By: QuantumFX
- 24th July 2009 at 10:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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:
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.
Python-4/5, U-Darter has no TVC and greater than 50gs. I think it is ~60 for Python-5 and Max 58 for U-Darter). The Chinese PL-9C has about 40gs without TVC. But I just wanted to point out that the ASRAAM has very minimal control surfaces (Like the A-Darter)...
and regarding the A-Darter.... Oh yes.... I think about 5 years ago the Denel/Kentron website itself stated that the A-Darter could hit a peak maneuverability of 100gs :eek: But since then they have removed it. :confused: But several unofficial/third-party source have mentioned very high g-limits for the A-Darter. Unusually High.
By: wilhelm
- 24th July 2009 at 11:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASRAAM[/URL] has very minimal control surfaces (Like the A-Darter)...
and regarding the A-Darter.... Oh yes.... I think about 5 years ago the Denel/Kentron website itself stated that the A-Darter could hit a peak maneuverability of 100gs :eek: But since then they have removed it. :confused: But several unofficial/third-party source have mentioned very high g-limits for the A-Darter. Unusually High.
Very true. The A-Darter of course having TVC.
The sources are official. Denel Dynamics CEO Jan Wessels has publically announced that A-Darter has already been tested at 80g's, with the goal being somewhere between 90 to 100g's.
Pretty hot stuff.
Are there advanced editions of ASRAAM and IRIS-T in the pipeline?
By: kev 99
- 24th July 2009 at 12:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very true. The A-Darter of course having TVC.
The sources are official. Denel Dynamics CEO Jan Wessels has publically announced that A-Darter has already been tested at 80g's, with the goal being somewhere between 90 to 100g's.
Pretty hot stuff.
Are there advanced editions of ASRAAM and IRIS-T in the pipeline?
ASRAAM is due to be replaced starting around the end of the next decade with CAMM
By: LmRaptor
- 24th July 2009 at 12:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd go with ASRAAM any day... it's got tremedous translational potential due to its big motor and no fighters going to out maneuver it... especially with its top end ability off the rail - only real place it needs to pull massive G to hit something.
New
Posts: 124
By: savion
- 25th July 2009 at 07:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
30 G is perfectly fine for a new Missile develop to replace sidewinder!!! Wonder why new Missile developers are striving for 80+G "overkill"???
When they left the program.
Germans did not agree ASRAAM to be perfectly fine Missile as it is, nor the future direction it was taking.
You didn't use the phrase "It is amusing"?
SOC, don't twist the statement by selective quoting, it is not expected of you.
I said "It is amusing that you found "talks by India" worth mentioning"
which you first twisted to say "I am finding India amusing" and now this:eek:
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,
British are holding on to ASRAAM only coz of ego, its utility is long gone with soviet bombers.
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.
Why should it bother me??? :( there must be some reason for you to come to that conclusion, could you explain???
I just said, "talking" is not worth the effort of mention here, but somehow you concluded am having problem with India:cool:
For me it seems you got some serious problem here.
New
Posts: 124
By: savion
- 25th July 2009 at 07:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
If you read my reply am not questioning the seeker, algorithm etc, but the frame of the Missile, which was found wanting by the Germans that they left the program.
Am sure all that you mention is top notch.
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.
Am not sure about that, as all i know is Australian defence acquisition is not what it used to be.
By: Grim901
- 25th July 2009 at 11:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Germans did not agree ASRAAM to be perfectly fine Missile as it is, nor the future direction it was taking.
And that has already been explained. Just because one nation didn't like the direction of a project doesn't mean the project is useless.
France didn't like the direction of the Eurofighter project, that doesn't instantly qualify the Rafale as better than Typhoon does it?
British are holding on to ASRAAM only coz of ego, its utility is long gone with soviet bombers.
