R-37M long-range air-to-air missiles in Special Operations

24 676 65
R-37M long-range air-to-air missiles in Special Operations
Still from an interview with a fighter pilot, November 2022. A Su-35S aircraft has a Rocket R-37M (part of the fairing and body are visible)


Russian fighter aviation has a wide range of air-to-air guided missiles, including products of different classes with different characteristics. The R-37M long-range missile occupies a special place in its arsenals. It has unique characteristics and is capable of solving the most complex combat missions. Such products are used during the current Special Operation and, together with other missiles, cause irreparable damage to the enemy air force.



Rockets and planes


From the first days of the Special Operation, Russian fighters have been involved in the process of destroying enemy aircraft. Back in the summer of 2022, the first reports of successful interceptions of enemy aircraft at ranges of at least 150-200 km appeared. Which weapon allowed to do this, it was not reported then. Details emerged only a few months later.

At the beginning of November 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defense showed a report on the work of our fighters. In an interview with a pilot participating in the Special Operation, a Su-35S aircraft was captured on camera. Along with other weapons, the R-37M long-range air-to-air missile was suspended on it. This product has the highest flight characteristics and is the longest-range weapon of our Aerospace Forces for combating air targets.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Defense and domestic media and blogs repeatedly published new photographs and videos of Su-35S fighters and their long-range missiles. New information has also been received about the combat use of R-37M products and the successful destruction of targets over the entire range of ranges.

It has long been known that the Su-35S is not the only carrier of the R-37M missile in the Russian Aerospace Forces. Other aircraft also use similar weapons during Special Operations. Thus, at the end of November 2023, the Ministry of Defense showed the preparation and departure of MiG-31BM fighter-interceptors with long-range missiles. Aircraft of this type are also on duty in the air and are involved in the radical demilitarization of the “military forces.”


R-37M under the fuselage of a MiG-31BM interceptor, November 2023.

On May 22, 2024, the Ministry of Defense published a video of the combat work of the Black Sea aviation fleet. Along with other equipment, the combat mission shown included a Su-30SM2 fighter armed with two or three R-37M missiles. Previously, such aircraft with these weapons have not appeared in open materials.

It is curious that the appearance of R-37M missiles in the combat zone did not go unnoticed abroad. Since the beginning of last year, disturbing publications have repeatedly appeared in the foreign press about the Russian Aerospace Forces having a missile with a range of more than 300 km. The potential of such weapons was assessed, incl. in conjunction with different media. Of particular concern was the theoretical possibility of the R-37M being used by the latest Su-57 fighter.

Combat application


All details of the combat use of aviation missile weapons, incl. R-37M products are, for obvious reasons, unknown. However, the available information allows us to imagine how and with what results fighters use modern long-range weapons. In addition, enemy complaints about such missiles are known.

In March 2023 RIA News with reference to their sources, revealed some details of the first months of combat use of the R-37M. With the help of such missiles it was possible to shoot down planes and helicopters of all types in the enemy's arsenal. Several UAVs were also hit, including foreign equipment of highly advertised models. At the same time, good statistics are shown - the probability of hitting a target approaches one. In fact, only one missile is spent on one typical target.


Takeoff of the MiG-31BM interceptor with R-37M missiles

Russian fighter aviation patrols specified areas with the aim of interdicting enemy flights. Flights of Su-35S, MiG-31BM fighters, etc. can work independently and search for air targets using their standard equipment. Support from other systems and complexes is also possible. Fighters can receive target designation from ground-based radars or from AWACS aircraft. In both cases, the controlled area expands and it becomes possible to use the full potential of the R-37M missile.

According to open data, the R-37M product has a launch range of 300 km. This allows fighter carriers to engage air targets before they reach their weapons range and can threaten our assets. In addition, the MiG-31BM or Su-35S gain the ability to control enemy airspace to great depth, remaining above their territory and under the protection of their air defense systems. The missile's long range and corresponding flight duration also make it possible to carry out an additional attack in case of a miss.

The enemy now has to take into account the presence of long-range missiles in our Aerospace Forces and their presence in the combat zone. R-37M products have become an additional threat and significantly complicate the planning of aircraft combat operations. Any sortie that comes within 300 km or less of Russian fighters can now result in the loss of the aircraft and/or pilot. Given the shortage of material and flight personnel, this becomes a big problem.

To date, Russian armed forces have hit or destroyed more than 600 Ukrainian aircraft, approx. 270 helicopters and almost 25 thousand UAVs. Some of these victories were achieved by fighter aircraft and their missiles. For obvious reasons, how many enemy aircraft were destroyed using R-37M missiles is unknown. However, the available data shows that the rocket makes a significant contribution to the overall results.

Long range missile


History The R-37 missile dates back to the early eighties, when it was decided to develop a new long-range munition for the MiG-31 interceptor. The promising missile was supposed to surpass the existing R-33 in its main characteristics and subsequently replace it. The development was entrusted to the Vympel State Design Bureau (now part of the Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation). The project received the working designation K-37; subsequently the letter “K” was replaced by “P”.


Su-30MS2 naval aviation of the KChF with R-37M missiles, May 2024.

