F-16 vs Su-27 in a dogfight
Mindy
With pilots of equal skill who would win in a dogfight between the
F-16 c/d and the SU-27.I have heard from many people that the SU-27 is
the best plane now in service,but I think that the F-16 c/d is a least
equal in a dogfight.The F-16 has at least as good if not better
thrust/weight ratio,it has a lower wing loading and it is smaller.I
would like to hear other opinons on this subject.
JHAREK
If equally matched pilotwise, it's obvious that the Falcon would win. It's
smaller and likewise more maneuverable. Now against the SU-35? I dunno.
David Heller
Ruler of the Seas
Hi,
Is there some place (hopefully) on the net where I could find out the
operating costs for this machine? Thanks and have fuN!
Łukasz Bromirski
JHAREK wrote:
Obvious? More maneuverable? Heh...
--
## ## ## ## ## ###### Łukasz Bromirski
## ## ## #### ### Telecommunication Department, Agora-Gazeta
## ## ## #### ## e-mail to: L.Bro...@gazeta.pl
#### ###### ## ## ###### or: lu...@kki.net.pl
Teixeira
JHAREK (jha...@aol.com) wrote:
: If equally matched pilotwise, it's obvious that the Falcon would win. It's
: smaller and likewise more maneuverable. Now against the SU-35? I dunno.
: David Heller
:)
EHEHEHEHEHE...
Sure..and the F-104 is a lot more maneuverable than Su-37 since it is much smaller
JHAREK
>Obvious? More maneuverable? Heh...
Okay,,you and me,,,guns only.
David Heller
JHAREK
>:)
>EHEHEHEHEHE...
>Sure..and the F-104 is a lot more maneuverable than Su-37 since it is much
smaller>>
Not even. I state that the Falcon is better in a turning fight because it is. I
can't imagine too many non-vectoring fighters that could beat another so
equipped. The rest of you can get all excited about the paper tiger Soviet
planes,,I'm not.
David Heller
Dennis
Teixeira wrote:
>
> JHAREK (jha...@aol.com) wrote:
> : If equally matched pilotwise, it's obvious that the Falcon would win. It's
> : smaller and likewise more maneuverable. Now against the SU-35? I dunno.
> : David Heller
>
> EHEHEHEHEHE...
> Sure..and the F-104 is a lot more maneuverable than Su-37 since it is much smaller
That wouldn't matter, the 104 would outrun the 37's AAs :-)
John Pallister
Teixeira wrote in message <6c9gj0$g9q$1...@news.ua.pt>...
>JHAREK (jha...@aol.com) wrote:
>: If equally matched pilotwise, it's obvious that the Falcon would win.
It's
>: smaller and likewise more maneuverable. Now against the SU-35? I dunno.
>: David Heller
>
>
>
>
>:)
>EHEHEHEHEHE...
>Sure..and the F-104 is a lot more maneuverable than Su-37 since it is much
smaller
heeeheee
Lets extend this argument further.....
A Sopwith Camel is more maneuverable than both so it would win.......
Cheerio
JP
JHAREK
>A Sopwith Camel is more maneuverable than both so it would win.......
Gawd... Dogfights generally occur at speeds from about 250?-450Kts. Any
slower than that and "Modern" aircraft don't even approach their corner speeds.
The Fulcrum, Flanker,,or hell even a Tomcat or Eagle are going to have a
slightly higher turn rate at altitude than a Falcon. So it becomes a turning
fight,,which a Falcon with an equally matched pilot will almost always win.
David Heller
Łukasz Bromirski
JHAREK wrote:
> Okay,,you and me,,,guns only.
> David Heller
OK, but how we do arrange it?
Any sim out there?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Łukasz Bromirski || e-mail to: L.Bro...@gazeta.pl
Telecommunication Department, Agora-Gazeta || or: lu...@kki.net.pl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Łukasz Bromirski
JHAREK wrote:
> The rest of you can get all excited about the paper tiger Soviet
> planes,,I'm not.
It's Your statement, however I personally don't like the
"paper tiger Soviet planes" text. What do you mean?
And, to put things clear - I don't get excited. Falcon is a good
fighter, and in terms of avionics - better than it's eastern
adversaries. However, Su-27, despite it's size, will
(in my opinion) to 99% outmanouver it and shoot down.
Even with guns-only situation.
DANeKANELL
>OK, but how we do arrange it?
>
>Any sim out there?
Jane's Fighters Anthology,
in that game you can create missions (F-16 vs Su-27) and have the computer
control them both. There is also an option that says guns only, the only
question is how accurate the game is and planes don't win wars, dogfights
whatever.. the pilot's do!
a.g.ku...@lboro.ac.uk
surely the f-16 would win because the fight would never get to WVR. the
f-16 avionics means that the fight would be BVR and turning performance
does not matter!
--
Antony Kutschera
Research Assistant
Department of Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering, and Transport Studies
Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leics. LE11 3TU, UK
Telephone 44 (0) 1509 22 3424
Fax 44 (0) 1509 22 3946
Ken Dorsett
Yeah right! I have that game. You really think that the performance
characteristics for all the fighters modeled are anywhere near
accurate. I don't!
Ken
Martin Rosenkranz
Mindy schrieb in Nachricht <34E73B...@pacbell.net>...
How a F-16 should ever came in dogfight distance to a Su-27 ?
Sturm
DANeKANELL
>.I have heard from many people that the SU-27 is
>>the best plane now in service,
The Su-27 is a clone of the F-15, The F-15 is on the verge of retirement, THe
F-22 has replaced the F-15!!
Lorne D. Gilsig
Dear AG,
That "the bad guy will never get close enough for guns" is what got the
Air Forces butt kicked in Viet Nam.
The major problem with the all BVR doctrine is that the bad guy never
reads it, and if he does, he doesn't stick to it.
Lorne D. Gilsig
Maury Markowitz
In <34EB54...@earthlink.net> "Lorne D. Gilsig" wrote:
> That "the bad guy will never get close enough for guns" is what got the
> Air Forces butt kicked in Viet Nam.
Ummm...
> The major problem with the all BVR doctrine is that the bad guy never
> reads it, and if he does, he doesn't stick to it.
No, the people who didn't follow the BVR doctrine in this case was the US,
who were forced to go visual. The rest is no surprise considering the planes
and training were set up to do just that.
Nothing a little change in the training sylibus didn't fix up.
Maury
Dean & Allison Klein
<surely the f-16 would win because the fight would never get to WVR.
the
f-16 avionics means that the fight would be BVR and turning performance
does not matter!>
Yes, in a fighter pilot's dreams, he'll have BVR clearance, but
unfortunately, in our world of civilian airliners and coalition aircraft
flying MIGs and potential enemies flying F-16s, BVR clearance is easier
to talk about than actually get. That's why we train to VID so much
nowadays.
Regards,
Dean
Dean & Allison Klein
<....So it becomes a turning fight,,which a Falcon with an equally
matched pilot will almost always win.>
Beg to differ. It only becomes a turning fight if you allow it to.
Big-mouth Falcons are a tough fight, but older versions can be handled
fairly easily because they bleed like stuck pigs. Get an F-16 on his
limiter and he's meat. There's more to ACM than who can pull harder on
the stick.
Regards,
Dean
JHAREK
>Yeah right! I have that game. You really think that the performance
characteristics for all the fighters modeled are anywhere near accurate. I
don't!>
There's always FALCON 4.0
David Heller
CHamil2899
Lorne D. Gilsig wrote:
>That "the bad guy will never get close enough for guns" is what got the
>Air Forces butt kicked in Viet Nam.
I don't think it was the lack of cannons itself that got the US military in to
trouble in Vietnam. It was the lack of tactics to deal with visual range
hit-and-run attacks by MiG's. In fact, the F-8 is a case in point about the
*true* use of the gun in modern ACM. The F-8 community kept screaming that
they had the "last of the gunfighters", however, I believe that Navy F-8's shot
down 19 a/c in Vietnam, and only one or two of those was with a gun. Although
a very small control group, that would indicate that the feasability of gun use
is about 5-10% of engagements (But I'm sure this can vary greatly.)
Obviously as tactics were revised (ie. TOP GUN) the Navy went back up to
something like a 9:1 kill ratio with gunless F-4J's while the Air Force with
its gun-equipped F-4E's held their dismal kill ratio, until they [The AF] also
revised their tactics to match the situation. It's really a question about
training and tactics, not so much a lack of a cannon, although a cannon *is*
nice and definitely worth the weight.
