Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st July 2009 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Saudis took delivery last month of the first two of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft on order, while they continue talks with some defence contractors to buy short-range air-to-air missile systems for the aircraft. The following 315-word report focuses on the issue and tells which contractor is best placed to win the contract. Note that Diehl BGT Defence, MBDA and Raytheon are most concerned by the contract.http://tacticalreport.com/view_news/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force_Eurofighter_IRIS-T_or_ASRAAM_missile/714
Probably best to wait a few more days for another source thats FREE to read, but until then I guess this will have to do.
So what do you think? ASRAAM or IRS-T?...
Would be interesting to know if they're just going to arm Typhoon with ASRAAM or IRS-T, and also arm their F-15's & Tornado's too...
I would think its MBDA's contest to loose, considering all the other missiles the Saudis are buying off them the ASRAAM should be a clear front runner.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 02:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A smart Saudi would want the selected missile retrofit to F-15s and Tornados too. How bad does Diehl BGT or MBDA want the business?
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 05:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looking at the potential aerial targets in the theatre ... ASRAAM here.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 08:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A smart Saudi would want the selected missile retrofit to F-15s and Tornados too. How bad does Diehl BGT or MBDA want the business?
Asraam is already integrated on RAF Tornados (though not the GR4 - yet) & I see no reason why it couldn't be used on F-15.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IRIS-T, not because I know it is better than ASRAAM, nor anyone has upto date info on both the Missile. The very fact that Germany and host of other nations found ASRAAM not to be the WVR Missile they want to go fighting with makes a compelling case against it. Americans also judging that their ancient Missile is good enough with a new seeker, puts question mark on the ASRAAM frame!!!
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 08:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Americans also judging that their ancient Missile is good enough with a new seeker, puts question mark on the ASRAAM frame!!!
Why? They both have basically the same seeker. ASRAAM and IRIS-T emphasized different requirements. IRIS-T emphasizes agility, ASRAAM emphasizes range.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why? They both have basically the same seeker. ASRAAM and IRIS-T emphasized different requirements. IRIS-T emphasizes agility, ASRAAM emphasizes range.
You missed my emphasis on ASRAAM frame, which was supposed to be WVR Missile for amercans too.
The divorce happened after Germans were not satisfied with Frame of ASRAAM, in-effect saying ASRAAM is neither WVR dog-fighter nor a BVR to hold on to its range advantage.
I would rather like to see RSAF to acquire IRIS-T, than a ASRAAM "neither here nor there" Missile, which sustains on just british EGO with no confidence from any other major airforce.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 10:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASRAAM and IRIS-T are both maneuverable enough to hit a target behind the launch aircraft, and that's no mean feat of physics. ASRAAM evolved after the Germans and the USA left, and all three weapons are, basically, equally dangerous, thanks to different performance factors and ECCM systems.
And Australia does operate the ASRAAM, by the way. India also talked about acquiring the missile for a Mirage 2000 upgrade back in 2007.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASRAAM and IRIS-T are both maneuverable enough to hit a target behind the launch aircraft, and that's no mean feat of physics. ASRAAM evolved after the Germans and the USA left, and all three weapons are, basically, equally dangerous, thanks to different performance factors and ECCM systems.
The very basis for departing from ASRAAM is that the frame is not good for dogfight, as apparently found by Germans with their studies on R-73. The participation of Sweden, Italy, and others in IRIS-T just endorse the point.
India also talked about acquiring the missile for a Mirage 2000 upgrade back in 2007.
It is amusing that you found "talks by India" worth mentioning:D, as India talks to every weapon manufacturer on the planet, be it buying or "indigenous" R&D.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So ASRAAM underwent no development and no alterations since the Germans departed, is that what you're saying?
ASRAAM is perfectly fine for dogfighting. Recent RAAF over the shoulder firings reinforce that point.
And why do you continually find India amusing...
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So ASRAAM underwent no development and no alterations since the Germans departed, is that what you're saying?
Are you sure??? I am talking about the frame of ASRAAM, which was the point of contention between Germans and british. If british were accommodating for the development of frame for dogfight, there would not be any need for Germans to went ahead for all new Missile.
