SpudmanWPWe (Spain) are operating Amraam C models…but in the NASAMS system
I know you have them “now”, but what did you have in 2000?
SpudmanWPYour first mistake was relying on wiki.
Your second was using a “publication” rather than a direct quote from a reliable source.
Third was taking it out of context.
The quote is “Meteor has a No Escape Zone three times greater than AMRAAM it is designed to replace”, so you have to look at what was in service when the Meteor began it’s dev (ie when the spec was written) and not what AMRAAM was in service when the dev was complete. Since the first non-US firing (let alone fielding) of an AIM-120C5 was not until June 2005, which was long after the dev started on Meteor, the “AMRAAM” it is designed to replace is the C3 (at best) and likely the B.
The RAF used the B prior to ordering their first C5 in 2005.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070210095714/http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/amraam.cfm
Feel free do show documentation of any of the Meteor launch customers (ie the ones paying for dev) using a C series AMRAAM when the process of developing Meteor began and it’s specs (ie 3x the NEZ of the AMRRAM it was designed to replace).
SpudmanWPWell the second of those two doesn’t specifically say no data link and other links like this, seem to imply it does:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raaf-kills-over-the-shoulder-asraam-05323/
The combination of new wide-angle ‘staring’ seekers, exponential growth in onboard computer processing, 2-way data links, and the ability to lock onto a target anywhere within the pilot’s field of view, makes modern missiles like the Python 4/5, AIM-9X Sidewinder, and AIM-132 ASRAAM qualitatively different from their predecessors.
Just like the ASRAAM, there is no documentation that the Python4/5 has a datalink and we know that the AIM-9x did not get a datalink till the recent Block2. Even then it’s only a 1-way datalink. The source is BS, especially about the datalinks being 2-way (the AMRAAM just got a 2-way link in the AIM-120D).
Stick to government or mfg sources or continue to be deceived by lazy “reporters” who have spent more time playing video games then doing any research.
For example, here is the Python-5 pdf from the mfg. In the section that talks about HOBS, it touts the seeker, algorithms, etc but makes no mention of a datalink.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/9/1189.pdf
SpudmanWPThe Meteor’s range is overstated.
Remember that it’s spec was to have tipple the NEZ of the AMRAAM-120B/C3. It’s performance vs the AIM-120D has not been stated.
SpudmanWPSea level shot? Show me ONE 5Km+ OTS shot from ASRAAM 😉 . The only thing mentioned is that the target was low alt. G’bye
In a world first for an Air Force and an infra-red guided missile, Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force has successfully carried out the first in-service ‘Lock After Launch’ firing of an ASRAAM (Advanced short-range air-to-air missile) at a target located behind the wing-line of the ‘shooter’ aircraft.
The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.
SpudmanWPHere is an example from a US Gov site:
2.1.4. Mid-Course Guidance
In lock-after-launch systems, target acquisition can be either non-autonomous (examples are: remote
television guidance via data/command link, and semi-active laser guidance with third party target
illumination) or autonomous (examples are: imaging infrared terminal guidance seeker, and medium/long
range air-to-air active radar guidance). Mid-course and terminal guidance systems are necessarily
interdependent and may or may not share common equipment in integrated guidance systems. The
following examples illustrate some of the more common combinations of mid-course and terminal
guidance and their application in weapon systems:• Inertial mid-course combined with active radar terminal, as used in AMRAAM also includes
command updating which permits extended range operation and freedom of trajectory optimisation
while allowing for target evasive manoeuvre. For long range applications the combination of semiactive
mid course with active terminal is also important.• Passive imaging infrared terminal with autonomous target acquisition is used in ASRAAM.
Common inertial sensors are employed for mid-course and terminal sensors in lock-after-launch
modes to overcome lock-before-launch limitations of earlier generation SRAAM.
SpudmanWPActually commonsense says it does because all other LOAL missiles have a data link. And LOAL isn’t some fake claim, it’s an extensively tested claim.
Given that most datalinks use the radar for their updates, LOAL shots (especially HOBS) could not connect to the datalink anyways.