>The major problem with the all BVR doctrine is that the bad guy never
>reads it, and if he does, he doesn't stick to it.
No, *we* never implement The BVR doctrine. It seems to me that BVR doctrine
doesn't necessarily require the enemy to approve the use of the BVR doctrine.
It's *our* choice to shoot people down BVR w/ AMRAAM's and the like. However,
as the NVAF did, the enemy can develop tactics to frustrate a BVR strategy.
My .02,
C.J. Hamilton
CHamil2899
I notice one major item getting almost no attention here. PILOT QUALITY &
FLIGHT TIME. The simple fact is that the Russian Air Force may have excellent
a/c, but how often do they get any higher off the ground than the vehicle I
drive everyday. In fact there's one hill that if I get going fast enough, I
think I get higher off the ground than most Su-27's in any given week :-)
Bottom line: Western pilots are getting 10-15 times the flight hours in any
given month as their eastern counterparts. I lived outside a MiG-29 base in
Eastern Hungary for some time, and one day, I went out to the edge of town to
watch flight ops. In comparison to your average AFB, and I'll use Hill AFB in
Utah as an example, *nothing* took off. Two MiG-29's in 2 1/2 hours, and then
things seemed to go dead. On a working day at Hill AFB you seeF-16C/D's take
of every few minutes, and also notice a handful of non-indigenous traffic (Navy
Marine F/A-18's and F-14's and periodically Harriers and EA-6B's.) Anyone
whose flown any type of aircraft knows that practice DOES make perfect, and
simulators don't count for flight hours in the real world. Air Combat takes
practice too. Fight like you train, train like you fight. I just hope,
however, that the US Military's cost cutting measures don't continue to cut
into flight time. If that happens, I think we show that we've learned nothing
from history.
C.J. Hamilton
Łukasz Bromirski
JHAREK wrote:
Yeah. And suggesting Jane's Fighter's Anthology for those, who want
to have REAL FLIGHT SIM....isn't a good idea.
bhunt
In article <01bd3c91$0ea28ba0$d698...@pc95-ttagk.lboro.ac.uk>,
a.g.ku...@lboro.ac.uk says...
>
>surely the f-16 would win because the fight would never get to WVR. the
>f-16 avionics means that the fight would be BVR and turning performance
>does not matter!
>
>
>
>
>
That might not be good. The Flanker's missles have longer ranges, but the
reliability is uncertain.
-Brian
DANeKANELL
>Yeah. And suggesting Jane's Fighter's Anthology for those, who want
>to have REAL FLIGHT SIM....isn't a good idea.
I thnk Jane's Fighters Anthology was a fun game but it's just that a game it's
not Flight Simulator 98 by any means but it's still a good game if your sick of
just flying one plane in flight sims!
Redhawk
>> Sure..and the F-104 is a lot more maneuverable than Su-37 since it is
much smaller
>
I hope you're joking...
BYE
Redhawk
>The Su-27 is a clone of the F-15, The F-15 is on the verge of retirement,
THe
>F-22 has replaced the F-15!!
The Su-27 clone...
a very good one because in dogfight it would kick F-15 ass without any
problem. In BVR I can't say because there are too many things to consider...
In a what if situation, 1 VS 1 the Su-27 would probably win if loaded with
ADDERs.
BYE
Dean & Allison Klein
<The Su-27 clone...
a very good one because in dogfight it would kick F-15 ass without any
problem.>
What exactly do you base this conclusion on?
Regards,
Dean
Jukka Kauppinen
: >.I have heard from many people that the SU-27 is
: >>the best plane now in service,
: The Su-27 is a clone of the F-15, The F-15 is on the verge of retirement, THe
: F-22 has replaced the F-15!!
And Porches, Jaguars and the new Mercedes Benz
are clones of T-Fords?
Something better, please, thank you. SU-27 is no clone
of anything, and definitely the best dogfighter
aircraft currently in service anywhere.
I'll happily take granted the answer of
Commander Robert L. Shaw when asked the question
"what is the best dogfighter in the world?"
Answer, without hesitation: SU-27.
jok
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen Mail: Kornetintie 8, 00380 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Journalist E-Mail: juk...@mikrobitti.fi ICQ: 1848 793
MikroBITTI Tel/fax +358-17-824 225 or fax +358-9-120 5747
GSM 040-730 0036
http://www.mikrobitti.fi/~jukkak
The best-selling computer magazine in Scandinavia
http://www.mikrobitti.fi
John Pallister
JHAREK wrote in message <19980218065...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>A Sopwith Camel is more maneuverable than both so it would win.......
>
>Gawd... Dogfights generally occur at speeds from about 250?-450Kts. Any
>slower than that and "Modern" aircraft don't even approach their corner
speeds.
>The Fulcrum, Flanker,,or hell even a Tomcat or Eagle are going to have a
>slightly higher turn rate at altitude than a Falcon. So it becomes a
turning
>fight,,which a Falcon with an equally matched pilot will almost always win.
>David Heller
>
I said it "tongue in cheek" i.e a joke.
The point is, that these days an air battle is more about tactics b4 you get
into visual range than fighter on fighter maneverability. The question as
to whether a Su-27 is better or not than a F-16 is moot. Given the right
situation an Su-27 could chew up an f-16 for breakfast and vice-versa. In
the end, its up to how good the pilots are in using their planes to their
advantage to get the right situation for a kill.
Cheerio
JohnP
Teixeira
Dean & Allison Klein (klei...@erols.com) wrote:
: <The Su-27 clone...
That wasn't my article but i can answer that.Last year russian pilots flying
Su-27s did some flights against US F-15s.They won almost everytime and the
Su-27s proved to be capable of outturnig F-15 in full afterburnig using just
dry thrust.
CHamil2899
I wish we could see more posts along the lines as the one copied below. The
atypical, "The [insert a/c type here] kicks the [insert other a/c type here]'s
ass!!!" Are so unintelligeble, as to make me look to either side of myself to
make sure I'm not opening my jr. high school locker. Although one may not
exactly agree with the points in the paragraph below, we do have to give it
credit as thoughtful and worth reading.
My .02,
C.J. Hamilton
Dean & Allison Klein
<That wasn't my article but i can answer that.Last year russian pilots
flying
Su-27s did some flights against US F-15s.They won almost everytime and
the
Su-27s proved to be capable of outturnig F-15 in full afterburnig using
just
dry thrust.>
Would you care to site a credible source that reported this for me
please, or is this just some rumor floating around. I have heard
nothing of any such "test".
Regards,
Dean (800hrs, F-14's)
Andrey Shvetsov
A couple of mock engagements took place during the visit of Lipetzk
Combat Training Centre pilots to US in 1991 IIRC. They were widely
discussed in Russian press (I think I saw it in 4 or 5 magazines and
newspapers). If it did not make it into US press, that is may be because
of the result :-)
Russian pilots said they generally were disappointed by performance of
F-15C, as they expected tougher opposition.
Su-27 does not exactly "outturn" F-15 at dry thrust - it was able to
stay behind F-15 (which tried to escape manuevring at full reheat) only
"frequently engaging one of afterburners".
At full thrust, Su-27 (starting in a position right before F-15) found
itself on the tail of the Eagle after less than two full turns.
If you need, I can provide you with exact references.
Regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp
and sustained turn rates.
Andrey, where any statistics compiled on the number of firing
opportunities gained by either side in this exercise ?
Thanks,
Carlo
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> This is what you would expect, since the Sukhoi has better instantaneous
> and sustained turn rates.
It also shows, that Su-27 bleeds less energy at similar manuevres due to
better aerodynamics, so only fraction of thrust is needed to sustain the
turn.
>
> Andrey, where any statistics compiled on the number of firing
> opportunities gained by either side in this exercise?
Exercise was rather limited in terms of initial conditions - fighters
were placed in order to allow one side sagnificant advantage, i.e.
"hunter" starting behind "prey", to look how good pilots can play out
the advantage. Visual range only, as neither side wanted to reveal it's
electronics' capability.
In all cases Flanker broke away fast enough to deprive F-15 from
possibility to lock on missiles. Would the Eagle's pilot have HMS, he
probably would have scored a shot, but his controls as they were did not
allow aquiring manuevring target quick enough. So statistics would be
zero-to-something - which is not pretty realistic, of course.