If you are talking about the "not to be seen" ECCM and other such things, am sure Germans are not backwards in that either.
ASRAAM is perfectly fine for dogfighting. Recent RAAF over the shoulder firings reinforce that point.
Says who??? Germans did not find it "PERFECTLY FINE". so are other 6 nations who went for IRIS-T.:eek:
And why do you continually find India amusing...
I don't find India amusing (don't put words, which are not mine), but just "talk" about ASRAAM persuaded you to mention here as a kind of endorsement amusing, as India talks to everyone all the time.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Savion, the main reason others didn't go for ASRAAM is the lack of their own national content and requirements, it was a British led project that was being built to RAF requirements under a NATO (AIM 132) programme. There is nothing wrong with ASRAAM, is just fits a different set of criteria. The RAF wanted more range than AIM 9 based on their experience of the Falklands and the role of north sea interception. The Germans wanted an agile missile for fighting in close over their own territory when intercept ranges were likely to be small and many of the targets would helicopters etc.
It fits RAAF requirements as intercept ranges in Oz will be longer, so range was an important factor.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 11:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Savion, the main reason others didn't go for ASRAAM is the lack of their own national content and requirements, it was a British led project that was being built to RAF requirements under a NATO (AIM 132) programme. There is nothing wrong with ASRAAM, is just fits a different set of criteria. The RAF wanted more range than AIM 9 based on their experience of the Falklands and the role of north sea interception. The Germans wanted an agile missile for fighting in close over their own territory when intercept ranges were likely to be small and many of the targets would helicopters etc.It fits RAAF requirements as intercept ranges in Oz will be longer, so range was an important factor.
Am not belittling the ASRAAM, it may suits RAF criteria for intercept at long range, but not "perfectly fine" WVR highly maneuverable dogfight Missile as SOC portrays it.
By: - 22nd July 2009 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Am not belittling the ASRAAM, it may suits RAF criteria for intercept at long range, but not "perfectly fine" WVR highly maneuverable dogfight Missile as SOC portrays it.
It is an order of magnitude more manouverable than the old AIM 9s and has been shooting over shoulder. So is perfectly fine dog fight missile, it is descended from HSA Taildog which was a bit of a benchmark system in western circles during the 1970s.
The RAF originally went for the philosophy of putting the manouvre in the missile and not the plane, in the 1970s the RAF was pursuing a Phantom/Taildog combination. Post Falklands, as what was to become Typhoon was developed and following the USAF lead with f15/16 the RAF began to see manouvre in the platform as more important and sacrificed SOME missile manouvre for more range. Which by default also helps less manouvreable aircraft as you keep the fight at a greater range and help avoid a close in knife fight. Combined with IRTS you have yourself a stealth intercept ability.
The British and Israelis are the two airforces with dogfight experience in the period these missiles were developed....I know where I would put my money....ASRAAM if you need to arm an interceptor and want a decent dogfight ability if needed. Python V if you are arming an uncompromised short range dogfighter.
The Saudis would never buy Python and given the long range nature of Iranian intercepts over the gulf it has to be ASRAAM.
By: - 23rd July 2009 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Am not belittling the ASRAAM, it may suits RAF criteria for intercept at long range, but not "perfectly fine" WVR highly maneuverable dogfight Missile as SOC portrays it.
If it pulls over 30 gs, it's "perfectly fine", because you can't avoid it in a physical sense. Anything beyond 30 gs is overkill or meant for envelope expansion in the vein of attempting over the shoulder shots.
Germans did not find it "PERFECTLY FINE".
When they left the program.
I don't find India amusing (don't put words, which are not mine), but just "talk" about ASRAAM persuaded you to mention here as a kind of endorsement amusing, as India talks to everyone all the time.
You didn't use the phrase "It is amusing"? As for the rest of it, you claimed that ASRAAM was a product of British ego which had no confidence outside Britain. That's either wrong or a lie, as the RAAF has already inducted the missile into service, and other nations (India was the first example I found, if that happens to bother you for some unknown reason, it's your problem) have looked at it seriously as well.
By: - 23rd July 2009 at 08:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Saudis could pick the:
IRIS-T
or the ASRAAM
The ASRAAM would be a good pick because of its capability to pull high G forces, against maneuvering Iranian aircraft.
