Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th July 2013 at 00:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how was the block III 9x born?
By: - 12th July 2013 at 00:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how was the block III 9x born?
So in September 2012, Raytheon was ordered to continue developing the Sidewinder into a possible Block III variant, The new missile will have a longer range, and have a insensitive munitions warhead, which is more stable and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer for ground crews. While in 2013 the USN pressed for this upgrade in response to a threat which analysts have speculated to be due to the difficulty of targeting upcoming Chinese Fifth-generation jet fighters with the radar guided AMRAAM. It's increasing to 12.7cm inches up to 15.2 cm inches to have the fuze and seeker work properly on the 9x. Range will likely increase up to 10% if that's correct.
Also some facts about the ASRAAM and AIM-9x.
The early operational assessment of the British ASRAAM foreign comparative test focused on the risk areas of the ASRAAM focal plane array effectiveness, seeker signal processing, warhead effectiveness, rocket motor testing, and kinematic/guidance ability to support the lethality requirements of the AIM-9X. The resulting assessment was that the ASRAAM cannot meet the AIM-9X operational requirements in high off-boresight angle performance, infrared counter-countermeasures robustness, lethality, and interoperability.
I wonder how it's going to be diffrent with the HOBS sight and the JHMCS. At least the Super Hornet needs the IRST for the extended range AMRAAM for an extended range. It's possibly not going to integrate the extended AMRAAM beacuse the 9x is going to out range the AMRAAM.
By: - 12th July 2013 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how was the block III 9x born?
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/Navy/stamped/0207161N_7_PB_2013.pdf
It's possibly not going to integrate the extended AMRAAM beacuse the 9x is going to out range the AMRAAM.
The extended range AMRAAM, is the Aim-120D, which was a jointly funded development between the USAF and USN. The USN is fully committed to it for the SH and F-35 fleets, the block III Aim-9X is the next evolutionary approach to the Sidewinder, and closely matches in capability to what the services initially wanted from a modern sidewinder(a much more radical re-design with a brand new motor). What the USN did not commit to was the NGM, and many believe the unwillingness of the USN to jointly fund/develop the program was what lead to its collapse. For its part the USN is fairly confident in the capability of the Aim-120D and Aim-9x blk II and III, and does not want to commit itself financially to a brand new joint missile.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=1283&pagetemplate=release
As far as the new Aim-9X Blk III outranging the AMRAAM - there is no indication of that. All the reports are indicating at is that there is going to be an overlap in terms of engagement ranges...I do not expect even with the new booster, the blkIII matches the absolute kinetic range of the Aim-120C, let along the D.
By: - 12th July 2013 at 16:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks like the French were ahead of the game with MICA.
By: - 12th July 2013 at 16:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mica IR is a great weapon to have in your inventory, however, the aim-9x blk III is just a logical upgrade to the baseline aim-9x, with range improvement...This was the only thing that the block I and II did not address compared to what the operators originally wanted from the 9x...The seeker has been improved, TVC integrated and data links added...A new motor would complete the program from where i see it....The main difference between the two weapons is the cost i guess, with the aim-9x being around 280-350k depending upon reports (fly-away)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218697[/ATTACH]
The Mica IR should be around the Aim-120D price range (around a million), if not more given that it probably has not been produced in as much quantity...An a2a version of the NCADE would have been a more similar weapon to the MICA-IR, but i guess such a weapon would probably have not fit on wingtips of USAF or USN fighters (or side bays of the raptor)....
By: - 12th July 2013 at 18:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The seeker has been improved, TVC integrated and data links added...A new motor would complete the program from where i see it....The main difference between the two weapons is the cost i guess, with the aim-9x being around 280-350k depending upon reports (fly-away)
So if TVC is added to AIM-9x would the 90° angle of the missiles go to 180°? I see the seeker has been improved so it maybe willing to go farther when fired and go fast on low and high altidtude depending on how it's fired. As I said earlier 9x will have a insensitive munitions warhead, which is more stable and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer for ground crews which is why it has an insensitive warhead. Also the km of the 9x missile might go up to the 60-75km range. It will have the same km range class as the R-77 and AIM-120B.