Testing of the R-37 began in 1988, but subsequent events in the country’s history prevented the product from being finalized and put into service. In the late nineties, taking into account new realities, the missile began to be modified, and subsequently a full modernization was carried out. The resulting product received the designations R-37M and RVV-BD (“Long-range air-to-air missile”). The R-37M modification was first shown in 2011, when the missile was already being tested.

According to known data, the R-37M was adopted by the Air Force in 2014; At the same time, the production and implementation of missiles in units began. The first carrier of the missile was the MiG-31BM interceptor. Also, over the past decade, work has been carried out to integrate this product into the ammunition load of other current fighter aircraft. The results of these processes can now be observed during the Special Operation.

The R-37M is built according to the traditional “air-to-air” design for domestic missiles. A cylindrical body with an ogive fairing is used, inside of which a homing head, a warhead and a solid propellant engine are sequentially placed. In the central part of the hull there are X-shaped wings, in the tail there are rudders of a similar design. The length of the product exceeds 4 m, the diameter of the body is 380 mm. Starting weight – 600 kg.

The solid propellant engine accelerates the rocket to a speed of about 6 Mach. After running out of fuel, the ammunition flies by inertia until it meets the target. The maximum launch range against a target in the forward hemisphere is determined to be 300 km. At the moment, the R-37M is the longest-range missile of its class in the world.


Model of the RVV-BD export missile at the MAKS-2015 exhibition

Products of the R-37 family have a combined control system. The main part of the flight occurs using inertial navigation with correction according to the commands of the carrier aircraft. Due to these means, the missile approaches the target several tens of kilometers, after which it turns on the active radar seeker. The latter detects the target and accompanies it until it is defeated.

The R-37M carries a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 60 kg with contact and non-contact target sensors. A direct hit from a missile with such a warhead is guaranteed to destroy any aircraft, and an explosion at a distance of several meters or tens of meters causes fatal damage from fragments.

Today and tomorrow


The Russian Aerospace Forces fighter aircraft are armed with various air-to-air missiles, incl. product R-37M. It has unique flight characteristics and is also compatible with modern fighters and interceptors of the main types. This missile helps our pilots win aerial victories, and also significantly changes the situation in the air and provides a noticeable advantage over opponents.

In the foreseeable future, R-37M missiles and other weapons of this class will continue to participate in the demilitarization of the Ukrainian Air Force. After its completion, such products will remain in service and, possibly, will undergo a new modernization with an additional increase in the main characteristics. Obviously, such weapons are of particular importance for the Aerospace Forces, and they will serve for as long as possible.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    27 May 2024 04: 12
    The Russian Aerospace Forces fighter aircraft are armed with various air-to-air missiles, incl. product R-37M...

    ...the development of which began in 1985 in the USSR, on one line for the production of galoshes.
    1. +9
      27 May 2024 05: 10
      Quote: ROSS 42
      the development of which began in 1985 in the USSR

      And in 1988 the tests began. And those "galoshes" turned out to be extremely unique. No one else has them yet.
    2. KCA
      +1
      27 May 2024 05: 24
      What kind of galoshes, just felt boots, what else could you do? Space, yosmos, so, bullshit
    3. + 14
      27 May 2024 10: 39
      There are only comedians on the site.
      The article has a number of shortcomings and does not outline the main problems of long-range missiles, we will not consider the cost factor. The first problem of long-range air combat is friendly fire and the fundamental shortcomings of "friend or foe" systems. The second problem for our Aerospace Forces is the complete lack of external real-time reconnaissance systems for the effective use of long-range missiles that operate in conjunction with such aircraft. A good missile, but the conditions for its use in the Russian Aerospace Forces still need to be created... The General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces cannot formulate a technical assignment for the creation of tactical systems on the battlefield, and their creation is not even being discussed yet, and here 300 km? Remember the story with the ESU TZ "Sozvezdie-M", they still do not even know what it is needed for...
      1. +8
        27 May 2024 11: 24
        Quote: Vitov
        the complete absence of external real-time reconnaissance systems for the effective use of long-range missiles that work in conjunction with such aircraft.

        Who argues? Only from 1978 to 1991, 31 units of A-50 of various modifications were produced. In the USSR, they thought about the problem despite all the accusations of today's liberals... Who is to blame for the fact that Manturov did not produce a single A-12 in those same 50 years and did not take a single step to speed up the appearance of the A-100...
        It was not a bobbin ...
        1. + 11
          27 May 2024 11: 58
          And it’s not just Manturov, and not so much him.
          We have a good Tu-214R reconnaissance aircraft, in quantity... 2 units. The military did not need it, moreover, they did not accept the ground part of the aircraft complex for receiving information about the ground enemy in real time. It rotted in the hangar. This aircraft could transmit reconnaissance data for target designation in real time, and the military in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia said, let it record on carriers. By the way, all UAVs in Syria conducted reconnaissance like this... There are no aircraft, their capabilities are limited due to the fault of the military minds in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia. They have no idea about modern warfare...
          Hence all the results in SVO and other places...
          1. +6
            27 May 2024 12: 07
            Quote: Vitov
            The military didn't need him

            You and I have already learned what the leadership of the Moscow Region needed. In the army everything is simple - follow orders! And the troops knew and know what it takes to defeat the enemy...
            Quote: Vitov
            They have no idea about modern warfare...