Russian pilots rated F-15's control system as "awful", and generally
considered it to be better interceptor than dogfighter - its
acceleration in direct flight was similar to Su-27, but it bled too much
energy turning, making prolonged manuevring undesirable with Su-27 in
the vicinity :-). As Russian pilots said, only chance for Eagle driver
to win over Su-27 would be to achieve first shot early on - which would
require surprize attack or stupid Flanker pilot. If that fails, Eagle is
unlikely to get out, as outrunning Flanker in hit-and-run fashion is
hardly an option - Su-27 can lock and fire couple of Archers at big
off-boresight angle very quickly indeed, and considering missile's range
and plane's agility, would have no trouble to get into position.
Makes me wonder, why US fighters still do not have HMS?
Best regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
BTW, during the engagement actual wing loading and T/W ratio of F-15
were better (Su's were fully fueled).
Carlo Kopp
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > This is what you would expect, since the Sukhoi has better instantaneous
> > and sustained turn rates.
>
> It also shows, that Su-27 bleeds less energy at similar manuevres due to
> better aerodynamics, so only fraction of thrust is needed to sustain the
> turn.
You expect that with the large blended forebody, heaps of vortex lift at
high AoA. I am sure the aerodynamics experts can elaborate here in much
detail.
> >
> > Andrey, were any statistics compiled on the number of firing
> > opportunities gained by either side in this exercise?
>
> Exercise was rather limited in terms of initial conditions - fighters
> were placed in order to allow one side sagnificant advantage, i.e.
> "hunter" starting behind "prey", to look how good pilots can play out
> the advantage. Visual range only, as neither side wanted to reveal it's
> electronics' capability.
Interesting. Usually this style of ACM contest is flown with head to
head entry. Obviously neither side wanted to give anything away here ;-)
>
> In all cases Flanker broke away fast enough to deprive F-15 from
> possibility to lock on missiles. Would the Eagle's pilot have HMS, he
> probably would have scored a shot, but his controls as they were did not
> allow aquiring manuevring target quick enough. So statistics would be
> zero-to-something - which is not pretty realistic, of course.
The F-15 would have been seriously limited by the AIM-9 since it has a
limited off-boresight angle and tracking rate, compared to the R-73.
Even with a HMS this would be a problem since the AIM-9 would have
difficulty keeping up with the angular rates. If they were carrying a
newer missile like a P-4, ASRAAM or AIM-9X, the Flanker would be killed
on the disengagement with a shot up the tail.
>
> Russian pilots rated F-15's control system as "awful", and generally
> considered it to be better interceptor than dogfighter - its
> acceleration in direct flight was similar to Su-27, but it bled too much
> energy turning, making prolonged manuevring undesirable with Su-27 in
> the vicinity :-). As Russian pilots said, only chance for Eagle driver
> to win over Su-27 would be to achieve first shot early on - which would
> require surprize attack or stupid Flanker pilot. If that fails, Eagle is
> unlikely to get out, as outrunning Flanker in hit-and-run fashion is
> hardly an option - Su-27 can lock and fire couple of Archers at big
> off-boresight angle very quickly indeed, and considering missile's range
> and plane's agility, would have no trouble to get into position.
The big issue here is that with a better missile and HMS the engagement
would be less sensitive to basic aerodynamics. As it was flown, the
F-15's disadvantage in agility combined with an obsolete missile meant
that it could not compete. Success in real comabt would then depend on
the BVR missile and pilot tactics.
>
> Makes me wonder, why US fighters still do not have HMS?
That Andrey is a good question. The US had a HMS fitted to the F-4
during the seventies and early eighties, for use with the AIM-9H. Then
they decided that the AIM-9L and new dogfighting radars were good
enough, and dropped the HMS idea completely. In the meantime the
Israelis (Elbit) built and deployed the DASH Gen.I, Gen.II and now
Gen.III. The DASH III uses a CRT to project collimated symbology on a
spherical visor, like a HUD does. It is a much more sophisticated HMS
than the simple optical reticle on the Flanker or Fulcrum.
My impression is that the US simply got caught napping, and now is in
catchup mode, they have Kaiser codeveloping with Elbit the new JHMCS
which is meant to be better than the Israeli DASH Gen.III. When they
actually get it into service is also a good question.
One reason for this situation may be that the US focussed its R&D into
the BVR AMRAAM while the Europeans worked on the ASRAAM ie the
dogfighting technology package. Then the ASRAAM consortium collapsed,
the US dropped out of it, and dithered for several years trying to
figure out whether to buy an import, or make a new missile. The end
decision was a TVC Sidewinder with an imaging seeker, the AIM-9X.
>
> BTW, during the engagement actual wing loading and T/W ratio of F-15
> were better (Su's were fully fueled).
I don't think anybody here disputes that the Flanker has better
dogfighting aerodynamics than the F-15. The issue in a combat situation
will be that the full radar and missiles capability will be used, and
the pilot's combat training will come into play.
If you put an Israeli pilot into an F-15I armed with P-4 and AMRAAM, and
using a HMS, and put him up against say an Iraqi or Iranian pilot in a
Su-27SK (hypothetically) using the standard HMS, the R-73M, the R-27,
odds are that the Israeli will win, since the aerodynamic advantages
will be outweighed by pilot tactics and better missiles and HMS.
Good posting, enjoyed it,
Cheers,
Carlo
Maury Markowitz
In <34F291...@orc.ru> Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
> It also shows, that Su-27 bleeds less energy at similar manuevres due to
> better aerodynamics, so only fraction of thrust is needed to sustain the
> turn.
Does it? Or does it demonstrate better power loading or weight loading?
> Makes me wonder, why US fighters still do not have HMS?
Because they're 30 year old designs. The Su design was frozen out between
6 and 10 years later, which has it's advantages.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In <34F2ACAA...@aus.net> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> You expect that with the large blended forebody, heaps of vortex lift at
> high AoA. I am sure the aerodynamics experts can elaborate here in much
> detail.
I once heard it described that the Su was the result of similar
requirements that led the US into the F-16, rather than the F-15.
> figure out whether to buy an import, or make a new missile. The end
> decision was a TVC Sidewinder with an imaging seeker, the AIM-9X.
I didn't know the 9X was an imager. It's interesting the little tidbits
you get here.
Maury
bhunt
In article <6cn2u0$9pi$5...@menelao.polito.it>, e.mo...@studenti.to.it says...
>
>>The Su-27 is a clone of the F-15, The F-15 is on the verge of retirement,
>THe
>>F-22 has replaced the F-15!!
>
>a very good one because in dogfight it would kick F-15 ass without any
>In a what if situation, 1 VS 1 the Su-27 would probably win if loaded with
>ADDERs.
>
>BYE
>
>
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. R. Fogelman (sp?), a former F-15 driver,
testified before congress when campaigning for the F-22 that he had personally
flown a Su-27 and found it to be the physical equal of the F-15. He found the
F-15's avionics superior, but noted that the SU-27's radar (which is more
powerful) could acquire the F-15 before the F-15 could acquire the SU-27. He
then stated that the SU-27 could then launch at the F-15. He also stated that
the AA missles carried by the SU-27 with thier off-bore sighting where more
effective close in than the sparrow.
Getting back to the topic of this thread, if the SU-27 is superior in certain
aspects to the F-15, and the F-15 is superior to the F-16, it is
possible to deduct that the SU-27 is superior to the F-16 as far as the
aircraft go. For that matter, it's also got the F-18 beat (in the Air to Air
mode). The SU-27 also comes in a carrier capable version. If the versions of
the SU with upgraded avionics undergo widespread proliferation ...
-Brian
Paul Owen
Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cu6fq$bj6$6...@ns3.vrx.net>...
> I didn't know the 9X was an imager. It's interesting the little tidbits
>you get here.
If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong I'd better update my website!),
the AIM-9X (thanks to Hughes involvement) utilises ASRAAM's seeker and
software, so it is indeed an imaging (128*128 array I believe) IR system.
Paul Owen
bhunt wrote in message <6cuu7c$c...@catfish.valdosta.peachnet.edu>...
> If the versions of
>the SU with upgraded avionics undergo widespread proliferation ...