Are you kidding? The only reason Britain still produces a WVR A2A missile is for ego? And why exactly does every other nation hold on to theirs? Ego too? Back up what you say with a little substance. The ASRAAM is a good missile and does the job well, it was designed with Britain's needs and dogfighting experience in mind (something Germany hasn't had since it the Battle of Britain...which it lost :P)
Am not sure about that, as all i know is Australian defence acquisition is not what it used to be.
So you started by saying that no foreign air force wants it, now you've changed to questioning those air forces acquisition process. What exactly is wrong with it that would skew the Aussies towards ASRAAM unfairly?
All you managed to establish is that the requirements for Britain and Germany were different, that doesn't mean one missile is better, and if the other posters are any indication, it actually helps the case for ASRAAM over IRIS-T for RSAF due to their security situation.
Note also, that you should be wary about the fact that 6 nations use IRIS-T. I'm saying it is the case here, but I have a feeling it may have been latched onto by the EDA and become a European project, making it near mandatory for certain countries to go with it. It could also be down to Germany wanting a higher workshare than it got with ASRAAM. When it comes to defence procurement in the EU, nothing is clear.
By: Grim901
- 25th July 2009 at 15:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kind of, as it stands at the moment CAMM is ASRAAM with TVC.
I thought they were giving it a new seeker too. Which incidentally, is a major part of ASRAAM that changed after the German's left.
New
Posts: 124
By: savion
- 26th July 2009 at 06:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And that has already been explained. Just because one nation didn't like the direction of a project doesn't mean the project is useless.
Wish it was as simple as that. Germans found aerodynamic feature not upto, after their study of R-73 Missile. They had two choice, continue with substandard airframe or start from groundup with the new knowledge. But British EGO did not allow that, so they are held on to ASRAAM, Germans and others who value knowledge above ego started developing new "perfectly fine Missile.
Are you kidding? The only reason Britain still produces a WVR A2A missile is for ego? And why exactly does every other nation hold on to theirs? Ego too? Back up what you say with a little substance. The ASRAAM is a good missile and does the job well, it was designed with Britain's needs and dogfighting experience in mind (something Germany hasn't had since it the Battle of Britain...which it lost :P)
See above.
Battle of britain:D:D:D
So you started by saying that no foreign air force wants it, now you've changed to questioning those air forces acquisition process. What exactly is wrong with it that would skew the Aussies towards ASRAAM unfairly?
Thats right, except for the crown colony:rolleyes:
By: Tribes
- 26th July 2009 at 09:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats right, except for the crown colony:rolleyes:
You don't have much understanding of UK-Australian politics do you? Interestingly enough, the RAAF has stayed with AIM-9X for the F-18F
New
Posts: 124
By: savion
- 26th July 2009 at 09:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interestingly enough, the RAAF has stayed with AIM-9X for the F-18F
Just goes to prove that without differentiation of new seeker ASRAAM frame is not the perfectly fine WVR Missile. Now that every WVR Missile has new-gen seeker, ASRAAM seems more obselete than it ever was.It is no surprise that Australians also concluded(like US before) that with new seeker, AIM-9X is better than newly developed ASRAAM.
By: Tribes
- 26th July 2009 at 10:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just goes to prove that without differentiation of new seeker ASRAAM frame is not the perfectly fine WVR Missile. Now that every WVR Missile has new-gen seeker, ASRAAM seems more obselete than it ever was.It is no surprise that Australians also concluded(like US before) that with new seeker, AIM-9X is better than newly developed ASRAAM.
It was presented more along the lines of keeping the whole F-18F + weapons package purchase an "off the USN shelf" exercise, which makes sense for a small buy of only 24 aircraft. Also, there are no announced plans to use AIM-9X on the upgraded F/A-18 A/B+. Still, the RAAF will be one of a comparatively few airforces fielding two contemporary WVR missiles.
By: pjhydro
- 26th July 2009 at 10:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just goes to prove that without differentiation of new seeker ASRAAM frame is not the perfectly fine WVR Missile. Now that every WVR Missile has new-gen seeker, ASRAAM seems more obselete than it ever was.It is no surprise that Australians also concluded(like US before) that with new seeker, AIM-9X is better than newly developed ASRAAM.