The FY 2013 DoD AIM-9 Program, Continues full rate production and product improvements. FY12 will purchase 314 AIM-9X Block II missiles at a cost of $168.3 million. FY12 also provides $29.3 million in RDT&E funding and $10.0 million for spare parts. The AIM-9x Price/Unit Cost is $471,000 for the AIM-9x.
By: - 12th July 2013 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So if TVC is added to AIM-9x would the 90° angle of the missiles go to 180°?
TVC already exists on the 9x.
AIM-9X Block II performing better than expected
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aim-9x-block-ii-performing-better-than-expected-381569/
lso the km of the 9x missile might go up to the 60-75km range. It will have the same km range class as the R-77 and AIM-120B.
Unless a dual pulse motor is chosen, those targets look quite out of reach...All we know for certain is that the increase in range is going to be greater then 10%...No one is going to share exact Requirements for the block III, and raytheon is not going to come out and tell you exactly how much the range increase is going to be without having a new motor in the first place. Just as was the case with the original 9x program, the choice of the new motor/setup is going to depend upon the cost, complexity and risk. Raytheon and partners will put solutions on the table ranging from easy, low risk solutions, to expensive high risk ones...It would then be in the program head's hands to decide which route to take.
By: - 13th July 2013 at 05:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How out of reach? ASRAAM already offers 50km and MICA offers 80km.
If existing stats of those are not sufficient, it's not unbelievable for a new program to outdo those.
If anything, it would be simpler to just tweak the performance of those models to better match the desired spec, and use ASRAAM/MICA..
MICA's cost difference would shrink alot if it benefits from the same scale of production as the 9X, ASRAAM is even closer.
But I guess this is a 'buy American' program? Either way, those missiles demonstrate those ranges are not out of reach.
By: - 13th July 2013 at 10:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, nothing is out of reach, if you are willing to spend the amount & time to develop it. In theory you could add the aim-9x seeker onto the Aim-120D (much like the NCADE but with a warhead) and develop a true MRAAM IR missile that would cost you over a million a pop... Range depends upon altitude, launch speed, how much turning is required (LOAL etc etc ). ASRAAM is not really a solution here, because the service wants a missile with TVC and data link which they have PAID to develop for the aim-9x. The Aim-9x development was always supposed to be in blocks, and each block would build upon the overall capability and move the missile closer to the desired capability...Having developed an extremely capable missile in terms of seeker performance, LOAL, HOBS, and maneuverability (TVC) the Navy can move on to adding another capability that it wants...that of extra range, even though the block II exceeds the range requirement (Expected from blk II), the USN wants the block III to go further probably much closer to the range that it wanted all along, before the bean counters cancelled plans to equip the initial 9x with a new motor in favor of motor commonality. So all in all the hard maneuverability capability, LOAL/HOBS using data links etc are all provided for in the AIm-9x , a new motor with the block III would complete the program, and the services could then move on to designing a new IR missile or a new version with an improved seeker etc way into the future ( this is referred to as the Small Advanced Capability missile in DOD language). .The ASRAAM lacks TVC and a data link which the USN and the USAF wants in a WVR missile, and have PAID to get in the 9x therefore it would be totally against the USN's (and the USAF's) own requirement to buy the ASRAAM for it values things like TVC, Data links.
Kurt Plummer summed it up the best, while talking about the ASRAAM and Aim-9x...
But the fact remains that the AIM-9X is described as a 20km seeker on a 10km missile while the AIM-132/ASRAAM is stated to be a 'full 20:20' system.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/aim-9x-vs-asraam-5123/
By: - 19th July 2013 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here comes the SHOCKER:
US Navy hopes to increase AIM-9X range by 60%
The US Navy is hoping to increase the range of the new Raytheon AIM-9X Block III by some 60% over current Sidewinder variants due to the unique needs of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) says. The new weapon is scheduled to become operational in 2022."The Block III range requirement was in response to Joint Strike Fighter requirements in the 2020+ timeframe," NAVAIR says. "The design is anticipated to increase AIM-9X employment ranges by 60%."