By: - 23rd July 2009 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The very basis for departing from ASRAAM is that the frame is not good for dogfight, as apparently found by Germans with their studies on R-73. The participation of Sweden, Italy, and others in IRIS-T just endorse the point.
Savion
The "today´s" AIM-132 is quite a diferent beast than the one that Germany walked away, from the seeker, to the engine, to the software algorithms, is... well, diferent...
The AIM-132 is vastly more agile than the previous generation of IR AAM´s, and in part of the flight envelope is actually more agile than the IRIS-T, specifically at the near-BVR range, it´s a question of energy.
Dont discount the MBDA weapon.
It is amusing that you found "talks by India" worth mentioning:D, as India talks to every weapon manufacturer on the planet, be it buying or "indigenous" R&D.
And you forgot to mention that the RAAF, a force that is seen by many, for a very long time as a benchmark for "acquisition strategy" (ask Roy Braybrook) have bought the dam thing on an international competition.
By: - 23rd July 2009 at 23:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...It fits RAAF requirements as intercept ranges in Oz will be longer, so range was an important factor.
Probably true for the Saudis, as well.
By: - 24th July 2009 at 02:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.
.
.
The AIM-132 is vastly more agile than the previous generation of IR AAM´s, and in part of the flight envelope is actually more agile than the IRIS-T, specifically at the near-BVR range, it´s a question of energy.
Dont discount the MBDA weapon.
.
.
.
IIRC ASRAAM max G-limit is about 50g's, but must remember that ASRAAM doesn't have TVC unlike others (with the exception of Python-4/5, but that has allot of control surfaces). So 50g is pretty good for a TVC-less, minimal control surfaces missile.
By: - 24th July 2009 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC ASRAAM max G-limit is about 50g's, but must remember that ASRAAM doesn't have TVC unlike others (with the exception of Python-4/5, but that has allot of control surfaces). So 50g is pretty good for a TVC-less, minimal control surfaces missile.
U-Darter, which was an upgraded V3C Darter, also had a G-limit of "greater than" 50g's. Ir was also an aerodynamically controlled missile without TVC. It was retired in 2008 with the Cheetah C. The A-Darter aims to beat this handsomely and has been tested at 80g's already, with 100g's being the end goal. Below is from:
http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/weapons/62/u-darter
The U-Darter (Upgraded Darter) is a short/medium range air-to-air missile, developed from the V3C Darter for use by the Cheetah. Changes include increased weight, warhead, speeds, a digital autopilot and an improved guidance seeker within the same dimensions of the Darter. The guidance unit consists of a dual-band cooled indium-antimonide IR seeker. Manoeuvrability is greater than 50g features three acquisition modes; cage, autoscan and helmet/radar designation.Service entry was during 1997. The U-Darter was retired, together with the Cheetah, in April 2008.
Guidance: Infra-red with laser fuze
If you follow the link, there are pictures and descriptions of the entire South African missile series dating back to the start in the 1960's.
Back on topic. The SAAF chose the IRIS-T as an interim missile for the Gripen pending deliveries of the first A-Darter. This will only be for a period of a year or two and probably is due to air defence commitments for the 2010 World Cup. I imagine it was chosen in light of Swedens usage on their Gripens.
Just looking at it briefly, it appears that the IRIS-T is integrated on more platforms, and used by more operators. Both are currently used on the Typhoon.
Posts: 2,631
By: EELightning - 21st July 2009 at 19:04
The Saudis took delivery last month of the first two of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft on order, while they continue talks with some defence contractors to buy short-range air-to-air missile systems for the aircraft. The following 315-word report focuses on the issue and tells which contractor is best placed to win the contract. Note that Diehl BGT Defence, MBDA and Raytheon are most concerned by the contract.
http://tacticalreport.com/view_news/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force_Eurofighter_IRIS-T_or_ASRAAM_missile/714
Probably best to wait a few more days for another source thats FREE to read, but until then I guess this will have to do.
So what do you think? ASRAAM or IRS-T?...
Would be interesting to know if they're just going to arm Typhoon with ASRAAM or IRS-T, and also arm their F-15's & Tornado's too...