The only reason the croc wrestlers have gone for 9X with F18F is the cost of installation on what is essentially a temporary airframe that may only be in service for a few years. The RAAF plan to have ASRAAM on their F35s as the UK will have paid for installation in the development process.
The RAF and MBDA do not consider ASRAAM to be obsolete otherwise the UKs next gen SAM system would not be being based on it. You have to remember that missiles are the one area where true national competition can still take place as so many companies/nations make them compared to the aircraft that carry them. This means that national interest takes precedent over other considerations. The Germans, yes tested R73 etc BUT they pulled out to protect their own missile development and production ability as they felt they were a junior partner in ASRAAM and didn't want to be.
By: LmRaptor
- 26th July 2009 at 11:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASRAAM is more than just a good weapon - its a world beating weapon - and public source G-ability is rather irrelavent - in the terminal phases these missiles dont pull their max advertised Gs... it's only relevant for their off the rail performance... and ASRAAM can swing 180 deg off the rail... is faster and has longer range than any other western WVRAAM and can translate in the XYZ planes more rapidly aswell... TVC is effectively another control surface - it's nothing special - and it loses its authority when the engines run out of propellant.
By: Peter G
- 26th July 2009 at 14:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just goes to prove that without differentiation of new seeker ASRAAM frame is not the perfectly fine WVR Missile. Now that every WVR Missile has new-gen seeker, ASRAAM seems more obselete than it ever was.It is no surprise that Australians also concluded(like US before) that with new seeker, AIM-9X is better than newly developed ASRAAM.
The RAAF competition (1998) was between the AIM-9X, ASRAAM and Python 4. The US even offered to deliver AIM-9X to the RAAF at the same time as the USAF and USN.
The AIM-9X retains the airframe, warhead, fuze and motor of the AIM-9X. The seeker is the same as the ASRAAM, and of course it adds TVC.
Python 4 lacked an imaging seeker (yes the later Python 5 has one, but Python 4 was the one on offer). They improved Python 5 performance over Python 4 due to concerns with kill times - Python 5 has increased range due to improved servos and reshaped engine thrust (high thrust, low thrust, high thrust for end game performance).
I'm fairly sure the UK is sharing ASRAAM source codes so Australia could make its own upgrades if required. The HUG Hornets have a digital interface to the missile also.
The last AFM has a photo of a Saudi Typhoon with what looks like ASRAAM. Although the aircraft is unpainted and is under testing in the UK.
The important point with IRIS-T development: "until BGT's relationship with BAe Dynamics came to an end in 1989. By this time BGT had developed a strap-down imaging infra-red seeker with a roll/pitch housing - the TELL seeker - but there was no missile to fit it to. Then came 1990's reunification of Germany and suddenly the Luftwaffe gained access to the weapons and aircraft of the former East German air force. West German pilots flew the MiG-29 and evaluated the Russian AA-11 'Archer' (Vympel R-73) and its helmet-mounted sight system. Within a very short space of time it was clear that the R-73 was superior to any available Western AAM and significantly outclassed the AIM-9L. The programme that led to the IRIS-T began almost immediately. BGT's first proposal was to mate its advanced TELL imaging infra-red seeker with the AIM-9L airframe. This was the Infra-Red Imaging Sidewinder (IRIS) concept, around which BGT tried to build an international development team. However, in 1993 the Luftwaffe undertook a series of AAM simulations and evaluations at the end of which the IRIS was deemed to be the worst performing option of all. The limitations imposed by the AIM-9 airframe and motor ensured that the IRIS would never match the effectiveness of the R-73. (JALW 15 July 2005)."
BGT's seeker is 4 × 128 which uses a mirror to mechanically scan. They claim it is better against decoys. The ASRAAM and AIM-9X use a 128 x 128 element array. Python 5 is 320 x 240.