... then it's lucky that we are soon to acquire the Eurofighter and F-22 to
counter such threats. ;)
--
To reply use : po...@netcomuk.co.uk
Paul Owen
Centre for Process Systems Engng. : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
Imperial College, London, UK
Maury Markowitz
In <6cv0qg$9rj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
> If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong I'd better update my website!),
> the AIM-9X (thanks to Hughes involvement) utilises ASRAAM's seeker and
> software, so it is indeed an imaging (128*128 array I believe) IR system.
in the two products?
Maury
Paul Owen
Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cuha1$jvs$2...@ns3.vrx.net>...
I'm sure Carlo et al can answer this in detail but I'll add my half cents
worth. The ASRAAM is designed as a longer reach, higher
instantaneous/maximum velocity missile. It currently lacks TVC, instead
relying on its high top speed, aero-configuration and 90degree off-boresight
imaging seeker to reach its target before it becomes a threat (I don't know
what ASRAAM's turning circle is like compared to other systems). Basically
the RAF wanted a missile primarily for attacking on-coming targets beyond
the reach of current competing SRAAMs, but remaining highly capable of
killing targets WVR.
AIM-9X on the other hand utilises the old AIM-9M motor but with the addition
of 3DTVC, so you still have the smaller range of the Sidewinder but you've
gained improved off-rail manuverability with a high off-boresight aquasition
capability (assuming your aircraft is fitted with an HMS of course). It
depends what you want as to which system you go for I guess
(Errors and Omissions Excepted!)
Mark Orr
On the contrary I think the BVR scenario is almost useless in todays low
intensity conflict. Also the unreliability if IFF is well known. It is very
likely that in most scenarios, visual ID is a must...and if the bogey is
hostile, you have a dogfight. SU-27 out classes anything in production today
on the most likely combat scenario, kudos to the Sukhoi bureau for designing
such a amazing fighter.
Mark
Maury Markowitz
In <6cv6qv$e9d$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
> I'm sure Carlo et al can answer this in detail but I'll add my half cents
> worth. The ASRAAM is designed as a longer reach, higher
> instantaneous/maximum velocity missile. It currently lacks TVC, instead
> relying on its high top speed, aero-configuration and 90degree
off-boresight
> imaging seeker to reach its target before it becomes a threat
TVC? What's that? Oh, the imager?
> what ASRAAM's turning circle is like compared to other systems). Basically
> the RAF wanted a missile primarily for attacking on-coming targets beyond
> the reach of current competing SRAAMs, but remaining highly capable of
> killing targets WVR.
Got it. What do they current fly for BVR?
> AIM-9X on the other hand utilises the old AIM-9M motor but with the
addition
> of 3DTVC, so you still have the smaller range of the Sidewinder but you've
> gained improved off-rail manuverability with a high off-boresight
aquasition
> capability (assuming your aircraft is fitted with an HMS of course). It
> depends what you want as to which system you go for I guess
As always.
Maury
Paul Owen
Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cuof1$oka$3...@ns3.vrx.net>...
>In <6cv6qv$e9d$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
>> instantaneous/maximum velocity missile. It currently lacks TVC, instead
>> relying on its high top speed, aero-configuration and 90degree
>
> TVC? What's that? Oh, the imager?
Thrust Vector(ing) Control
>> killing targets WVR.
>
> Got it. What do they current fly for BVR?
Well, the RAF's Tornado F3's currently still use Sky Flash, but the F3
conversion programme underway at present will allow them to use AMRAAM as
well as ASRAAM (mainly as a stop gap till the Eurofighter enters service and
starts to replace them). The Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harrier (FA2) can and does
already use the AMRAAM as can the RAF's GR7 I think, not to sure about that
last one though. Of course, the aim of the RAF is to replace AMRAAM with
something better which is what the BVRAAM (Beyond Visual Range ....)
programme is about .... when they finally select the winning system that is!
Venik
Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cuha1$jvs$2...@ns3.vrx.net>...
>In <6cv0qg$9rj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
>> If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong I'd better update my website!),
>> the AIM-9X (thanks to Hughes involvement) utilises ASRAAM's seeker and
>> software, so it is indeed an imaging (128*128 array I believe) IR system.
>
> This leads to a natural question then: given this, what ARE the
differences
>in the two products?
AIM-9X is equipped with a more advanced propulsion system. It is capable of
thrust-vectoring, has an improved performance nozzle, better forward hook
interface, its propellant produces less smoke than the one used in previous
models of AIM-9. AIM-9X incorporates an advanced seeker for use with HMS
with wider range of attack angles.
Venik
bhunt
In article <6cuu7c$c...@catfish.valdosta.peachnet.edu>,
bh...@NOSPAM.valdosta.edu says...
>
>>
>
>Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. R. Fogelman (sp?), a former F-15 driver,
>testified before congress when campaigning for the F-22 that he had personally
>flown a Su-27 and found it to be the physical equal of the F-15. He found the
>F-15's avionics superior, but noted that the SU-27's radar (which is more
>powerful) could acquire the F-15 before the F-15 could acquire the SU-27. He
>then stated that the SU-27 could then launch at the F-15. He also stated that
>the AA missles carried by the SU-27 with thier off-bore sighting where more
>effective close in than the sparrow.
>
I'd like to post a correction to my previous post. I meant to write
"side-winder" instead of sparrow. I didn't notice this mistake until I read
the post as posted. The sparrow really is outdated!
-Brian
Paul Owen
--
To reply use : po...@netcomuk.co.uk
Paul Owen
Centre for Process Systems Engng. : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
Imperial College, London, UK
Venik wrote in message <6cvf14$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cuha1$jvs$2...@ns3.vrx.net>...
>>In <6cv0qg$9rj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
>>> If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong I'd better update my
website!),
>>> the AIM-9X (thanks to Hughes involvement) utilises ASRAAM's seeker and
>>> software, so it is indeed an imaging (128*128 array I believe) IR
system.
>>
>> This leads to a natural question then: given this, what ARE the
>differences
>>in the two products?
>
>AIM-9X is equipped with a more advanced propulsion system.
Not really(?) Its equipped with TVC, but I believe it still has the 'old'
AIM-9 motor (or has this changed?), whereas ASRAAM has an all new motor
optimised for a high impulse response giving very good acceleration and
sustained burn ... or something like that ;)
In addition (as I said before ... and unless it's now changed), the AIM-9X
features the ASRAAM's seeker and software, thus differs little from ASRAAM
in this respect, both having an excellent imaging system and high (90degree)
off-boresight tracking ability. I guess that only the IRIS-T may exceed
ASRAAM's seeker capability but that's something like 4 years away.
Maury Markowitz
In <6cvf14$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> "Venik" wrote:
> AIM-9X is equipped with a more advanced propulsion system. It is capable of
> thrust-vectoring, has an improved performance nozzle, better forward hook
> interface, its propellant produces less smoke than the one used in previous
> models of AIM-9. AIM-9X incorporates an advanced seeker for use with HMS
> with wider range of attack angles.
It seems odd then that they even have a ASRAMM. Longer range in a WVR
missile means what exactly?
Maury
Paul Owen
Mark Orr wrote in message <6cv98v$n...@wellspring.us.dg.com>...
>On the contrary I think the BVR scenario is almost useless in todays low
>intensity conflict.
But would you allow yourself to get into a WVR situation knowing the range
of weaponry that now exists out there? (i.e. Archer, ASRAAM, Python-4,
AIM-9X, IRIS-T). Cruising for a bruising seems the apt phrase here!
John Pallister
CHamil2899 wrote in message
<19980223235...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I wish we could see more posts along the lines as the one copied below.
The
>atypical, "The [insert a/c type here] kicks the [insert other a/c type
here]'s
>ass!!!" Are so unintelligeble, as to make me look to either side of myself
to
>make sure I'm not opening my jr. high school locker. Although one may not
>exactly agree with the points in the paragraph below, we do have to give it
>credit as thoughtful and worth reading.
>
>
So why did you bother and reply ?
Carlo Kopp
> > worth. The ASRAAM is designed as a longer reach, higher
> > relying on its high top speed, aero-configuration and 90degree
> > imaging seeker to reach its target before it becomes a threat
>
Paul has pretty much covered it. The ASRAAM is now openly declared to be
the fastest in-service AAM, even faster than the best Alamo variants. It
also has BVR missile class range, understandably BAe are a little coy
about giving out A-poles ;-) And it has essentially the same imaging FPA
detector as the AIM-9X.