            Roughly speaking, you and I are far from professionals either.
            But the fact that the Defense Ministry and the General Staff rested on the laurels of 2008 and were bestowed with “princely affection” in 2018 played a role. In addition, not every minister was given the right to rest with the GVK.
            Hence the results of mobilization readiness, and much more...
          2. +2
            27 May 2024 13: 51
            In general, if the headquarters doesn’t care about monitoring the situation in real time, then this is, to put it mildly, a bummer. Previously, all sorts of emperors, risking their lives, specifically traveled with the army in order to control it in real time, and did not communicate by pigeon mail about what was going on there.
      2. +2
        28 May 2024 23: 25
        Quote: Vitov
        The first problem of long-range air combat is friendly fire and the fundamental shortcomings of friend-or-foe systems.

        For long-range air combat there is no such problem.
        Quote: Vitov
        The second problem for our aerospace forces is the complete lack of external real-time reconnaissance systems for the effective use of long-range missiles that work in conjunction with such aircraft.

        In this case, long-range missiles are used. If it were ineffective, they would not be used.
    4. +4
      27 May 2024 11: 20
      Quote: ROSS 42
      ...the development of which began in 1985 in the USSR, on one line for the production of galoshes.

      Distort.
      We had a defense industry - cool, strong, and we are still proud of it. We are grateful to our grandfathers and our fathers for creating such a defense after the Great Patriotic War.

      А galoshes - this, for example, is a domestic cassette recorder, in which the solder snot on the board was shorted to the frame during assembly. And nothing - passed the quality control department. Or the first domestic color televisions - warmth and fire in every home.
      1. 0
        27 May 2024 11: 28
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Distort.

        You will descend from heaven to earth, and, illuminated by the golden blessed light, you will be able to understand what it is like:
      2. +3
        27 May 2024 19: 17
        Alexey, Good evening. Today, Russia exports, in addition to raw materials - oil, gas, uranium and titanium - two types of high-tech products, well, they don't buy anything else from us, what can they do. So these two types of high-tech products are the first - Su-35 fighters, in fact, this aircraft, practically without changes - is the Su-27, or more precisely the T-10-1, which first took off in July 1981, that is, Leonid Ilyich was still the General Secretary at that time. Now the second "Soviet rubber galosh" is the VVER-1200 reactors, developed by Soviet engineers from 1974 to 1978, in 1978 the technical design was ready and production could begin. Well, how long are we going to drink from the Soviet well and spit in it at the same time. You build your own well and drink from it, otherwise it turns out ugly. In 37 years of capitalism in Russia, gentlemen liberals, what have you created? Maybe the T-14, but why then are the "old Soviet thirty-fours", oh, forgive me, the "seventy-twos" and the T-90 going into battle again? Well, okay, that's not so bad. Let's chalk it up to my inflated expectations.
        Another thing - I have six or seven TVs at home, bought at different times in the 90s, in the 1978s, what's not there - "Phillips", "Shmilleps", "Samsungs" - I keep them like in a museum to remember that you should never buy them. Only two work - "LG" bought several years ago, it still works. And, ... attention !!!!! "Raduga-716" bought in August 90 and this damn thing still works, I took it out to the veranda at the end of the 20s so that the old man would die a natural death, the veranda is not heated, but this damn thing is tenacious, it works even at minus 1977 degrees. Sometimes in the winter we watch it on the veranda, sitting in jackets. It has outlived all the imported TVs that, in theory, should have swept it away someday. There is also a working "Biryusa" refrigerator bought in the summer. 1998, also works, and next to it stands a dead Samsung bought in XNUMX.
        Alexey! I have always respected you - for your competence, your professionalism. But with such posts, and this is not the first, you should not write such nonsense anymore - I do not like to be disappointed.
        1. +1
          27 May 2024 19: 36
          The T-10-1 took off in 1977, and in 1981 there was the T-10S-1, and about the complete similarity of 35 and 27, you can think so, but for a long time now the “consumer” properties of a fighter are not determined by its appearance.
          1. 0
            27 May 2024 19: 42
            Alexey, well, you understand what I meant - 98% of the work of the design engineers was completed before July 1981. I am not comparing these two aircraft, but only the intellectual work spent on it and, most importantly, when this work was spent.
            1. +1
              27 May 2024 20: 15
              Again, I disagree, 50 percent - yes, but not 98. The very first version of the radar was not ready yet, then they switched to a simpler version with other onboard computers, the electronic warfare system was not ready, inter-board information exchange appeared later, and it was they who determined its level as a combat system.
              1. 0
                27 May 2024 20: 24
                Alexey, by the way, you remembered the very first Su-27 - T-10 from 1977. I talked for a long time, back in the 1990s, with one TsAGist, and he said that he was better, with the old AL-21F engines he could accelerate to Mach 2,5 (2650 km per hour) freely. But suddenly someone wanted automatic slats and flight at higher angles of attack - as a result they got a cuttlefish, which, even with the new AL-31F, with 6 tons more thrust, could not accelerate the plane beyond Mach 2,2 (2330 km per hour). And in general, he was more beautiful, and if you remember the words of Andrei Nikolaevich, it means better.
              2. 0
                27 May 2024 20: 31
                Sorry Alexey, I reported, of course it wasn’t 6 tons, but only 2 tons, that’s why the numbers for AL-7F came to mind
                1. +2
                  27 May 2024 20: 48
                  It also seemed to me that the T-10 and T-10S were from different galaxies, each stood out in its own way. I won’t say anything about the maximum speed, but from the point of view of maneuverability, the T-10S is beyond competition, as it flew in Vladimirovna, raising dust from the Earth, on a small patch of the runway, and as they landed without a braking parachute, I immediately turned to the first taxiway, and how they tore off the nose strut on the first plate, turning like a pancake and quietly went leisurely into flight, in contrast to the loudly farting 29, trying to show that he was a rocket... Eh... where are my xxx-years
        2. +2
          27 May 2024 22: 38
          Quote from sergeyketonov
          Su-35 fighters, essentially this aircraft, practically unchanged - this is the Su-27