Note Germany had already left the ASRAAM project (1989) due to differences of opinion over the seeker design. They tried a cheap AIM-9L upgrade, but cancelled this in 1993 after testing the R-73. IRIS-T uses thrust vectoring for early agility and then tail control in the end game. The seeker has a 90° off aspect, and is supposedly capable of 60 G agility (R-73 is 40-50 G).
If rumours can be believed the AIM-9X seeker is better than the missile kinetics - Seeker performance was supposed to be 16 km against a high altitude (they achieved 35-40 km against a fighter in reheat) or 8 km against a target in ground clutter (twice that of the AIM-9M; R-73 is said to be 7-8 km for fighter sized target not using reheat). F-15C units have achieved 20-22 km lock on ranges - AIM-9X max kinetic range is 25-30 km (JMR March 2005).
AIM-9X Block II has improved range due to lofted profile and midcourse datalink.
I'd say that in 1998 the RAAF went with the better deal. You could argue Python 5 (2005), AIM-9X (2003), AIM-9X Block II (2010?) or IRIS-T (2006) is better than the the existing ASRAAM (entered service with RAAF August 2004; RAF was mid 2002), but we are talking apples and oranges:
Is the dual imaging/mechanical IRIS-T seeker better than pure imaging IR for the others in rejecting decoys? Does IRIS-T have the ability to select target aim point, say the aircraft cockpit (I'd say yes)?
Pretty much all the missiles use a low burn off the rail, then accelerate to max speed for intercept. ASRAAM is supposed to the one of the fastest short range missiles (Mach 3.5) - what are the tradeoffs of quick turn vs fast speed (note the Python 4 was felt to be too slow)?
By: Grim901
- 26th July 2009 at 17:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wish it was as simple as that. Germans found aerodynamic feature not upto, after their study of R-73 Missile. They had two choice, continue with substandard airframe or start from groundup with the new knowledge. But British EGO did not allow that, so they are held on to ASRAAM, Germans and others who value knowledge above ego started developing new "perfectly fine Missile.
Thats right, except for the crown colony:rolleyes:
The other here have pretty much answered you on most of that, including the fact that Britain effectively went back to the drawing board after the German withdrawal AND the fact that the German's left BEFORE studying the R73 because they weren't the big boss country.
Let's stop talking about British ego, I can list more recent procurements that point to German ego if you'd like though.
Finally, you clearly have little knowledge of Anglo-Aussie relations. First off, they aren't a colony anymore, they're part of the commonwealth, that rarely plays a part in defence issues these days. Note also that almost all Aussie equipment is now American sourced, making the skew more towards the AIM-9 rather than ASRAAM.
By: swerve
- 26th July 2009 at 18:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats right, except for the crown colony:rolleyes:
You'll never win a history quiz, will you? Australia was never a crown colony - it was several. And those colonies (self-governing since the 19th century) ceased to be colonies in 1901, when they federated (by their own choice - after all, they were self-governing), to form the Commonwealth of Australia, an entirely self-governing nation, with its own armed forces, made up of the armed forces of the federated colonies (whoops! Colonies with their own armies & navies, under their own command - how subservient!).
New
Posts: 124
By: savion
- 27th July 2009 at 06:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You'll never win a history quiz, will you? Australia was never a crown colony - it was several. And those colonies (self-governing since the 19th century) ceased to be colonies in 1901, when they federated (by their own choice - after all, they were self-governing), to form the Commonwealth of Australia, an entirely self-governing nation, with its own armed forces, made up of the armed forces of the federated colonies (whoops! Colonies with their own armies & navies, under their own command - how subservient!).
swerve, Did you take it literally!! C'mon be a sport.;)
Now can we move on with which is better WVR Missile for RSAF??
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 24th July 2009 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Python-4/5, U-Darter has no TVC and greater than 50gs. I think it is ~60 for Python-5 and Max 58 for U-Darter). The Chinese PL-9C has about 40gs without TVC. But I just wanted to point out that the ASRAAM has very minimal control surfaces (Like the A-Darter)...
and regarding the A-Darter.... Oh yes.... I think about 5 years ago the Denel/Kentron website itself stated that the A-Darter could hit a peak maneuverability of 100gs :eek: But since then they have removed it. :confused: But several unofficial/third-party source have mentioned very high g-limits for the A-Darter. Unusually High.
