I concede the ambiguity in the brochure figure.

Using Warren Boley’s own numbers, including an uninstalled wet-thrust capability of approximately 51,000lb – would give a T/Wr of 9.4 – an absolute topline number, I think you’ll agree. Installed the T/Wr is 8*.

So realistically we’re looking at a number between 8 and 9.4. Still 117/S class.

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php%3Fid%3D18406&ved=0ahUKEwi2_J-EpoDPAhVpLsAKHefJCckQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNGzah3byskC9npM3lQsKIYMklOilw&sig2=u3ILKLVK73uwG6YiizuHLQ

Okay, so based on that, 5,400lb or 8:1, however the second source is citing a blog and I’m always a little wary of blogs. 8:1 is still a little low based on the F414 but I guess the aim was better fuel consumption. The second link also suggests that the actual output may be more than 43,000lb, so yes, it could well be between 8 and 9.4.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf
https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php%3Fid%3D18406&ved=0ahUKEwi2_J-EpoDPAhVpLsAKHefJCckQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNGzah3byskC9npM3lQsKIYMklOilw&sig2=u3ILKLVK73uwG6YiizuHLQ

Now 12.6:1 is a stretch though but then experimental engine XG-40-2 managed 12:1 allegedly.

No real evidence how close the F135 is to it’s not to exceed weight, nor if that is the dry weight. What we do know is that the F135 weighs about 1,500 lbs more than the F119.

No real evidence that’s it’s a dry weight either.

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.

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

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.

As of now, I believe the MICA IR is yet to demonstrate a live fire over the shoulder shot without the assistance of a second aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MICA_(missile)

The problem is when you can already pull 50g without TVC, TVC only adds weight and reduces fuel fraction and you have to balance that against the drag advantages of using TVC, but if you’re using a boat-tail design that’s already very low drag anyway. Furthermore, the drag advantages of TVC only apply during the relatively short burn phase. Different requirements, doesn’t necessarily mean one is better or worse. The IRIS-T has TVC but was rejected by the UK as stated in the above post. MICA IR is a good missile but it weighs 25% more than an ASRAAM whilst occupying roughly the same volume, therefore you could assess that the fuel fraction is lower.

Using a narrow angle seeker with no IRST ability you would of course be right, however with a seeker capable of scanning 180deg, it’s less critical. However, there is no concrete evidence stating that the ASRAAM doesn’t have a datalink. We know it didn’t get lost during a live fire over-the-shoulder shot with no secondary aircraft providing assistance, even in a high clutter environment at low altitude.:eagerness:

25km is about the range of a modern IIR seeker. A missile can travel a long way in 10s, roughly 10km.

Well we can debate ‘what doesn’t have much drag’ but the assessment is just guessing without the facts. We do however know ASRAAM was purpose built for low drag and also has the largest rocket diameter of any modern missile filling the same role. It has a very clean body design.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131004061746/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/asraam_background-1367919209.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140803045906/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/asraam_background-1402652228.pdf

The reason why the US left the ASRAAM was because “it was not invented here” problem, nothing to do the R-73. The MOU signed between the UK, Germany and the US was under fire from the likes of Raytheon, Hughes, etc, from day one, they were entirely aware that the next SRAAM that would equip the USAF, the US Navy and the Marine Corps, would a) be a huge program, b) be the “de facto” SRAAM for a great big chunk of the Western Air Forces, no way in hell that they would allow a foreign contractor to be the lead developer for such a program, and they were entirely correct. By 1989, when the Luftwaffe got its hands on the “Archer” the entire MOU was already dead in all but name.

And further to that.

The rapid decline and eventual fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s led to considerably less interest in the ASRAAM effort. As well, German reunification gave the German Air Force their first look at the Russian Vympel R-73 missile, known in the west as the AA-11 Archer. This proved to be a far more dangerous short-range attack weapon than had been known previously. It was clearly able to outperform all operational Western short-range IR tracking missiles, particularly in the ability to guide in high off-axis attacks, but also in terms of field of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of target designation, and target lock-on.[11]

By February 1988 the US was already agitating for changes. In July 1989 the Germans exited the program, deciding that much greater maneuverability was required to compete with the R-73. This left Britain in control of the program and they began redefining it purely to RAF needs, sending out tenders for the new design in August 1989. This led to the selection of a new Hughes focal plane array imaging array seeker instead of the more conventional design previously used, dramatically improving performance and countermeasure resistance. A UK contest in 1990 examined the new ASRAAM, the French MICASRAAM and a new design from Bodensee Geratetechnik, their version of the ASRAAM tuned for German needs. In 1992 the Ministry of Defense announced that ASRAAM had won the contest, and product began in March that year. The German design, now part of Diehl BGT Defence, became the IRIS-T.[11]

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.

https://www.scribd.com/document/323296108/No-Idle-Spear-MBDA-Details-Air-To-surface-Capability?keyword=ft200noi&content=10079&ad_group=Online+Tracking+Link&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1

SPEAR contract signed.

Something tells me that a typical KGB operative would certainly 1. not have a Russian camera and 2. shut up
Or are all westeners coming at MAKS, holding Nikons, speaking english, CIA or GHCQ agents, in your books? 🙂

You get a feel for these things. It’s difficult to explain, sometimes it’s so subtle that you don’t even know why you know, but you do.