Originally Posted by moon_light
how good are the missiles like AIM-54 , R-37M , K-100 , RVV-BD against fighter , are they better than medium range missiles like AIM-120D , Meteor , Mica ? ( i mean longer max range = longer burn out time = longer NEZ , bigger warhead = higher PK )
according to producer AIM-54 can be use against target that can maneuver up to 4 G , RVV-BD can be use against target that have maneuver up to 8.5 G , the K-100 have been derived from the 9K37 Buk are said to be able to deal with target like tactical ballistic missiles, strategic and tactical aircraft manoeuvring up to 12G ( not to mention that fighter at high altitude are often not very agile )
the range of these missiles :
AIM-54 = 200 km
RVV-BD = 200 km
R-37M = 400 km
K-100 = 400 km
Please read the forum rules regarding versus threads, as this is verging on one. In addition you'd probably benefit from reading the Airpower 101 threads written by OPSSG and stickied in the Air Force forums - these will give you a much better "primer" on air power than the relative performance of missiles, which is highly situational.
And please, stop referring to publicly available "max ranges" as though they're a particularly meaningful piece of data. Do you really think militaries would have any interest whatsoever in accurate figures re missile performance making their way onto google? Of course not. And again I must reinforce that missile performance, particularly with regards to effective range (as opposed to max quoted range on some website) is highly situational.
I think I've already said this in another thread, please don't make me repeat myself again, these threads are simply not productive. Have a read of the Airpower 101 material and hopefully you'll see what I mean.