Posts: 1,620
By: wilhelm - 24th July 2009 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very true. The A-Darter of course having TVC.
The sources are official. Denel Dynamics CEO Jan Wessels has publically announced that A-Darter has already been tested at 80g's, with the goal being somewhere between 90 to 100g's.
Pretty hot stuff.
Are there advanced editions of ASRAAM and IRIS-T in the pipeline?
Posts: 1,533
By: kev 99 - 24th July 2009 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASRAAM is due to be replaced starting around the end of the next decade with CAMM
Posts: 911
By: LmRaptor - 24th July 2009 at 12:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd go with ASRAAM any day... it's got tremedous translational potential due to its big motor and no fighters going to out maneuver it... especially with its top end ability off the rail - only real place it needs to pull massive G to hit something.
Posts: 124
By: savion - 25th July 2009 at 07:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
30 G is perfectly fine for a new Missile develop to replace sidewinder!!! Wonder why new Missile developers are striving for 80+G "overkill"???
Germans did not agree ASRAAM to be perfectly fine Missile as it is, nor the future direction it was taking.
SOC, don't twist the statement by selective quoting, it is not expected of you.
I said "It is amusing that you found "talks by India" worth mentioning"
which you first twisted to say "I am finding India amusing" and now this:eek:
British are holding on to ASRAAM only coz of ego, its utility is long gone with soviet bombers.
Why should it bother me??? :( there must be some reason for you to come to that conclusion, could you explain???
I just said, "talking" is not worth the effort of mention here, but somehow you concluded am having problem with India:cool:
For me it seems you got some serious problem here.
Posts: 124
By: savion - 25th July 2009 at 07:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you read my reply am not questioning the seeker, algorithm etc, but the frame of the Missile, which was found wanting by the Germans that they left the program.
Am sure all that you mention is top notch.
Am not sure about that, as all i know is Australian defence acquisition is not what it used to be.
Posts: 1,142
By: Grim901 - 25th July 2009 at 11:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And that has already been explained. Just because one nation didn't like the direction of a project doesn't mean the project is useless.
France didn't like the direction of the Eurofighter project, that doesn't instantly qualify the Rafale as better than Typhoon does it?
Are you kidding? The only reason Britain still produces a WVR A2A missile is for ego? And why exactly does every other nation hold on to theirs? Ego too? Back up what you say with a little substance. The ASRAAM is a good missile and does the job well, it was designed with Britain's needs and dogfighting experience in mind (something Germany hasn't had since it the Battle of Britain...which it lost :P)
So you started by saying that no foreign air force wants it, now you've changed to questioning those air forces acquisition process. What exactly is wrong with it that would skew the Aussies towards ASRAAM unfairly?
All you managed to establish is that the requirements for Britain and Germany were different, that doesn't mean one missile is better, and if the other posters are any indication, it actually helps the case for ASRAAM over IRIS-T for RSAF due to their security situation.
Note also, that you should be wary about the fact that 6 nations use IRIS-T. I'm saying it is the case here, but I have a feeling it may have been latched onto by the EDA and become a European project, making it near mandatory for certain countries to go with it. It could also be down to Germany wanting a higher workshare than it got with ASRAAM. When it comes to defence procurement in the EU, nothing is clear.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 25th July 2009 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kind of, as it stands at the moment CAMM is ASRAAM with TVC.
Posts: 1,142
By: Grim901 - 25th July 2009 at 15:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I thought they were giving it a new seeker too. Which incidentally, is a major part of ASRAAM that changed after the German's left.