Oh, no mention of data link here either. Must mean no data link right?
um, from your link “NETWORK ENABLED” = datalink
Also
http://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=force-download-attachment&attachment_id=12854
SPEAR-Product-Data-Sheet.pdf
Network Enabled
Two-way data link allows in-flight updates, retargeting and abort functions. SPEAR can be used in both
Fire-and-Forget and Semi Active Laser designation modes as well as fully Network Enabled
The ASRAAM’s datasheet from the same site makes no mention of a datalink.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=force-download-attachment&attachment_id=12845
Here is an example of it being reported that the ASRAAM does NOT have a datalink.
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html
Unlike missiles equipped with radio datalink to facilitate lock on after launch functionality, ASRAAM performs LOAL capability by predicting where the target could be as its seeker enters search mode after launch.
SpudmanWPSo ASRAAM just happens to be the only LOAL capable missile in the world without a data link.
Since there is no mention in any mfg or government documentation saying that there is….. common sense says there is not.
SpudmanWPIIRC that was when the deal was first started (ie the negotiations).
I’ll see what I can dig up.
———————-
LM’c contract to do the work, $207 mil
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-awarded-207-million-contract-to-incorporate-israeli-specific-f-35-systems-375899/
This one says radio & datalinks only.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158594#.UTPFZzCG0j4
If Israel was smart, they would start developing the UAI drivers for all their weapons now so that when Block 4 rolls around (early 2020’s), they can drop right in without a block upgrade or any “customization”. There is an added benefit of being able to sell them to every F-15E(SG/K, etc) & modern F-16 customer as they also have UAI (ro will very soon).
SpudmanWPMost of the Israeli F-35 items are software based (the entire C4 system is just an “app”). I don’t think custom “EW” made it into the agreement, only weapons and C4.
SpudmanWPActually, come to think of it, the F-35I involves a greater degree of customization than the Rafale-I.
The customization needed for the IAF will not be as expensive or as complex as you think. The F-35’s avionics architecture is based on VMs interconnected with APIs. It is relatively easy to add hardware modules, especially if they can be added as an ICP card. For example, the planned C4 system that the IAF will add will connect through the F-35’s existing software-defined radios, no extra comms equipment will be needed.
BEN GURION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Israel, April 4 (UPI) — Israel Aerospace Industries reports it is producing command, control, communications and computing systems for F-35 aircraft ordered from the United States.
The announcement follows completion of the systems definition, prototyping and testing phases of the C4 system.
“Using generic communications infrastructure based on the latest Software Defined Radios, IAI new C4 system developed for the Adir [F-35 aircraft] will provide the backbone of the IAF future airborne communications network,” the company said. “This network will dramatically improve over legacy systems currently operating with the current fleet of 4th Generation aircraft [F-16, F-15].”
SpudmanWPnobody had to ask, LM tripled the price long before anyone could order anything… 😀
Current F-35A Flyaway price = $99 mil
Current Rafale “bare bones” price = $102 mil (per Indian deal without the 50% customization)
So the F-35 should be $33? :stupid:
SpudmanWPWell.. you don’t see that very often
SpudmanWPI was not responding to dj directly, but to the general talk of a “deep magazine” for the F-35/22 that been percolating for a few months.
SpudmanWPI think that for a 4th gen asset to effectively serve as a “deep magazine”, it needs to have a longer ranged weapon than the AMRAAM. When you add the range that the 4th gen has to stay behind the F-35/22 in order for the enemy not to see it, the AMRAAM will have a significantly shorter range after it passes the F-35/22 in order to still have a satisfactory pK.
There are two ways to solve this, 5th gen magazines (UAVs) and better weapons.
Better weapons is the cheaper way to go. Think Meteor or an adaption of a current long-ranges SAM like AMRAAM-ER.
The most expensive option is to develop a VLO UCAV with an eye towards a relatively large internal load. It does not have to go particularly fast or have an extremely small RCS since it’s going to stay behind the F-35/22 assets anyways. Think of a LO boxy structure like “Tacit Blue” that can hold at least 8 full sized AAMs & 6-8 CUDA sized AAMs for self defense but can still get up to 600mph and have at least a 1000nm combat radius.
Sign In
