T-50 – 9.47 m2
F-35 – 8.12 m2

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248154[/ATTACH]

So what? Take 2 Aircraft with the same cross section, one flying wing design, one F-106 design, you think they’re gonna have the same transsonic/supersonic performances?

The F-35 will have the advantage of large production numbers which will lower its cost close to that of the rafale, so the comparison is a bit unfair.

The idea was more to increase the effectiveness of MANPADS. In a high intensity scenario, the enemy planes would probably be flying at low to very low altitude, so the reaction time would be very short. Imagine a soldier wearing a helmet and the incoming threat is deplayed on the visor, he would just have to align his MANPAD. The datalink/computer equipement could be carried by a mule, an exoskeleton or maybe mounted in an IFV, depending on the situation, with like 4 MANPAD carrying soldiers ready to launch connected to it via a short range inexpensive datalink system.

I agree it would probably not be a good idea to replace SHORADs with such systems.

Anyways, I don’t want to divert too much from the original topic, let’s get back to CAS. Could CAS planes be partially replaced by short range very light artillery systems that could be transported on robotic mules? Such a system wouldn’t have much firepower power compared to a CAS plane, but maybe it could be made more precise to compensate. That would be obviously when heavier systems cannot be transported.

The same bad weather would also prevent a typical targeting pod from working.

MMW is great at short distances but has relatively poor range.

I’d try to have the best resolution possible up to 5-10 km behind the FLOT from about 15-20km. A small bomb or missile would have enough range to reach that far.The plane could still be used for penetration attacks, and would be networked with the other planes. For a2a I’d focus on shooting down helicopters and CAS planes from about 20km in multi target. I’m not sure a MMW radar could to that.

In 1995, Hughes and British Aerospace collaborated on the “P3I ASRAAM”, a version of ASRAAM as a candidate for the AIM-9X program. The P3I would have been very much like the AIM-132, but with the addition of thrust vectoring to provide increased agility and to carry a larger warhead to meet the requirements expressed by the US Navy led AIM-9X program. The ultimate winner was the Hughes submission using the same seeker but with the rocket motor, fuze and warhead of the AIM-9M. The latter was a US Air Force stipulation to ease the logistics burden and save by reusing as much as possible of the existing AIM-9 Sidewinder, of which 20,000 remained in the US inventory.

So that clearly means that the ASRAAM didn’t meet the requirement without TVC. And BTW no other major air forces has tried to build a missile using the same concept as ASRAAM. If you want a dual role missile, do it right, like the MICA-IR.

If I remember correctly, it was actually TVC they wanted.

There’s some debate as to whether the ASRAAM has a datalink. It’s not mentioned anywhere, but then it doesn’t specifically state that it doesn’t anywhere either and it did manage an over the shoulder shot, which must have involved a considerable amount of time outside seeker parameters. As it is MBDA officially state 25+km and elsewhere it states 50km.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/air-dominance/asraam/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1c674SPjDM
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html

There is no point having that kind of range without a datalink. Most missiles would get lost. The ASRAAM is a poor concept.

At 25km, I would say the lack of KE is going to be a bigger concern, which is a problem for 127mm rockets like the AIM-9X2 and IRIS-T. The seeker range is said to be around 25km anyway. There is an ASRAAM update on the way that will use CAMM as a baseline, I don’t know what that will entail though but the seeker is being upgraded.

The seeker probably has less than 25km range, and detection range depends on several parameters, like weather conditions and target aspect. The goal of a LOAL without datalink would be to shoot 5-10 seconds earlier while retaining a significant pk.

The AIM-9X doesn’t have much drag, so it would still have enough speed to maneuver at that kind of range.

Who needs TVC to achieve over-the-should shots?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raaf-kills-over-the-shoulder-asraam-05323/

Why do people even assume WVR always means dogfights anyway? Only 5 of 13 F-15 WVR kills in Desert Storm were dogfights.

Again, the ASRAAM is probably more maneuvvrable than the AMRAAM. The AMRAAM can probably achieve an over the shoulder shot, but not at the same close range.

I think it might also be the fact that they have experimented extensively with pairing stealth fighters with 4th gens, and they have come to the realization that it works very well. A few years ago the F-15s got a 37-1 kill ratio during an a2a exercise thanks to the help of the F-22s – if I remember correctly. Now that the F-22 and F-35 are able to talk directly to the F-15s over link-16, they can also probably guide their missiles, so it could be even more effective.

The ASRAAM can still probably pull more Gs, not sure about that. How long would it take for the AMRAAM’s radar to lock on the target after launch, versus a LOAL IR missile?

The DAS might help achieve a better AMRAAM launch because it has a better tracking capability than other types of sensors in a fast turning fight.

I’d worry more about the max aoa capability of the F-35 to be able to pull hard and launch the AMRAAM in a 25 degrees cone or something like that, rather than focusing on other parameters like energy retention and STR.