Posts: 124
By: savion - 26th July 2009 at 06:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wish it was as simple as that. Germans found aerodynamic feature not upto, after their study of R-73 Missile. They had two choice, continue with substandard airframe or start from groundup with the new knowledge. But British EGO did not allow that, so they are held on to ASRAAM, Germans and others who value knowledge above ego started developing new "perfectly fine Missile.
See above.
Battle of britain:D:D:D
Thats right, except for the crown colony:rolleyes:
Posts: 303
By: Tribes - 26th July 2009 at 09:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't have much understanding of UK-Australian politics do you? Interestingly enough, the RAAF has stayed with AIM-9X for the F-18FPosts: 124
By: savion - 26th July 2009 at 09:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just goes to prove that without differentiation of new seeker ASRAAM frame is not the perfectly fine WVR Missile. Now that every WVR Missile has new-gen seeker, ASRAAM seems more obselete than it ever was.It is no surprise that Australians also concluded(like US before) that with new seeker, AIM-9X is better than newly developed ASRAAM.
Posts: 303
By: Tribes - 26th July 2009 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was presented more along the lines of keeping the whole F-18F + weapons package purchase an "off the USN shelf" exercise, which makes sense for a small buy of only 24 aircraft. Also, there are no announced plans to use AIM-9X on the upgraded F/A-18 A/B+. Still, the RAAF will be one of a comparatively few airforces fielding two contemporary WVR missiles.
Posts: 887
By: pjhydro - 26th July 2009 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only reason the croc wrestlers have gone for 9X with F18F is the cost of installation on what is essentially a temporary airframe that may only be in service for a few years. The RAAF plan to have ASRAAM on their F35s as the UK will have paid for installation in the development process.
The RAF and MBDA do not consider ASRAAM to be obsolete otherwise the UKs next gen SAM system would not be being based on it. You have to remember that missiles are the one area where true national competition can still take place as so many companies/nations make them compared to the aircraft that carry them. This means that national interest takes precedent over other considerations. The Germans, yes tested R73 etc BUT they pulled out to protect their own missile development and production ability as they felt they were a junior partner in ASRAAM and didn't want to be.
Posts: 887
By: pjhydro - 26th July 2009 at 10:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html
As the article says, once the Germans pulled out the UK pretty much went back to the drawing board.
Posts: 911
By: LmRaptor - 26th July 2009 at 11:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ASRAAM is more than just a good weapon - its a world beating weapon - and public source G-ability is rather irrelavent - in the terminal phases these missiles dont pull their max advertised Gs... it's only relevant for their off the rail performance... and ASRAAM can swing 180 deg off the rail... is faster and has longer range than any other western WVRAAM and can translate in the XYZ planes more rapidly aswell... TVC is effectively another control surface - it's nothing special - and it loses its authority when the engines run out of propellant.
Posts: 880
By: Peter G - 26th July 2009 at 14:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The RAAF competition (1998) was between the AIM-9X, ASRAAM and Python 4. The US even offered to deliver AIM-9X to the RAAF at the same time as the USAF and USN.
The AIM-9X retains the airframe, warhead, fuze and motor of the AIM-9X. The seeker is the same as the ASRAAM, and of course it adds TVC.
Python 4 lacked an imaging seeker (yes the later Python 5 has one, but Python 4 was the one on offer). They improved Python 5 performance over Python 4 due to concerns with kill times - Python 5 has increased range due to improved servos and reshaped engine thrust (high thrust, low thrust, high thrust for end game performance).
I'm fairly sure the UK is sharing ASRAAM source codes so Australia could make its own upgrades if required. The HUG Hornets have a digital interface to the missile also.
The last AFM has a photo of a Saudi Typhoon with what looks like ASRAAM. Although the aircraft is unpainted and is under testing in the UK.