          Have you ever seen them live, wing to wing?
          1. +1
            28 May 2024 01: 14
            You. What do you think, that I don’t know how the Su-27 differs from the Su-35? That's not what this is about.
            Let me try again, what can I do? Imagine it's 1977, Sukhoi Design Bureau receives new technical specifications from the Ministry of Defense (Air Force) for an aircraft - the Heavy PFI program, they were not satisfied with the T-10-1, a group of engineers from Sukhoi Design Bureau headed by Naum Chernyakov gets down to work, from the old aircraft - only the front landing gear and the main landing gear wheels, they do everything else Anew, the ENTIRE AIRCRAFT Anew, in July 1981 it flies, in 1985 it enters service and is massively sent to IAPs, the industry produces 100 aircraft per year. IN FOUR YEARS, AN AIRCRAFT FROM SCRATCH. (maybe it will be more visible and understandable this way?). This is how communists work. Now about the capitalists, 43 YEARS have passed, what have the capitalists done in that time to turn the Su-27 into the Su-35? I mean the amount of intellectual and physical work, here you can try with a magnifying glass, no with a microscope to look for this very amount of work, these very differences between the Su-27 and the Su-35 are this very amount of work. The AFAR radar, well, what can I say - IN 40 YEARS!!!!!! they did it, although I can't bring myself to say - "well done", but still well done.
            This is exactly THIS what I meant. My God! How dense students are these days.
            It's all sad....
            1. +1
              28 May 2024 08: 58
              This is exactly what I meant.
              Sergey! Let's look at this all differently! Will the Su-27 (1985) be able to win a dogfight against the Su-35S? The answer is known, no!!! And just this little thing:
              AFAR radar, well, what can I say - FOR 40 YEARS!!!!!! done
              and led to this result, although there is not a radar with afar, but a “chain of sequential development” of four radars. So it turns out that appearance is nothing, but filling it with combat systems is everything!
              1. -1
                28 May 2024 14: 41
                Alexey. Good day. Alexey, you are like a child, honest to God, forgive me. There is a 40 YEAR DIFFERENCE between the planes!!!! Well, you could also conduct a hypothetical air battle between a MiG-3 and a MiG-29, the difference between them is smaller, only 37 years. 40 YEARS on AFAR? Isn't that too much? It would be better to imagine not a hypothetical battle between planes, but if the USSR with its planned economy had survived, how long would it have taken Soviet engineers to make this radar?
                1. +1
                  28 May 2024 16: 23
                  40 YEARS for AFAR? Isn't it too much?
                  And what about the fact that in 1985 some fighter had a radar with an AFA? There were none! But there was only one MiG-31, whose radar had a classic phased array antenna. The second such fighter was supposed to be the Su-27, only the phased array antenna for it was made simpler, but it would allow simultaneous attack of two targets, the F-15 at that time could attack only one. But such an antenna did not work out, and it was necessary to install an antenna with a conventional mechanical rotation. However, this was not the end of the matter, and in 1997 (that is, 12 years later) the T-10M was equipped with a radar that also used a classic full-fledged phased array antenna, but not a simple one, but with the ability to mechanically rotate the canvas, which gives advantages in terms of combat capabilities compared to the usual fixed canvas in the nose. Incidentally, I will note that the current AFA are these fixed panels in the nose, and in 1997 the F-15 still waved its antenna from side to side on a mechanical drive. And finally, on the Su-35S, this combination of the AFA with the ability to turn was brought to its logical conclusion.
                  and if the USSR with its planned economy had survived, how long would it have taken Soviet engineers to make this radar?
                  Real Soviet engineers would not have made an AFA, a very controversial solution. So we get that although the Su-57 uses an AFA, it is more or less suitable only in a solution with three canvases, but these three canvases cannot be installed on the Su-27 line, and if you leave one fixed canvas in the nose, then such a solution will lose in characteristics to both Bars and Irbis. And therefore there is no need to talk about "40 years for an AFA for the Su-27"!
                  1. 0
                    28 May 2024 17: 41
                    Alexey, you and I are talking about different things. I understand what you want to tell me - about the thorny path of AFAR in our country and in the States, about successful and unsuccessful directions of development and dead-end paths, etc. I know all this and I understand what you want to tell me, moreover, I completely agree with you that it is better to distribute the canvases throughout the entire aircraft, and not leave one fixed one in the nose and canvases with mechanical canvas rotation, and for us and for the Americans this was a temporary and not the best solution. But I am trying to tell you about something else - if the Soviet OKB system had been preserved, in the form in which it was before 1987 with state financing, state investments in promising areas, then this problem would have been solved long ago. Moreover, over these 37 years, both here and in the USA, they would have already been preparing the 8th generation of fighter aircraft to replace the seventh generation. Having destroyed our system in the second half of the 1980s, we also did a disservice to the Americans, their scientific and technological revolution also slowed down, I would even say it stopped. However, the Americans do not understand this, for some reason they think that they won the "cold war", they do not understand that in the absence of competition with the USSR since 1987 they are also degrading, well, in any case, they are standing still and this is obvious and can be observed even by people who are not deeply immersed in the subject.
                    Alexey, well, something like that.
                    1. +1
                      28 May 2024 18: 16
                      If the Soviet design bureau system had been preserved, in the form in which it was before 1987, with state funding and state investments in promising areas, then this problem would have been solved long ago.
                      An inner voice tells me that it was already too late. Specialists had long been knocked out of the top echelon of management; real middle-level specialists were under terrible pressure from the bureaucracy and all sorts of riffraff of the category “all mediocrities are in solidarity,” and even with the slogan attached to them: “Enthusiasts are their mother!” Perhaps purely military methods of management with the prospect of execution if failure to comply somewhere would have yielded results, but this is not a fact either.
            2. +2
              28 May 2024 23: 09
              Quote from sergeyketonov
              Imagine the year is 1977, the Sukhoi Design Bureau receives a new specification from the Ministry of Defense (Air Force) for an aircraft - the Heavy PFI program, the T-10-1 did not suit them,