NAVAIR says the current Block II AIM-9X already overlaps some of the range capability of the more powerful Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM, however the new Block III variant will increase that overlap. The AIM-9X Block III's increased range will "provide fighter aircraft with increased capacity of BVR [beyond visual range] weapons for tactical flexibility," NAVAIR says.
o create the new AIM-9X Block III, the NAVAIR will primarily focus on the missile's rocket motor. "Increased range will be achieved through a combination of increased rocket motor performance and missile power management," NAVAIR says.
In addition to an improved, more energetic, rocket motor, the enhanced weapon will also have a new insensitive munitions warhead, which will be safer to use onboard an aircraft carrier. However, the Block III will "leverage" the current Block II's guidance unit and electronics-including the missile's AMRAAM-derived datalink.
While the Pentagon needs the new Sidewinder to be a supplemental BVR weapon for situations where friendly fighters are faced with electronic attacks that degrade with radar-guided weapons, it will not compromise on the AIM-9X's close in performance. "The requirement and design call for the same WVR [within visual range]/HOBS [high off-boresight] capabilities as those found in the AIM-9X Block II," NAVAIR says.
The Block III is currently scheduled to enter into its engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2016, NAVAIR says. Subsequently, it will go into developmental testing in 2018 with operational tests starting in 2020. If all goes well, an initial operational capability date is expected in 2022. "The Block III development schedule follows the increased number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft entering service," NAVAIR says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-hopes-to-increase-aim-9x-range-by-60-388468/
By: - 19th July 2013 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder if they will keep it as a rail-only launch type?
Giving it a ejector launch capability should lessen the integration time needed and would allow for two to be mounted in the F-35's internal bay rather easily while still leaving the door AMRAAM.
By: - 19th July 2013 at 15:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do not see why having the rail launched ability should be set in stone as far as options go. Sure you would limit the legacy jets from carrying it, but you still have the Block II that you are going to be procuring (its not like we are canceling block I and II and retiring all the missiles)...Such a boost in Range would put it in the MRAAM category, and as such you could swap a couple of Aim-120's for the Block III's given that you probably would not need the RAILS as at those distances there is no way you are going to wait for the seeker to acquire the target...At BVR ranges you'd have LOAL shots using EOTS/DAS/-81 and other passive sensors , and the missile's data links. But if both can be done somehow, i.e. preserving the wingtip and rail ability (size limited) as well as adding 60% range enhancement then i am all for it :) as the legacy fleets would much apreciate that...You could develop a Blk IV that is an ejector type for the F-35 since you'd have airframe numbers to justify the extra cost.
By: - 19th July 2013 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you adapted the current AMRAAM attachment style, then you would have ejector AND rail launch capability. This would also mean that it could use the current AMRAAM compatible rails and ejectors from across the fleet.
If the attachment points could be swapped out, then the current AIM-9 rails could also be used.
By: - 6th October 2015 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The need for that added flexibility arises from the proliferation of advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers that many potential adversaries are adding to their fighter fleets. DRFM jammers have the potential to blind the AMRAAM's onboard radar, which makes the AIM-9X's passive imaging infra-red guidance system a useful alternative means to defeat those threats. While a completely new missile would have been ideal, the Pentagon is faced with era of declining budgets and has to take into account the price tag of any new weapon.
Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-hopes-to-increase-aim-9x-range-by-60-388468/
By: - 6th October 2015 at 00:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets"
by Dave Majumdar
12.04.14
“We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,” a senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 told The Daily Beast. “So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target [an enemy aircraft such as a Russian-built Sukhoi] Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”The problem is that many potential adversaries, such as the Chinese and the Russians, have developed advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers. These jammers, which effectively memorize an incoming radar signal and repeat it back to the sender, seriously hamper the performance of friendly radars.
