (R-27EA) were based on R-77. But I don't think anyone's looking at that particular incarnation of the seeker any more.

As for differences? Like I said ... R-77 is at best comparable to AIM-120A, so you could go as far as assuming that that incarnation of the seeker wasn't even reprogrammable - you had to swap out parts to change how it works. It makes more sense to develop something better for today's threats, IMHO.

Last edited by GrayGhost; 04/27/15 08:53 PM.
--
44th VFW