              This fairy tale. The reality was not like that.
              Quote from sergeyketonov
              here you can try with a magnifying glass, no, with a microscope, look for this very volume of work, these are the very differences between the Su-27 and the Su-35

              The Su-35 has only an integral aerodynamic configuration left from the Su-27. No magnifying glass or microscope is needed.
          2. 0
            28 May 2024 02: 40
            Quote: Comet
            Have you ever seen them live, wing to wing?

            You can compare schematically in the figure:
            1. +1
              28 May 2024 23: 12
              Quote: ROSS 42
              Quote: Comet
              Have you ever seen them live, wing to wing?

              You can compare schematically in the figure:

              This is exactly what we are talking about. For example, in the picture the diameter of the nose of the S-30 and Su-35 is the same, but in reality the diameter of the nose of the Su-35 is noticeably larger.
    5. 0
      27 May 2024 20: 21
      Recognizable. You only know how to read the headlines.
  2. +1
    27 May 2024 07: 31
    Good product. It is not entirely clear how the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ aviation survived and continues to launch air-launched missile attacks.
    1. +1
      27 May 2024 08: 32
      Because “To date, the Russian armed forces have hit or destroyed more than 600 Ukrainian aircraft...”, while there were no more than two hundred of them. And even a few dozen raised from the trash and transferred by Ukraine’s allies did not significantly change the total number. There are good signs on this topic on Lostarmore
  3. +3
    27 May 2024 10: 40
    The RVV KS-172 with a range of up to 400 km was also in development... But the R-37M missile, in my opinion, still needs modernization! 1. DPU (lateral control engine); 2. RAMJET (cruise main or maneuvering additional); 3. homing head with AFAR. 4. Special data transmission channel, allowing the missile to be guided by a third-party radar (for example, an AWACS aircraft)...
    1. 0
      27 May 2024 13: 46
      3. GOS with AFAR.
      For starters, we should put AFAR on airplanes and on air defense with ships
    2. 0
      28 May 2024 11: 16
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      4. A special data transmission channel that allows the missile to be guided by a third-party radar (for example, an AWACS aircraft)...

      So already - last year, in such a way (with guidance from the A-50U), so many enemy aircraft were gutted in a couple of weeks that the Anglo-Saxons began a whole special operation to hunt for our A-50Us.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      2. Ramjet (main sustainer or shunting additional

      It would be nice, but with such an engine, even the R-77 flies into space at a cost. But what is needed is mass production.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      1.DPU (lateral control engine)

      Yes, such a one could allow it to work effectively against maneuverable targets at maximum range, but due to its own weight it would eat up either the mass of the warhead or the range. In fact, this will be a completely new RVV DB with a larger launch mass and linear dimensions... Or with a ramjet engine, but with a cosmic price tag.
      In addition, for shooting at a distance of about 400 km. ... this is WHAT kind of radar should you have? The detection range of such a radar should be at least 100 km. longer missile launch range. Those. cross-section \ area of ​​the antenna web... i.e. new specialized INTERCEPTOR. A very large interceptor. New, large - means not soon and very expensive. . . This is such a headache from the desire to increase the launch range of the RVV BD to 400 km.
      And also - a heavier and larger RVV BD, this is a reduction in ammunition, or ... again, an inflation of the interceptor's size. In such aspirations, the main thing is to stop in time ... and simply INCREASE the number of your fighter aircraft. By two or three times.
    3. +1
      28 May 2024 23: 21
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      .And the R-37M missile, in my opinion,

      Well, since the discussion has started, I’ll put in my two cents.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      1.DPU (lateral control engine)

      Which DPU and where should it be installed structurally?
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      2. Ramjet (main sustainer or shunting additional);

      Not needed, just hemorrhoids. The use of ramjet engines on air-launched missiles and missile defense systems has long been abandoned.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      3. GOS with AFAR.