The important point with IRIS-T development: "until BGT's relationship with BAe Dynamics came to an end in 1989. By this time BGT had developed a strap-down imaging infra-red seeker with a roll/pitch housing - the TELL seeker - but there was no missile to fit it to. Then came 1990's reunification of Germany and suddenly the Luftwaffe gained access to the weapons and aircraft of the former East German air force. West German pilots flew the MiG-29 and evaluated the Russian AA-11 'Archer' (Vympel R-73) and its helmet-mounted sight system. Within a very short space of time it was clear that the R-73 was superior to any available Western AAM and significantly outclassed the AIM-9L. The programme that led to the IRIS-T began almost immediately. BGT's first proposal was to mate its advanced TELL imaging infra-red seeker with the AIM-9L airframe. This was the Infra-Red Imaging Sidewinder (IRIS) concept, around which BGT tried to build an international development team. However, in 1993 the Luftwaffe undertook a series of AAM simulations and evaluations at the end of which the IRIS was deemed to be the worst performing option of all. The limitations imposed by the AIM-9 airframe and motor ensured that the IRIS would never match the effectiveness of the R-73. (JALW 15 July 2005)."
BGT's seeker is 4 × 128 which uses a mirror to mechanically scan. They claim it is better against decoys. The ASRAAM and AIM-9X use a 128 x 128 element array. Python 5 is 320 x 240.
Note Germany had already left the ASRAAM project (1989) due to differences of opinion over the seeker design. They tried a cheap AIM-9L upgrade, but cancelled this in 1993 after testing the R-73. IRIS-T uses thrust vectoring for early agility and then tail control in the end game. The seeker has a 90° off aspect, and is supposedly capable of 60 G agility (R-73 is 40-50 G).
If rumours can be believed the AIM-9X seeker is better than the missile kinetics - Seeker performance was supposed to be 16 km against a high altitude (they achieved 35-40 km against a fighter in reheat) or 8 km against a target in ground clutter (twice that of the AIM-9M; R-73 is said to be 7-8 km for fighter sized target not using reheat). F-15C units have achieved 20-22 km lock on ranges - AIM-9X max kinetic range is 25-30 km (JMR March 2005).
AIM-9X Block II has improved range due to lofted profile and midcourse datalink.
I'd say that in 1998 the RAAF went with the better deal. You could argue Python 5 (2005), AIM-9X (2003), AIM-9X Block II (2010?) or IRIS-T (2006) is better than the the existing ASRAAM (entered service with RAAF August 2004; RAF was mid 2002), but we are talking apples and oranges:
Is the dual imaging/mechanical IRIS-T seeker better than pure imaging IR for the others in rejecting decoys? Does IRIS-T have the ability to select target aim point, say the aircraft cockpit (I'd say yes)?
Pretty much all the missiles use a low burn off the rail, then accelerate to max speed for intercept. ASRAAM is supposed to the one of the fastest short range missiles (Mach 3.5) - what are the tradeoffs of quick turn vs fast speed (note the Python 4 was felt to be too slow)?
Posts: 1,142
By: Grim901 - 26th July 2009 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The other here have pretty much answered you on most of that, including the fact that Britain effectively went back to the drawing board after the German withdrawal AND the fact that the German's left BEFORE studying the R73 because they weren't the big boss country.
Let's stop talking about British ego, I can list more recent procurements that point to German ego if you'd like though.
Finally, you clearly have little knowledge of Anglo-Aussie relations. First off, they aren't a colony anymore, they're part of the commonwealth, that rarely plays a part in defence issues these days. Note also that almost all Aussie equipment is now American sourced, making the skew more towards the AIM-9 rather than ASRAAM.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 26th July 2009 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You'll never win a history quiz, will you? Australia was never a crown colony - it was several. And those colonies (self-governing since the 19th century) ceased to be colonies in 1901, when they federated (by their own choice - after all, they were self-governing), to form the Commonwealth of Australia, an entirely self-governing nation, with its own armed forces, made up of the armed forces of the federated colonies (whoops! Colonies with their own armies & navies, under their own command - how subservient!).
Posts: 124
By: savion - 27th July 2009 at 06:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
swerve, Did you take it literally!! C'mon be a sport.;)
Now can we move on with which is better WVR Missile for RSAF??