so with this logical reasons... i think work with sa-2 sa-4 and sa-5 is realy Waste of time!

of course i stiil love with sa-3

Riight... sure - the peak 'g' capability is just what you need to compare at extended range (where manoeuvring can work)...
You will not outmanoeuvre the AIM9 when it is capable of 36-40g, only once the overload capability has fallen to less than or equal to the aircraft (in the case of an optimal out-of-plane manouevre), or around 70% in a transition from zero to maximum crossing angle.

This is 13.2km for non-manoeuvring fly-out (from mach 0.9 and 20kft, with a 7G capable target), and some proportion of that for the energy depleting manoeuvring-all-the-way cases*. Around 5km the missile cannot be out-turned, the motor is only just burning out, so all-the-way turning is not a huge problem and the only safety is in decoys and signature reduction.

The AIM9 also has a rather inefficient lead-pursuit curve, as it has no knowledge of target range to go. With this information a minimum energy profile can be flown with mid-course update if absolutely required, and then the pursuit is flown only in the terminal phase. (*As the missile in question performs continuous turns because of the guidance laws I'm not sure how much additional energy you will burn by forcing a sustained turn in one direction, compared to s-turns)

Larger missiles don't manoeuvre as well, but they are typically faster and denser so require less manoeuvring and lose less specific energy per km and for the required turns. With optimised flight profiles they can also minimise time of flight and/or energy used to reach the target.

The peak g capability is just what you need to compare it against its optimal range, and the rest of it is just as useful for when you're outside that range. That's how you figure out what sort of maneuver you will execute depending on your distance from the bandit.
You can outmaneuver an AIM-9 when it is capable of 36-40g. But if we're assuming that the bandit launched in good parameters, that would be a bit of a 'fat chance'.
In any case, airframe capability alone is not the end of maneuverability issues for a missile.



Actually at 13 km you'll hit bupkus with an AIM-9 against a maneuvering target. It's rather likely that your seeker won't even lock-on at that range, never-mind the kinematics, which wouldn't cooperate either. The AIM-9 is a short-range missile. At 5km you can out-maneuver it if you've set yourself up to do so. If you haven't, good luck with that. Setup is everything.



The AIM-9 flies a pretty efficient PN collision given what it is meant to do. It is a dogfighting missiles, meant to be used at short ranges. I don't know why this is even being brought up, since just about any missile with terminal homing will employ PN for terminal intercept.



Actually they will lose a lot of energy, especially if they need to turn. This is why they have monstrous rocket engines. Again, I'm not sure why this is being brought up. This has nothing to do with the escape maneuver at the terminal stage of the engagement, other than to dictate the energy level of the missile ... which we can do without considering any of this. Missile has x g available, you can out-maneuver it if you pull a y g escape maneuver.

Ahhh, the old rule from the Vietnam war pops up again...
... it was calculated 3x, as the V-750 (Guideline) missile was flying around Mach3, while the target was doing something around Mach1.

If the plane and the missile travels at the same speed towards each other ahead, they need to pull the same g for a direct hit.
If the missile does double speed, it needs double g's to achieve direct hit.
etc...



Now I digged out...
Hmissile=0..20km it is able to pull 10..6g
Hmissile=20..35km it is able to pull 6..2,5g

They calculated, that with the proportional guidance method, the V-880 flying, it is capable to hit targets flying at:
Htgt= 1..5km pulling 5..7g (fighters of the 70')
Htgt= 10..11km pulling 3..5g (AWACS, standoff jammers)
Htgt= 20km pulling 1,5..2,5g (HABU)

I still disagree that the required g goes up with increased speed (as the lead angle required falls at ~ the same rate as turn rate decreases, so turn time to alter lead remains nearly constant). If anything the 'g' requirement may increase as missile speed reduces, but only very slightly.

It is still a valid rule, and it comes from the PN constant.



Same g's are not enough at the same speed unless evasion is done in-plane. However, you are right (even if you did not say it, I know you meant it) about one thing that affects all things in aviation: The real answer tends to be 'It Depends'



Must have been pretty slow fighters, without out-of-plane maneuvers. I don't think an AWACS could pull 5g if it's life depended on it.

It is only valid for low aspect, low manoeuvring cases. It vastly overpredicts the required 'g' for crossing targets, and for rapid target manoeuvres.

See:

Quasilinear PN equations paper.

In particular diagrams 2b and 2c, where required 'g' is approximately 1.5 target 'g' at zero relative range and a 3:1 relative velocity. As missile speed, or Target 'g' increases the relative 'g' required falls, as does required 'g' when target aspect is high. (When aspect is 90 degrees and the manoeuvre is out of plane, to change the lead angle by 26 degrees (18.4 degrees lateral lead to 18.4 degrees vertical lead), the target must change direction by 90 degrees... almost 4x as much)

Remember, that these missile are still on thrust programs at lower altitudes, reducing any loss of 'flight performance' with manoeuvring (Thrust >> Drag for the boost phase and > Drag during the sustain, and normal missile behaviour admits low rates of turn to stay 'straight' - biasing the recovery of rate in one direction permits a gentle sustained turn with no appreciable increase in drag over the normal case).

It is also not a requirement to actually strike the target, and at low relative range and high altitude, the very large warheads can damage targets up to 250m from the fusing location - lower down the guidance is better, but the fragments travel less far with lethal effect due to air resistance - even so a 100m miss could be lethal - this is 10x or more the typical light AAM.

At high speeds, fighter turn radii are in 100s of meters to several km range, and high supersonic maybe 10s of km... While this allows manoeuvring to force the SAM to travel longer distances to reach the intercept point, this is a fairly leisurely 'rate of turn' and something that is only an issue to a missile running near the upper half of the range envelope - closer than this and energy isn't a huge problem, and neither is 'g' availability. At lower 'target' speeds the aircraft is far more agile, and this actually raises the missile 'g' requirement, increasing the probability of a miss... but reducing the miss distance for a lost track at the same range to go...

Even if the missile cannot 'match' the turn requirement doesn't mean that a miss is assured - you will first have reduced lead, then drop into a lag pursuit - this will reduce turn rate requirement but reduce closure (as it does with aircraft), if the missile speed is high enough and range not too extreme then a fusing miss is still possible even though the missile 'cannot intercept').


I think that '3 g' refers to AWACS, and 'up to 5g' to EF111 or EA6B aircraft. Both lying in the 'AWACS and Standoff Jammers' group.

today video !

persian tor-m1 upgraded from 12km engage range to 20km range!

dear grayghost i think tor can destroy fighter with hardly manuevering ! i love it

http://www.aparat.com/v/bf0bfa62d86ae7dea657f78ff863461e162097

This is generally true for sustained turns, not instantaneous turns. A fighter has no problem pulling heavy g's up to the AoA limit. It's just going to burn speed for turning.



That would make more sense, yep ... the F-111 is a 5g airframe.

Say hello to AESA-EW, SDBs and JDAMs capable of flying 20nms, JSOWs, TALDs, SLAM/ER's, and HARMS; that's high-altitude attacks only. Low altitude are also not a good deal for any SAM. SAMs have always been, and will always be a speed-bump. You won't stop an air force with SAMs alone (unless it's an air force that really, really sucks for whatever reason).

Generally speaking though yes, the newer the missile, the harder it is to evade kinematically.