      This discussion will be long... The direction of the seeker antenna never coincides with the axis of the missile... Range, distance between PPMs, number of PPMs...
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      4. A special data transmission channel that allows the missile to be guided by a third-party radar (for example, an AWACS aircraft)...

      AWACS is too far away. For a target, it will work, but for a group goal, it’s unlikely.
      1. 0
        29 May 2024 22: 25
        Quote: Comet
        .DPU (lateral control engine)

        Which DPU and where should it be installed structurally?

        Yes, this is the kind of DPU that, in particular, is installed, for example, on the 9M96 and Aster-30 missiles... in the middle (center of mass) or closer to the “nose”!
        Quote: Comet
        2. Ramjet (main sustainer or shunting additional);

        Not needed, just hemorrhoids. The use of ramjet engines on air-launched missiles and missile defense systems has long been abandoned.

        And they abandoned the MBDA Meteor...considered one of the best missile systems in the world? belay
        Quote: Comet
        3. GOS with AFAR

        This direction is considered promising in the development of RVVs, especially long-range ones! You can give an example, for example, of the Chinese RVV PL-15...
        Quote: Comet
        4. A special data transmission channel that allows the missile to be guided by a third-party radar (for example, an AWACS aircraft)...

        AWACS is too far away.

        Alas! For you! Because this direction is also successfully developed by China!
        1. +1
          30 May 2024 00: 32
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Yes, this is the kind of DPU that, in particular, is installed, for example, on the 9M96 and Aster-30 missiles... in the middle (center of mass) or closer to the “nose”!

          The 9M96 and Aster-30 have completely different DPUs. Which one should I put on the R-37M and where?
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          And they abandoned the MBDA Meteor...considered one of the best RVVs in the world?

          There is no ramjet on Meteor. Ramjet engines have not been used in SAMs and air-launched missiles for a very long time. And why does the R-37M have a ramjet engine?
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          This direction is considered promising in the development of RVVs, especially long-range ones! You can give an example, for example, of the Chinese RVV PL-15...

          I wrote above that we will drown in this discussion... For AFAR you need a lot of PPM, and the seeker antenna has a small area to accommodate the PPM...
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Alas! For you ! Because this direction is also being successfully developed by China!

          What does successful mean? Do they have different physics? Yes, it works on target...
          1. 0
            31 May 2024 13: 43
            Quote: Comet
            There is no ramjet on Meteor.

            Meteor has a ramjet engine! After your “denial” there is no point in continuing the discussion! No. Adju!
            1. +1
              3 June 2024 22: 21
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Meteor has a ramjet engine!

              There is no ramjet on Meteor. You have a problem with knowledge of materiel.
              1. 0
                5 June 2024 08: 14
                Quote: Comet
                There is no ramjet on Meteor. You have a problem with knowledge of materiel

                It’s not for you, ignoramus, to lecture me! Meteor has a ramjet installed!
                MBDA Meteor is a long-range air-to-air guided missile equipped with an active radar seeker. The missile is equipped with a sustainer ramjet engine, which allows it to maintain high flight speed throughout its entire trajectory.
                1. +1
                  6 June 2024 00: 04
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  It’s not for you, ignoramus, to lecture me! Meteor has a ramjet installed!
                  MBDA Meteor ... The missile is equipped with a propulsion ramjet engine

                  There is no ramjet engine on the MBDA Meteor, there is no ramjet and there never was. Look at the design of the MBDA Meteor engine, and don’t quote any ignoramuses without references. Open the English Wikipedia, even there the type of Meteor engine is correctly indicated.
                  1. 0
                    6 June 2024 14: 03
                    WHEN WILL YOU STOP BEING STUPID?The propulsion system is combined with an integral layout and consists of a sustainer ramjet engine (ramjet) with module-controlled thrust and a starting accelerator, which are housed in a single housing. The launch accelerator is equipped with a charge of low-smoke mixed fuel and, after separating the rocket from the carrier aircraft, ensures its acceleration to the launch speed of the sustainer ramjet.

                    The charge of the gas generator of the cruise ramjet is made on the basis of heavy boron-containing fuel with a volumetric heat of combustion of more than 5x104 MJ/m3. The flow rate and composition of the generated gas can change within fairly wide limits in accordance with the flight conditions and the operating mode of the direct-flow circuit for all conditions of combat use of the missile. The depth of regulation of the flow rate of the generated gas of the ramjet is more than 10:1 and is ensured by a special valve in the nozzle of the gas generator.

                    The combustion chamber and gas generator of the engine are made of heat-resistant steel. The air intakes located on the outside of the rocket body are made of titanium. The engine was developed by Bayern-Chemie Protac.