Worse, these new jammers essentially blind the small radars found onboard air-to-air missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, which is the primary long-range weapon for all U.S. and most allied fighter planes.
That means it could take several missile shots to kill an enemy fighter, even for an advanced stealth aircraft like the Raptor. “While exact Pk [probability of kill] numbers are classified, let’s just say that I won’t be killing these guys one for one,” the senior Air Force official said. It’s the “same issue” for earlier American fighters like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18.
Another Air Force official with experience on the stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter agreed. “AMRAAM’s had some great upgrades over the years, but at the end of the day, it’s old technology and wasn’t really designed with today’s significant EA in mind,” this official said.
By: - 6th October 2015 at 01:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons
Feb 3, 2015 Bill Sweetman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons
The fiscal 2016 budget request would cancel the Raytheon AIM-9X Block III, an increased-range version of the air-to-air missile with a more powerful motor. In April 2014, AIM-9X program manager Capt. John Martins said that the Block III was primarily intended for the F-35C because it would permit the fighter to carry six beyond-visual range missiles: four AIM-120s internally and two Block IIIs on outer wing pylons. The Block III would have entered service by 2024. One element of the canceled project, a new warhead meeting insensitive munition standards, will continue into the AIM-9X program.
By: - 6th October 2015 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So in September 2012, Raytheon was ordered to continue developing the Sidewinder into a possible Block III variant, The new missile will have a longer range, and have a insensitive munitions warhead, which is more stable and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer for ground crews. While in 2013 the USN pressed for this upgrade in response to a threat which analysts have speculated to be due to the difficulty of targeting upcoming Chinese Fifth-generation jet fighters with the radar guided AMRAAM. It's increasing to 12.7cm inches up to 15.2 cm inches to have the fuze and seeker work properly on the 9x. Range will likely increase up to 10% if that's correct.
I would say more than 10%. That's a 20% increase in diameter and a 44% increase in c/s area and fuel content.
By: - 6th October 2015 at 12:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is getting very silly indeed. The AIM-9 long ago ceased to have any parts in common with the original. Now it's not going to even look vaguely similar - yet it'll be called not a new missile, or even a new mark of the old one, but a sub-variant of an existing mark. Doh! Is the US weapons designation system broken, or just lapsed into self-parody?
AIM-9X was bad enough, a mistake in the same category as calling the JSF F-35 (carry over the designation of a development item to a production weapon), but now to adopt it as the designation of any IR-guided US AAM is downright stupid. AIM-9X was originally a placeholder designation, deliberately chosen to be out of sequence & thus not confused with a real designation, & referred to all projects for a follow-on to the AIM-9 after AIM-132 was dropped by the USA.
IIRC AIM-9X should have been AIM-9T (next unallocated designation). 'Block II' should probably have been AIM-9U, & 'Block III' should definitely be a new missile, the next in the (AI)M- series - which was up to FGM-172 last I heard.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 11th July 2013 at 11:29
Carrying on from the discussion in the Eurofighter thread :
Raytheon looks at long-range AIM-9 Block III
Raytheon Looks At Options For Long-Range AIM-9
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_19_2013_p0-589808.xml
And the article from Flight Global which completely discounted the fact that the USAF/USN/USMC is planning on procuring 1000+ IRST equipped fighters in addition to the IRST that has been funded for the SH.
What the navy seems to be wanting is something closer to what the services originally wanted from the Aim-9x..Would it also be wise to develop a IR version of the Aim-120 using the parts of AIm-120C's that have already been delivered? I suppose the Aim-120IR would not be a substitute for the Blk III Aim-9X because of cost, size given that it is likely not to fit on the wingtips of many fighters (?) ...but it could be a nice capability to have...NCADE was (is?) a solution but lacked a warhead as it was a missile defense solution, but one with the warhead should not be too hard to do.
The NGM would probably have multiple targeting options or a dual seeker of some sort as was planned for the JDRADM/NGM, however the USN seems to not want it as they are quite happy with the Aim-120D and Aim9x blk III.