Peter GTwo other ASRAAM snippets (both from JALW):
“It is wingless, with clipped delta tail control surfaces and lifting body aerodynamics with relaxed stability for high manoeuvrability.”
“The BAE Systems Royal Ordnance Defence solid propellant rocket motor uses a steel strip laminate case and has a boost/sustain thrust profile with low IR signature and low flame plume.”
Relaxed stability is what modern fighters use for high agility. I have 50G for the ASRAAM, but I’m unsure of the source for this. Its not a slouch against AIM-9X or IRIS-T in other words.
The second quote almost sounds like the motor is looking to reduce MAWS detection ranges…
Peter GASRAAM already has integrated cooling.
Peter GCloser to the Med for deployments?
Peter GJust 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)?
Peter GCheck out the full Flight International Article at: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/08/225072/ea-18g-growler-new-platform-and-capabilities-set-to-un-level-the-sead-playing.html
No mention of the AIM-9X, but they are fitted with JHMCS, and: “Also envisaged by the navy in the near future are options to carry the same weaponry as the Super Hornet, including laser-guided bombs.”
EA-18G are currently cleared for ALQ-99, drop tanks, AIM-120C and AGM-88 (possibly AGM-88C).
Peter GYou may be right:
“NEW DELHI — The long-awaited request for proposals (RFP) to provide 99-125 engines for the Indian Air Force’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft is expected to be released this week.
Proposals for the two candidate engines — GE’s F414 and Eurojet’s EJ200 — will be due by Oct. 12 if the RFP is released on July 17.
In October 2007, Eurojet signed a nondisclosure agreement with the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is developing the LCA and evaluating alternatives to the GE F404 engine powering the Tejas prototypes and initial production aircraft.
A senior official of Eurojet says it will transfer data under the agreement to India’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), which is responsible for developing the indigenous Kaveri engine planned for the LCA.
“We have interest in doing more with GTRE. However, we shall wait for milestones to be reached,” an official says. “Once you have a ticket to ride….synergies [with other projects] are quite natural, though the customer might think different.”
With severe delays to the Kaveri program and performance limitations with the initial LCA, the Indian air force is keen to push ahead with an off-the-shelf engine acquisition. Former air force chief Fali Homi Major said early this year: “We need five squadrons of the Mk2 LCAs. When integrated with the new engines, the LCA Mk2 should fly in 2013.”
The GE414 powers the Boeing F/A-18E/F and Saab Gripen NG, while the EJ200 powers the Eurofighter Typhoon. All three aircraft are contenders in India’s 126-aircraft multirole fighter competition now under way.
“Our engine needs minimum changes and will not delay the LCA,” the Eurojet official said.”
Peter GThere was a plan to upgrade as per the F-104S-ASA with Grifo radar and BVR missiles – this might be the source for the Sky Sword II rumours.
F-CK-1A is said to be capable of using AIM-9L/P and TC I (in the event of war they would probably like the option of using any available type), F-104G could carry AIM-9B/J.
The JALW 20 May 2004 has the TC I entering service in 1993 (on the F-5E/F) and later on the F-CK-1A. The entry has “”Some sources have even suggested that the Taiwanese missile is largely a Sidewinder copy with a few redesigned components and the remainder incorporated as licence-built assemblies from the AIM-9.”. It looks like an AIM-9L in any case.
The dates are a little out – Taiwans’ F-104G were retired 1998; the Sky Sword II entered service in 1996. Sky Sword II lacks a midcourse datalink, but I doubt the F-104G radar range is matched to the Sky Sword II, and that Taiwan integrated it on an aircraft about to leave service.
Peter GYes I agree. Hence the: “Some earlier TAC aircraft had provision for be refueled by either method. ISTR proposals/provision for the F-35A to be fitted with a probe (this assists those countries that only have hose/drogue tankers).”
Peter GDuring the 50s and 60s some TAC aircraft were fitted with probes for use with KB-29 and KC-97 tankers. SAC always used the flying boom. KC-135 was originally SAC and hence the boom.
Using the boom a KC-135R can pass:
7000 lbs/minute to a B-1B (same for KC-10)
3400 lbs/minute to F-15 (4000 for KC-10)
2000 lbs/minute to F-16 (3000 for KC-10)
With the boom fitted with drogue adapter (BDA)
2000 lbs/minute to F/A-18 (2300 for KC-10)
As I understand it, smaller aircraft would literally be blown off the boom using the higher fuel transfer rates. Some of the advanced hose/drogue units are almost as fast as the boom, but for a heavy Air Force such as the USAF with plenty of tankers, bombers and heavy transports the boom has advantages.