                    The use of a ramjet engine provides an increase in the average trajectory flight speed of the rocket and the firing range. According to advertising materials, the maximum range of the rocket reaches 150 km.
                    (missilery.info)
                    1. 0
                      7 June 2024 01: 03
                      Quote: Nikolaevich I
                      The main ramjet gas generator is charged

                      The ramjet engine does not have a gas generator. The presence of a gas generator means a different type of engine, unless, of course, you, for example, consider a turbojet engine and a turbofan engine to be the same thing.
                      Quote: Nikolaevich I
                      (missilery.info)

                      Well, they wrote something on a certain website. AND? This is not TsNIIMash.
  4. +4
    27 May 2024 10: 52
    The author took a primitive approach to the article about this rocket; all these stories from the Soviet past are talk about nothing. And if you delve into the necessary “historical chronicles”, you can find out that the 37M missile has a much more complex control loop than its predecessors 33 and 37, and its guidance requires the “correct” fighter SUVs:
    Particularly noteworthy is the work on the use of new types of guided products in Zaslon-AM and, first of all, the K-37M long-range missiles. At the same time, due to the presence of a radio transponder (RO) on board the missile, the radar in the process of pointing the missile at the target accompanies not only the attacked target, but also the guided missile. This was the first time in the country that such a problem was solved in aviation complexes.
    The efforts were not in vain: on November 21, 2012, successful “hot” work was carried out on the “Tribute” goal. The work showed the possibility of implementing long-range launches (more than 300 km).

    Apparently, radar control of the missile could make it possible to adjust the inertial system of the missile itself, and realize ultra-long launch ranges, and here the question is whether the Bars-R and Irbis were finalized to be accompanied by the 37M, and without this the launch range would be shorter due to inertial errors on the rocket.
    1. +1
      27 May 2024 14: 37
      There is a method of guidance "through a missile" (I will not remember the English abbreviation...). In Russia it was implemented in the 5V55 SAM (S-300P SAM), but this requires a semi-active radar "sight"! That is, the active homing head of the R-37M should also work in semi-active mode (the "sight" mode)! But I have never heard of this! (In any case, I do not remember!) Of course, a software timing mode is also possible (without a "sight"), but this mode takes up software resources and requires a "fast computer"! And I have not heard of this!
      1. 0
        27 May 2024 14: 57
        There is no need to invent something that does not exist. It was clearly stated, a radio transponder to determine the position of the missile! And not the idiotic “guidance through a missile” and with all sorts of “visors”. In the aviation topic, we need to forget about all sorts of S-300s like a bad dream.
      2. 0
        27 May 2024 16: 25
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        there is a guidance method “through a rocket” (I won’t remember the English abbreviation...).

        Why these perversions? There is a normal combined guidance method, tested on the latest generation medium-range RVV:
        - before the RVV approaches the ARLGSN operating range, the missile’s flight control comes from the INS, trajectory correction is done by the RKTU (there is data on the target position, there is data on the missile position, when the target’s course / altitude / speed changes, the on-board equipment of the aircraft issues trajectory correction signals to the RVV for bringing it to the new ARLGSN capture zone);
        - after the RVV enters the ARLGSN capture zone, the correction is turned off, the active seeker is turned on, searches for and locks on the target. If the target interferes, the passive RGSN starts working.
        1. 0
          27 May 2024 16: 48
          You wrote everything correctly, only the longer the missile is under INS control, the more the error in determining the missile's position accumulates. And radar control of the missile, with subsequent transmission of results to the missile, will allow the INS to be corrected, that is, the error in determining the missile's position will be determined by the accuracy of the radar measurement (and it does not depend on the range and flight time), plus the error accumulated over the time of the last correction (and not the entire flight). Apparently, such a "complication" allows the 37M to be launched at 300 km, observing all tolerances for accuracy.
          If the target interferes, the passive RGSN begins to operate.
          Here it is not the passive RGSN that is working, but the active RGSN that is trying to determine the angular coordinates of the jammer, and is already aiming at them.
          1. 0
            28 May 2024 10: 48
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            You wrote everything correctly, only the longer the rocket is under the control of the INS, the more the error in determining the rocket’s position accumulates.

            But for this purpose there is RKTU - correction of the trajectory of the RVV when the point of exit to the target, calculated based on the parameters of the RVV movement, diverges from the meeting point, calculated based on the parameters of the target movement. The same algorithm as when changing the parameters of target movement - discrepancy between meeting points and subsequent correction of the trajectory.
            Actually, the combination of INS + RCTU on the flight segment to the target and the ARL seeker in the near zone of the target made it possible to increase the operating range of the RVV over a hundred kilometers. Because without RKTU-correction of the RVV trajectory, the target simply maneuvered out of the encounter zone, and the PARL seeker either required epic power for illumination at long ranges, or the target’s BKO disrupted the lock.
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            Here it is not the passive RGSN that is working, but the active RGSN that is trying to determine the angular coordinates of the jammer, and is already aiming at them.

            I took as an example the classic medium-long range RVV - AIM-120.
          2. 0
            28 May 2024 11: 26
            Quote: Hexenmeister
            the active RGSN tries to determine the angular coordinates of the jammer, and is already aiming at them.

            What if the interference is caused by a trap released on a cable? Israeli pilots have been saving themselves from missiles and missiles like this for a long time. There is also a corner reflector in the trap. I think NATO fighters also have such exhaust traps. Here I think that only by launching two missiles at one target with a certain time interval can the issue be resolved.
            1. 0
              28 May 2024 11: 53
              It is necessary to clarify that the conversation was about this phrase:
              If the target interferes, the passive RGSN begins to operate.

              But there is no passive RGSN in the same AIM-120, but at best there is the possibility of determining the angular coordinates of the source of active noise interference and further homing using this data. There are many methods for creating active noise interference, and no less effective than a trap towed over a long distance, and most importantly, without “consumable” elements.
            2. +1
              28 May 2024 23: 21
              Quote: bayard
              What if the interference is caused by a trap released on a cable? Israeli pilots have been saving themselves from missiles and missiles like this for a long time.