Adding TV to the ASRAAM would provide some improvement in very close in
engagements, but since the missile uses a very short burn motor, the
effectivness of the TV will be limited to the initial pointing. To get
the full benefit of the TV you will need to reprofile the motor burn to
add a sustain phase, this in turn would compromise top speed and range
since you would have to replace some of the high energy fast burn
propellant. You would be throwing away pre-merge performance for
post-merge performance.
>
> > what ASRAAM's turning circle is like compared to other systems). Basically
> > the RAF wanted a missile primarily for attacking on-coming targets beyond
> > the reach of current competing SRAAMs, but remaining highly capable of
> > killing targets WVR.
>
> Got it. What do they current fly for BVR?
Skyflash ;-) The AMRAAM is likely to be used on the EF2000.
>
> > AIM-9X on the other hand utilises the old AIM-9M motor but with the
> addition
> > of 3DTVC, so you still have the smaller range of the Sidewinder but you've
> > gained improved off-rail manuverability with a high off-boresight
> aquasition
> > capability (assuming your aircraft is fitted with an HMS of course). It
> > depends what you want as to which system you go for I guess
>
The big limitation of the AIM-9X is that it uses the existing 4.5"
AIM-9M motor, that puts an upper bound on achievable kinematics, even
with clever tricks played in the autopilot algorithms it will be hard
pressed to compete with 6" motors (ASRAAM, P4, R-73) - basically per
unit length a 6" motor can fit about 75% more propellant.
What the thrust vectoring does is provide a high G capability at low
speed during motor burn, which allows the missile to pivot quickly to
point its nose at a high off-boresight target as soon as it is clear of
the launch aircraft. The limitation of TV is that it costs you initial
energy with a short burn motor, because you are using energy to turn
instead of accelerate - therefore AAMs with TV will have a range penalty
with increasing off-boresight angle.
The strength of the AIM-9X is the imaging array seeker, highly sensitive
and difficult to jam (ie near impossible). Essentially it is a low
resolution FLIR sensor, single chip.
I would like to see Hughes integrate the AIM-9X systems package with a
new 6" motor, that would produce an extremely potent AAM. As it is the
AIM-9X will be effective but shorter ranging than its competitors.
Cheers,
Carlo
Matthew Saroff (Remove .123456 to reply)
"Paul Owen" <po...@netcomuk.NOSPAM> wrote:
>Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cu6fq$bj6$6...@ns3.vrx.net>...
>
>> I didn't know the 9X was an imager. It's interesting the little tidbits
>>you get here.
>
>
>If I remember correctly (and if I'm wrong I'd better update my website!),
>the AIM-9X (thanks to Hughes involvement) utilises ASRAAM's seeker and
>software, so it is indeed an imaging (128*128 array I believe) IR system.
Hi,
It's an imaging array, and it's a staring array, as
opposed to a scanned array. The Germans are working on one with
a scanned array.
The difference is that a staring array has the image
constantly "focused" on a grid of detectors. A scanned array
uses optics, like rotating mirrors, to direct different portions
of the image to the same (or a smaller number) of detectors.
A scanned array is cheaper, but a staring array offers a
greater potential for sensitivity and resolution.
The Germans claim that it's about a wash on performance.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@123456.pobox.com. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Andrey Shvetsov
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In <34F291...@orc.ru> Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
> > It also shows, that Su-27 bleeds less energy at similar manuevres due to
> > better aerodynamics, so only fraction of thrust is needed to sustain the
> > turn.
>
> Does it? Or does it demonstrate better power loading or weight loading?
>
below. Su-27 had _worse_ (higher) actual power and wing loadings at the
time of the exercise, as they carried more fuel.
If one plane keeps after the other using less thrust, that means it has
lower drag, and nothing more.
Andrey Shvetsov
Andrey Shvetsov
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> I once heard it described that the Su was the result of similar
> requirements that led the US into the F-16, rather than the F-15.
>
combat range and better, comparing with possible opponents, performance
both in dogfighting and BVR.
Cheers,
Andrey Shvetsov
D. Scott Ferrin
>Maury Markowitz wrote:
>>
>> In <6cv6qv$e9d$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
>> > I'm sure Carlo et al can answer this in detail but I'll add my half cents
>> > worth. The ASRAAM is designed as a longer reach, higher
>> > instantaneous/maximum velocity missile. It currently lacks TVC, instead
>> > relying on its high top speed, aero-configuration and 90degree
>> off-boresight
>> > imaging seeker to reach its target before it becomes a threat
>>
>> TVC? What's that? Oh, the imager?
>
>Paul has pretty much covered it. The ASRAAM is now openly declared to be
>the fastest in-service AAM, even faster than the best Alamo variants.
Phoenix does Mach 5. Is it faster than that?
I wish they'd have gone with the Raytheon model with the 6" motor. Oh
well...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carlo
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Maury Markowitz
In <34F36655...@aus.net> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> Paul has pretty much covered it. The ASRAAM is now openly declared to be
> also has BVR missile class range, understandably BAe are a little coy
> about giving out A-poles ;-) And it has essentially the same imaging FPA
> detector as the AIM-9X.
Ok, good info, thanks.
> Adding TV to the ASRAAM would provide some improvement in very close in
> engagements, but since the missile uses a very short burn motor, the
> effectivness of the TV will be limited to the initial pointing. To get
> the full benefit of the TV you will need to reprofile the motor burn to
> add a sustain phase, this in turn would compromise top speed and range
> since you would have to replace some of the high energy fast burn
> propellant. You would be throwing away pre-merge performance for
> post-merge performance.
Ok, I thought this was an area where the AIM was "better"? Oh, I think I
get it. At low speeds (off the rail) this allows the missile to have
reasonable manuver capability without needing to get as much airflow over the
surfaces?
> Skyflash ;-) The AMRAAM is likely to be used on the EF2000.
Skyflash is the modified AIM-7?
> The big limitation of the AIM-9X is that it uses the existing 4.5"
> AIM-9M motor, that puts an upper bound on achievable kinematics, even
> with clever tricks played in the autopilot algorithms it will be hard
> pressed to compete with 6" motors (ASRAAM, P4, R-73) - basically per
> unit length a 6" motor can fit about 75% more propellant.
P-4 is Python, that I've seen here. But what is it exactly, who makes it?
> What the thrust vectoring does is provide a high G capability at low
> speed during motor burn, which allows the missile to pivot quickly to
> point its nose at a high off-boresight target as soon as it is clear of
> the launch aircraft.
Ahhh, ok I guessed right.
> The limitation of TV is that it costs you initial
> energy with a short burn motor, because you are using energy to turn
> instead of accelerate - therefore AAMs with TV will have a range penalty
> with increasing off-boresight angle.
It would seem though that it doesn't _have_ to have this effect - a
straight line shot for instance. IE, given this on the ASRAMM, the shots the
ASRAMM can take are still identically profiled (with a weight penalty I
guess), but it increases the low speed portion. Software could decide where
to put the energy.
> The strength of the AIM-9X is the imaging array seeker, highly sensitive
> and difficult to jam (ie near impossible). Essentially it is a low
> resolution FLIR sensor, single chip.
But this is the same as in the ASRAMM no?
Maury
don.s.f...@lmco.com
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:31:17 +1100, Carlo Kopp
>Paul has pretty much covered it. The ASRAAM is now openly declared to be
>the fastest in-service AAM, even faster than the best Alamo variants.
I will agree with that, having witnessed most of the firings so far it
is very impressive coming off the rail.
>It also has BVR missile class range, understandably BAe are a little coy
>about giving out A-poles ;-) And it has essentially the same imaging FPA
>detector as the AIM-9X.
The key here is essentially the same but NOT the same.
Oh well my 2 cents..
Don Friedman
ASRAAM, AMRAAM, AIM-9 Lead
Lockheed-Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
Paul Owen
Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6d0rbj$dn8$6...@ns3.vrx.net>...
>In <34F36655...@aus.net> Carlo Kopp wrote:
>> Skyflash ;-) The AMRAAM is likely to be used on the EF2000.
>
> Skyflash is the modified AIM-7?