Some earlier TAC aircraft had provision for be refueled by either method. ISTR proposals/provision for the F-35A to be fitted with a probe (this assists those countries that only have hose/drogue tankers).
KC-X should have higher transfer rates than the KC-135.
Anyone have the KC-X contender rates?
Peter GWhat are those small “Hellfire-ish” looking missiles? Training rounds??
BTW I read an interesting article last weak about Peruvian Su-25UBs which had been converted to Wild Weasel birds, with a RIO in the back seat, jammers of all sorts and signal seaking missiles. The Peruvians aledgely used them with good effect against Equadorian air defences during the 1995 war.
The Su-25 (10 Su-25, 8 Su-25UB) were delivered 1997-98 as part of the lessons learnt from the 1995 war – lack of CAS aircraft. The Su-25UB were fitted with a centreline pod containing the Pastel system 2004-05, rear cockpit displays for Pastel and provision for Kh-58E (AS-11 Kilter) missiles. AFAIK the jammer is the SPS-141 series.
Peter GPlease note the KC-135E have been retired.
Why is Boeing talking about a KC-777 if the KC-767 is ‘right sized’?
Peter GDhruv issues
As many as 40 Hindustan Aeronautics Dhruv advanced light helicopters (ALH) in service with the Indian army are unable to support military operations in high-altitude zones like the Siachen Glacier, according to a new report by the nation’s comptroller and auditor general (CAG).
“The ALH was not able to fly above 5,000m [16,400ft], though the army’s requirements stipulated an ability to fly up to 6,500m,” the CAG says, blaming the deficiency on “the limitation of the engine used”.
The army has instead had to rely on using its HAL-built Cheetah and Chetak single-engined helicopters, the CAG says, warning that this trend could “adversely impact operational preparedness”.
HAL has so far delivered around 80 Turbomeca TM333 2B2-powered Dhruvs to the Indian armed forces, but the nation’s navy has also found the type inadequate to meet is requirements. An armed version of the ALH featuring uprated Shakti engines is now undergoing trials.
Two Dhruvs have been exported to Nepal, one leased in Israel and five delivered to the Ecuadorian air force from a seven-aircraft deal worth $51 million. Turkey has also ordered three for medical service use.
The CAG has also criticised state-owned HAL for sending five Dhruvs to participate in air shows in Malaysia and Thailand in December 2005, despite the type having been grounded due to shortcomings including tail rotor vibration. The government watchdog says the “unsafe and imprudent” decision resulted in a financial loss of around 50 million rupees ($1 million), as the aircraft had to be transported back to Bangalore.
Peter GTejas update
India’s homegrown Tejas light combat aircraft is unlikely to be qualified by December 2010 as currently planned, with the date for its initial operational capability likely to be postponed.
The Aeronautical Development Agency now expects to conduct the first flight of limited series production aircraft LSP-3 no sooner than September. It has yet to integrate the platform’s air data and digital flight control computers, or receive final software for its Israeli-sourced multi-mode radar.
Engine issues also continue to dog the Tejas effort. The Indian air force has ordered an initial batch of 20 General Electric F404-IN20-powered examples, but needs an improved aircraft with a power output of at least 20,225lb thrust (90kN) to meet its operational requirements.
Hindustan Aeronautics plans to produce a more powerful Mk II version of the Tejas, but the air force has recently rejected a proposal under which France’s Snecma would have assisted India’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) in completing development of the troubled indigenous Kaveri powerplant. The GTRE and Snecma are challenging the decision.
Peter GThe article on pages 92-112 at:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/CA6EA006_1143_EC82_2E796A6FC58BA05B.pdf
gives the Georgian air defenses as:
1 Kolchuga-M ELINT system
2 36D6-M radars
4 P-18 radars (upgraded to P-180U standard)
2 batteries of Osa-AK (SA-8)
Upgraded SA-3
Single battalion Buk-M1 (SA-11). Three batteries each with 2 launchers and 1 loader/launcher and a total of 48 missiles.
Various SA-16, ZU-23, ZSU-23-4 and Israeli Spyder-SR
The Russian Backfire shot down was a recon Tu-22M3R.
The article also gives the lessons learnt and future Russian Air Force and Army plans.
Peter GYea, but it is lazy mirror-imaging.
Sign In