              SAM and URVV are old...
  5. -5
    27 May 2024 10: 52
    Everything is fine, beautiful Marquise, but Global Hawks fly close to our shores as if they were at home. The Houthis shoot them down for no reason, but we don't. The question is - why such a missile?
    1. -5
      27 May 2024 14: 07
      Global Hawk flies high and not everyone can shoot him down...
      1. +3
        27 May 2024 14: 43
        What does height have to do with it? They don’t shoot down because they are in neutral airspace.
        1. -1
          28 May 2024 01: 22
          Quote: Victor19
          What does height have to do with it? They don't shoot down because in neutral air space.
          belay funny, bravo. Then why did they start SVO?! request
          if the United States begins military operations, they enter the territory (!) of any independent state (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan ....), and guided by the wording - "to ensure the national interests of the United States..." ...knock out air defenses, iron them out from the air for weeks to minimize the loss of soldiers during a ground operation... Yes
          the question arises about the goals of a strange military operation, without suppressing reconnaissance UAVs in the interests of the enemy...?! winked
          1. 0
            28 May 2024 16: 08
            Sorry, but we are not the United States and there is absolutely no point in getting involved with a huge military bloc. Remember the order: “do not give in to provocations”! Now the most important thing is to crush Bandera’s Ukraine. Why an extra front with unclear prospects? And I think you should under no circumstances listen to those who like to wave checkers.
            As for the height, let me remind you once again that Powers was shot down 64 YEARS ago!
            1. 0
              28 May 2024 22: 13
              Quote: Victor19
              Sorry, but we are not the USA
              therefore, the United States allows itself to impose sanctions and not take into account the interests of the weak. And after the collapse of the USSR, all that the Russian Federation is capable of is to sell its own resources at half price to China and Turkey, and threatening verbally with “red lines”, piteously looking into the eyes of its “partners”...?!! what

              Quote: Victor19
              ..and there is absolutely no point in getting involved with a huge military bloc.
              but you won't have to...
              after quick and decisive action in the mode, for example:
              Britain's supply of weapons to Ukraine, - NOTE (through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with materials confirming the identity of British weapons), - a strike on several military bases of a single Britain, tactical nuclear weapons ...!!! Yes
              And not a single member of the NATO bloc will be afraid to even say out loud anything about Article 5 of the NATO Charter...!!!! Because none of them will want to stop "the further measured flow of life here and now"...!!!
              Only then will they be ready for real and serious negotiations, when the “yawning edge of the abyss”, which is not joked about..!!!! what

              Quote: Victor19
              Why an extra front with unclear prospects?
              and only then will attempts to spoil the Russian Federation stop, with absolute impunity, albeit with someone else’s hands (such as supplying weapons, air defense systems, planes, missiles ....)
      2. 0
        28 May 2024 02: 09
        Global Hawk flies high

        16800 m. Subsonic. The static ceiling of the Su-27 is more than 17 km. Just fly by and "blow" enough for it to fold lengthwise and crosswise, if you feel sorry to waste cannon shells.
        1. 0
          28 May 2024 02: 20
          Sorry, practical ceiling, of course. I just called it static out of "helicopter" habit.
      3. 0
        4 September 2024 06: 25
        And who can’t shoot down a defenseless subsonic UAV, even a very large and even very high-altitude one? laughing Anyone can knock it down.
    2. 0
      27 May 2024 22: 44
      Quote: avia12005
      The question is - why such a rocket?

      Are you proposing to remove this missile from service and stop its production?
  6. 0
    29 May 2024 13: 05
    I think that for the successful and mass use of this weapon (again from the shelves of the USSR Research Institute - Design Bureau) it is necessary to have "specific" support when using it, such as a long-range aerial reconnaissance system (300 km and more), target designation, a jam-resistant channel for processing and transmitting information to one's own assets and forces in real time... A stable "friend or foe" system... It is clear that all THIS is not for the "general" eyes and ears and, probably, for judgment... However, with the current "situation" with the A-50, domestic capabilities are becoming more and more modest... And, the A-100 is a "brilliant prince" from a fairy tale melting in the over-the-horizon haze.... Maybe it makes sense to "move away" from grandiose, large-scale and rather corruption-intensive projects like the A-100 and pay attention to the development of reconnaissance and target designation devices similar to the Israeli "Oron" (created on the basis of the Gulfstream G550 business jet)??? Instead of the A-100 - four or five "Oron" analogues? Then the use of the R-37M will be more impressive and effective in its mass application, in a possible clash with NATO Air Forces...
  7. 0
    5 July 2024 22: 13
    Quote: ROSS 42
    Who is to blame for the fact that Manturov

    He's like him "distinguished curator" they sing mantras about what only galoshes could make in the USSR.

    Remember who abandoned the Leader of the nation in difficult times (March of Justice to Moscow)?
    Manturov! He was the first to lift up his skirt and flee from dangerous Moscow to Baku.
    This is who “serves” the people of Russia!
    Are you talking about some AWACS aircraft?
  8. 0
    18 August 2024 22: 04
    It took 20 years to finalize the half-finished Soviet rocket. It’s scary to imagine what the capitalist Russian Federation will do when the Soviet legacy ends.