It is indeed a modified Sparrow. Still a good weapon but given the delays of
getting Eurofighter into service the MoD decided to carry out a conversion
programme to allow the F3 to use AMRAAM (and ASRAAM). I believe test firings
of ASRAAM from modified F3's have been carried out, I don't know about
AMRAAM launches. With any luck, the Eurofighter will gain BVRAAM (either
FMRAAM or Meteor, the two competing systems ... the UK MoD is yet to decide
the winner after various delays and problems) as its main BVR weapon not too
long after it enters squadron service .. that'll give it a 'nice' boost in
terms of lethality (BVRAAM == improved range and speed thanks to a
ram-rocket, upgraded radar, two way datalink, etc.)
> P-4 is Python, that I've seen here. But what is it exactly, who makes
it?
Python-4 is made by Rafael of Israel, it's their latest SRAAM and is an
excellent close-in dogfighting missile ... and here Carlo can continue!
(he's written a very interesting article on it but I don't have the on-line
URL handy)
Venik
Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cv17a$2bk$5...@ns3.vrx.net>...
More efficient motor and thrust vectoring means that the missile can chase
after your plane for a longer period of time and do some fancy manuvering at
the same time. It is an important factor considering that the new TV-capable
planes being developed today have a real chance of escaping from an ordinary
Asraam.
Venik
________________________________________\_
Visit Venik's Military Aviation Page /
http://pw1.netcom.com/~venik/index.htm
updated weekly
________________________________________\_
/
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell
you today that I've signed legislation
which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing
begins in five minutes."
Ronald Reagan
Venik
Paul Owen wrote in message <6cviqo$oaa$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>
>
>--
>To reply use : po...@netcomuk.co.uk
>
>Paul Owen
>Centre for Process Systems Engng. : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
>Imperial College, London, UK
>
>Venik wrote in message <6cvf14$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cuha1$jvs$2...@ns3.vrx.net>...
>>>In <6cv0qg$9rj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> "Paul Owen" wrote:
>
>
>website!),
>>>> the AIM-9X (thanks to Hughes involvement) utilises ASRAAM's seeker and
>>>> software, so it is indeed an imaging (128*128 array I believe) IR
>system.
>>>
>>differences
>>>in the two products?
>>
>
>AIM-9 motor (or has this changed?), whereas ASRAAM has an all new motor
>optimised for a high impulse response giving very good acceleration and
>sustained burn ... or something like that ;)
I remember reading something about Alliant Techsystems' Allegany Ballistics
Lab developing a new rocket motor for the AIM-9X with reduced smoke
propellant and some other refinements (ALB also developed the missile's
thrust vectoring capability). If I am not mistaken ALB's AIM-9X program will
not be over until the summer of 1999 so more info may surface.
Ed Rasimus
mark...@dgc.ceo.dg.com.no_spam (Mark Orr) wrote:
You've got some assumptions in your posting--all of them bad.
>On the contrary I think the BVR scenario is almost useless in todays low
>intensity conflict.
Intensity of conflict has no direct relationship to the ROE
established for the conflict. For example the Bosnian or Iraqi "no
fly" supervision is clearly very low intensity, but the sophistication
of the oversight could very well allow for some level of BVR rules.
>Also the unreliability if IFF is well known.
Think about that assertion next time you get on an airliner in
marginal weather. IFF in single mode (I know, C is a separate mode in
addition to Mode 3), is the basic radar source for all ATC operations.
In the military environment four different modes of IFF are involved,
some encrypted. Add non-cooperative ID features and you get even more
justification for high reliability BVR ops.
>It is very
>likely that in most scenarios, visual ID is a must...and if the bogey is
>hostile, you have a dogfight.
VID does not by definition mean "a dogfight". Even when the only
weaponry available was low-aspect tail chase there was still no reason
to engage in 1-v-1 turn and burn. With all aspect weapons,
off-boresight weapons and helmet-mounted sights for high aspect
acquisition there is no reason to EVER dogfight unless you've really
screwed up.
>SU-27 out classes anything in production today
>on the most likely combat scenario, kudos to the Sukhoi bureau for designing
>such a amazing fighter.
The SU-27 outclasses many aircraft in service or in production in its
agility and aerodynamic performance. That doesn't address reliability,
avionics suite, sensor package, weaponry, training, supportability,
sustainability or integration with supporting technology. It turns,
climbs and maintains energy very well.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Paul Owen
Venik wrote in message <6d1m95$h...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>More efficient motor and thrust vectoring means that the missile can chase
>after your plane for a longer period of time and do some fancy manuvering
at
>the same time. It is an important factor considering that the new
TV-capable
>planes being developed today have a real chance of escaping from an
ordinary
>Asraam.
Not unless you're flying your aircraft slowly and/or you've bled a lot of
energy in a close-in conflict (TVC isn't going to do you much good going
mach 1 heading towards the plane targeting you with an ASRAAM) .... ASRAAM's
aim is to try and kill you before then, however, with its high top speed and
low drag design it'll be flying faster and longer than an equivalent AIM-9,
etc. (including X). As Carlo has said, if your missile has spent the first
moments of its life performing a 30g+ TVC manoeuvre off the launch rail it's
already used up a significant proportion of its total energy, -any- TVC
manoeuvre is going to cost you flight time. I also wouldn't be too quick to
dismiss ASRAAM's agility either, just because it lacks TVC doesn't
necessarily translate to it having terrible agility.
Paul F Austin
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:31:17 +1100, Carlo Kopp
> <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>
> >What the thrust vectoring does is provide a high G capability at low
> >speed during motor burn, which allows the missile to pivot quickly to
> >point its nose at a high off-boresight target as soon as it is clear of
> >the launch aircraft. The limitation of TV is that it costs you initial
> >energy with a short burn motor, because you are using energy to turn
> >instead of accelerate - therefore AAMs with TV will have a range penalty
> >with increasing off-boresight angle.
To take advantage of TVS in the off-xis egagement, you need a
short-burning low impulse grain that is followed by longer-burning, much
higher impulse main motor. The reason is that you want to keep turning
radius short (hence low speed) during the time that the missile turns
from the aircraft's velocity vector to the pointing vector to the
target.
> >
> >The strength of the AIM-9X is the imaging array seeker, highly sensitive
> >and difficult to jam (ie near impossible). Essentially it is a low
> >resolution FLIR sensor, single chip.
The winning (Hughes) AIM-9X seeker _is_ the ASRAAM seeker.
> >
> >I would like to see Hughes integrate the AIM-9X systems package with a
> >new 6" motor, that would produce an extremely potent AAM. As it is the
> >AIM-9X will be effective but shorter ranging than its competitors.
Which would be ASRAAM with TVC. It's highly revealing that the USAF
rejected both Raytheon's and Hughes' large-motor proposals. Evidently
the USAF thinks that AIM-120s take care of the outer end of the short
range engagement space just fine and see no need to increase the range
of the IR missile.
--
Eat a live toad, first thing in the morning
and nothing worse will happen to you all day
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAU...@HARRIS.COM
Matt Clonfero
Paul Owen <po...@netcomuk.NOSPAM> wrote:
>Well, the RAF's Tornado F3's currently still use Sky Flash, but the F3
>conversion programme underway at present will allow them to use AMRAAM as
>well as ASRAAM (mainly as a stop gap till the Eurofighter enters service and
>starts to replace them). The Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harrier (FA2) can and does
>already use the AMRAAM as can the RAF's GR7 I think, not to sure about that
>last one though.
Nope.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
================================================================================
Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Matt Clonfero
Paul Owen <po...@netcomuk.NOSPAM> wrote:
>It is indeed a modified Sparrow. Still a good weapon but given the delays of
>getting Eurofighter into service the MoD decided to carry out a conversion
>programme to allow the F3 to use AMRAAM (and ASRAAM). I believe test firings
>of ASRAAM from modified F3's have been carried out, I don't know about
>AMRAAM launches. With any luck, the Eurofighter will gain BVRAAM (either
>FMRAAM or Meteor, the two competing systems ... the UK MoD is yet to decide
>the winner after various delays and problems) as its main BVR weapon not too
>long after it enters squadron service .. that'll give it a 'nice' boost in
>terms of lethality (BVRAAM == improved range and speed thanks to a
>ram-rocket, upgraded radar, two way datalink, etc.)
Right, let's sort this one out. There is a UK project, currently called
BVRAAM (Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile). At project inception,
it was called FMRAAM (Future Medium Range AAM). Remembering how we work,
the name change is a good thing - a project with `future' in it is a
study, and not a certainty.
The main competitors for the BVRAAM project are the Meteor missile, from
BAe MAtra Dynamics (I think); and a product-improved AMRAAM from Hughes.
Both these designs have been granted development funds as a risk
reduction measure.
Current thinking is that the AMRAAM, even in the product-improved model,
will be deficient in end-game energy when compared with the requirement.
Venik
Paul Owen wrote in message <6d1qvq$2e4$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
>Venik wrote in message <6d1m95$h...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>
>>More efficient motor and thrust vectoring means that the missile can chase
>>after your plane for a longer period of time and do some fancy manuvering
>at
>>the same time. It is an important factor considering that the new
>TV-capable
>>planes being developed today have a real chance of escaping from an
>ordinary
>>Asraam.
>
>
>Not unless you're flying your aircraft slowly and/or you've bled a lot of
>energy in a close-in conflict (TVC isn't going to do you much good going
>mach 1 heading towards the plane targeting you with an ASRAAM) ....
ASRAAM's
>aim is to try and kill you before then, however, with its high top speed
and
>low drag design it'll be flying faster and longer than an equivalent AIM-9,
>etc. (including X). As Carlo has said, if your missile has spent the first
>moments of its life performing a 30g+ TVC manoeuvre off the launch rail
it's
>already used up a significant proportion of its total energy, -any- TVC
>manoeuvre is going to cost you flight time. I also wouldn't be too quick to
>dismiss ASRAAM's agility either, just because it lacks TVC doesn't
>necessarily translate to it having terrible agility.
Energy losses during TV manuvering are obvious and this, I think, is the
primary reason for developing a better motor. What I am saying, however, is
that TV does not have to be used immediately after the launch, but, perhaps,
can be implemented at a later stage following the "normal" launch conditions
(for a non-TV missile) to counter the target's attempts to evade. Given the
limited space between the target and the launch platform in a close combat
situation, TV-capable missile has a number of advantages over an ordinary
missile. Larger TV missiles with greater fuel load, no doubt, will start
replacing AIM-9X in 6-8 years.
Paul Owen
Matt Clonfero wrote in message <2WaIBTAC...@aetherem.demon.co.uk>...
>The main competitors for the BVRAAM project are the Meteor missile, from
>BAe MAtra Dynamics (I think);
Yes, it is indeed a BAe Matra led project .. but involves a number of
companies of course (mainly those left from the original S225 project from
which Meteor derives)
Paul Owen
Venik wrote in message <6d2mk5$c...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>primary reason for developing a better motor. What I am saying, however, is
>that TV does not have to be used immediately after the launch, but,
perhaps,
>can be implemented at a later stage following the "normal" launch
conditions
Problem is, TVC is only going to be really effective at relatively low
velocties isn't it? (i.e. as soon as you leave the rail) Add to that any
'waiting' to utilise TVC is going to (a) still cost you in flight time and
(b) will probably be much less effective because (i) you'll be going much
faster and (ii) you'll be almost out of propellant. I don't know, perhaps
I'm misjudging the effective velocity range/turning circle benefit for TVC
use.
>limited space between the target and the launch platform in a close combat
>situation, TV-capable missile has a number of advantages over an ordinary
>missile.
This is probably true, again though a missile with a higher top speed/flight
time which is still -highly- agile is going to remain a threat to you for
longer than a shorter range missile which has used a significant amount of
propellent to perform TVC .. I don't see how it can be any other way really
... but I'm open to suggestions of course!
>Larger TV missiles with greater fuel load, no doubt, will start
>replacing AIM-9X in 6-8 years.
Since AIM-9X (which was/is quite a major development program) is still some
way off deployment I believe ... this isn't a particularly good situation is
it? I'm sure AIM-9X will be a lethal missile ... I just think it isn't the
quantum leap it could've been and stands every chance of lossing out to
ASRAAM, Python-4 and IRIS-T (when it arrives) in the various sales all the
missiles will be put up for in the next few years.
Carlo Kopp
Venik wrote:
>
> Maury Markowitz wrote in message <6cv17a$2bk$5...@ns3.vrx.net>...
> >In <6cvf14$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> "Venik" wrote:
> >> AIM-9X is equipped with a more advanced propulsion system. It is capable
> of
> >> thrust-vectoring, has an improved performance nozzle, better forward hook
> >> interface, its propellant produces less smoke than the one used in
> previous
> >> models of AIM-9. AIM-9X incorporates an advanced seeker for use with HMS
> >> with wider range of attack angles.
> >
> > It seems odd then that they even have a ASRAMM. Longer range in a WVR
> >missile means what exactly?
>
> after your plane for a longer period of time and do some fancy manuvering at
> the same time. It is an important factor considering that the new TV-capable
> planes being developed today have a real chance of escaping from an ordinary
> Asraam.
>
specifically to kill Flankers. Adding a few degrees per second of turn
rate is _not_ going to save your ass with a missile like the ASRAAM (or
the P4). You cannot break lock on a 90 degree off-boresight agile Focal
Plane Array seeker, supported by an IMU, and the missile travels at
almost twice the speed of older generation heatseekers. With a prox fuse
to back up the impact fuse.
You should go to a major airshow and see some of the demo clips for the
ASRAAM. Then you will understand and not make foolish statements like
this.
C
Carlo Kopp
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> > Adding TV to the ASRAAM would provide some improvement in very close in
> > engagements, but since the missile uses a very short burn motor, the
> > effectivness of the TV will be limited to the initial pointing. To get
> > the full benefit of the TV you will need to reprofile the motor burn to
> > add a sustain phase, this in turn would compromise top speed and range
> > since you would have to replace some of the high energy fast burn
> > propellant. You would be throwing away pre-merge performance for
> > post-merge performance.
>
> Ok, I thought this was an area where the AIM was "better"? Oh, I think I
> get it. At low speeds (off the rail) this allows the missile to have
> reasonable manuver capability without needing to get as much airflow over the
> surfaces?
Missiles turn by using body lift. At low speeds there ain't much, so
turn performance is poor until the missile has accelerated. That is why
TV is useful for post launch "pointing" at a HOB target. Unless you do
the P4 thing and put plenty of fins on it ;-)
>
> > Skyflash ;-) The AMRAAM is likely to be used on the EF2000.
>
> Skyflash is the modified AIM-7?
An AIM-7E2 airframe with a UK designed monopulse SARH seeker, if my
memory hasn't failed me ;-) The is also the Active Skyflash with an
early model MICA ARH seeker.
>
> > The big limitation of the AIM-9X is that it uses the existing 4.5"
> > AIM-9M motor, that puts an upper bound on achievable kinematics, even
> > with clever tricks played in the autopilot algorithms it will be hard
> > pressed to compete with 6" motors (ASRAAM, P4, R-73) - basically per
> > unit length a 6" motor can fit about 75% more propellant.
>
> P-4 is Python, that I've seen here. But what is it exactly, who makes it?
Rafael make it, for details see Jarmo's website.
>
> > What the thrust vectoring does is provide a high G capability at low
> > speed during motor burn, which allows the missile to pivot quickly to
> > point its nose at a high off-boresight target as soon as it is clear of
> > the launch aircraft.
>
> Ahhh, ok I guessed right.
>
> > The limitation of TV is that it costs you initial
> > energy with a short burn motor, because you are using energy to turn
> > instead of accelerate - therefore AAMs with TV will have a range penalty
> > with increasing off-boresight angle.
>
> It would seem though that it doesn't _have_ to have this effect - a
> straight line shot for instance. IE, given this on the ASRAMM, the shots the
> ASRAMM can take are still identically profiled (with a weight penalty I
> guess), but it increases the low speed portion. Software could decide where
> to put the energy.
The issue here is that of how you "profile" the thrust against burn
time. Somebody like Andrey can elaborate on this in much more detail.
The most typical choices these days are either a) very high energy fast
burn propellant which last say 1-2 seconds and imparts all of the
missile's acceleration during the burn. This strategy would be used
where you want to maximise acceleration and speed, ie you try to pack as
much energy as you can into the casing.
The other more common approach is to use a fast burn high energy
propellant to generate an initial high pulse of thrust, to get the
missile up to speed, and then a slower burning sustainer propellant to
maintain some given thrust level for several seconds or tens of seconds,
depending on the missile. Remember the impulse eqn d/dt(mv) ?
Essentially the problem is that the momentum you are imparting to the
missile depends on the mass of propellant pushed out the back, and its
velocity. If you want high impulse, ie piles of thrust, you need
something which burns quickly and creates lots of pressure in the motor
casing to maximise the exhaust velocity and mass. Remember, the mass in
a rocket motor is what you start out with, unless it is an air breather.
A slower burning propellant produces less pressure and exhaust gas mass
per time, thus less thrust but lasts longer.
The trick in this game is finding the best thrust profile for the
intended missile engagement geometry, and therefore finding the
appropriate propellant burn rates. This is genuine rocket science ;-) No
pun intended ;-)
Some missile specs include motor impulse, which is the integral of the
thrust over time, and is given by the total amount of propellant in the
casing, and how energetic the propellant is ie the amount of hot gas it
will produce per weight or volume.
One strategy for profiling the thrust is to vary the density of the
active ingredient in the propellant matrix, ie more stuff in the inner
layers, and less in the outer layers, to achieve a varying burn rate and
energy output. However, this means that the "slow burn" component of the
motor has a lower energy density per volume/weight than the "fast burn"
component. If you are using this technique, then if you want to maximise
the total impulse you go for a fast burn propellant throughout. Messy
;-)
With AAMs where available volume is severely limited, this is always a
problem. This is why we are seeing developments like airbreathing AMRAAM
and R-77 variants for BVR combat, to ensure that the missile retains
energy and thus manoeuvre capability throughout the flight profile.
>
> > The strength of the AIM-9X is the imaging array seeker, highly sensitive
> > and difficult to jam (ie near impossible). Essentially it is a low
> > resolution FLIR sensor, single chip.
>
> But this is the same as in the ASRAMM no?
>
Let's say the FPA chip was made by the same company, and has the same
128^2 pixel resolution, using the same InSb material ;-) What
differences may exist have not been publicly disclosed ;-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> > > The limitation of TV is that it costs you initial
> > > energy with a short burn motor, because you are using energy to turn
> > > instead of accelerate - therefore AAMs with TV will have a range penalty
> > > with increasing off-boresight angle.
> >
> > It would seem though that it doesn't _have_ to have this effect - a
> > straight line shot for instance. IE, given this on the ASRAMM, the shots the
> > ASRAMM can take are still identically profiled (with a weight penalty I
> > guess), but it increases the low speed portion. Software could decide where
> > to put the energy.
>
> The issue here is that of how you "profile" the thrust against burn
> time. Somebody like Andrey can elaborate on this in much more detail.
Generally, the most efficient flight profile for a missile is where the
speed is as even as possible throughout the flight, i.e. motor burns
nearly to the end. Peaks in speed are really bad in terms of drag.
Long-burn motors allow for higher average speed (and hence shorter
flight time) than hot-burner of same mass. This is the main reason for
ramjet solid-fuel sustainers becoming popular - they can keep burning
long and even. Please note, that there may be even no actual weight
saving - more complicated engine structure with air-intake and
gas-generator often takes up for missing oxidizer - but still be winning
by producing fovourable speed profile.
The problem here is that you can never know the exact range in advance.
With short range missile like ASRAAM a very fast burn motor allows for
low time-to-target close up, but with the increase in range advantage
shifts to more "cold-blooded" missiles.
TVC do _not_ impose penalty on overall impulse, and do _not_ cost range
comparing to standard missile rudders (assuming same turns are made by
both missiles). There is little difference in that how do you spend
energy - by inserting small plates into engine exhaust, or big ones into
air current around a missile. Big advantage of TVC is that it is
effective early on, when aerodynamic controls are not yet effective.
It's big disadvantage is that it is only effective as long as motor
burns, thus limiting control rate for a fast-burn missile at ranges
beyond very close.
Generally, it is possible to make a control system able to effectively
turn a missile without imposing drag or impulse loss when it is not
used. One example of it is a proposed Fasthawk, that has rotating engine
exhaust - as long as a missile flies straight line, no drag, no loss in
thrust. Another one is using folding fins - like on ballistic missiles,
where rudders are being extended only at reentry.
Combination of these methods can produce really impressive intermediate
range missile, without necessity to optimize controls to specific range
- use exhaust vectoring at start at large off-boresight angle and for
course correction during mid-range cruise - extend rudders when fuel is
out.
Best regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
Paul Owen
Venik wrote in message <6d1msl$h...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>I remember reading something about Alliant Techsystems' Allegany Ballistics
>Lab developing a new rocket motor for the AIM-9X with reduced smoke
>propellant and some other refinements (ALB also developed the missile's
>thrust vectoring capability). If I am not mistaken ALB's AIM-9X program
will
>not be over until the summer of 1999 so more info may surface.
Well, according to Hughes the AIM-9X is to use the AIM-9M motor thus making
it 'more' common with the current AIM-9 stockpiles while reducing cost.
Unless they've made significant changes (including to the project as a
whole) I don't see how decreasing an already almost smokeless propellant
would change anything that's been said about AIM-9X's propulsion system.
Andrey Shvetsov
I wrote:
>
> With short range missile like ASRAAM a very fast burn motor allows for
> low time-to-target close up, but with the increase in range advantage
> shifts to more "cold-blooded" missiles.
motor. The problem is, solid rocket fuel is relatively fragile. Mechanic
loads (like high-G acceleration) are able to literally vaporize your
propellant, making burning impossible to control. It took great pains to
design a propelling motor for S-300 missiles, that required both high-G
start and reasonably long burn time.
So if your fuel matrix can withstand acceleration you need only so long,
you better make as much fuel to burn within that time limit as you can.
Of course this is mostly forced measure...
Regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
Paul Owen
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F56933...@aus.net>...
>I'd say Venik pulled this off the Alliant webpage, which describes new
>build Mk.36 motors for the AIM-9X which have a TVC tailsection attached.
That would make more sense than an all new motor that's for sure!
Matias Sanz
Redhawk escribió:
> >The Su-27 is a clone of the F-15, The F-15 is on the verge of retirement,
> THe
> >F-22 has replaced the F-15!!
>
> The Su-27 clone...
> a very good one because in dogfight it would kick F-15 ass without any
> problem. In BVR I can't say because there are too many things to consider...
> In a what if situation, 1 VS 1 the Su-27 would probably win if loaded with
> ADDERs.
>
> BYE
Only a key note about kicking F-15 asses by Su27. Suppose a guns only fight,
SU27 has 80% fuel, F15 60%, both merging nose to nose with some horizontal
separation and starting a vicious horizontal turning ballte. Su27 pilot will see
F15 getting quickly fire possition, then he starts to dump fuel.... ....too
late, F15's
M61 has cut his wings. Weight is KEY as weapon load is. This example is
applicable to any knid of fighters going into dogfight, you never know the
dogfight capabilities of your enemy due you don't know how many fuel pounds are
affecting him. No pilot can rely only on its plane fighting capabilities vs any
other kind of plane, the surprise WEIGHT factor always can determine the winner.
Venik
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F53ECA...@aus.net>...
>Venik, that is an inane statement to make.
An excellent opening line for an argument worthy of a PhD candidate in
computer sciences.
The RAF speced the ASRAAM
>specifically to kill Flankers.
Asraam is designed to kill Flankers, all right, but not the ones with TV.
Those simply did not represent a real threat at the time Asraam specs
requirements were compiled. Today, however, Flankers with TV are supplied to
India and may be co-produced with China, not to mention the planned massive
TV upgrades of the existing Flankers in Russia and elsewhere.
Adding a few degrees per second of turn
>rate is _not_ going to save your ass with a missile like the ASRAAM (or
>the P4). You cannot break lock on a 90 degree off-boresight agile Focal
>Plane Array seeker, supported by an IMU, and the missile travels at
>almost twice the speed of older generation heatseekers. With a prox fuse
>to back up the impact fuse.
I am not talking neccessarily about breaking the lock, I am talking about
evading the missile in more physical terms. Is it not possible for a missile
to be still locked on the target but having little chance of actually
reaching it? Missiles miss sometimes, you know, even those with a prox fuse.
Sure TV is most effective at low speeds immediately following the launch.
However, provided it still has fuel left, it can change the direction of
flight at high speeds more effectively than a non-TV missile. Advantage of
added turning capability at high speeds is not as insignificant as you say.
Venik
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F56933...@aus.net>...
>I'd say Venik pulled this off the Alliant webpage,
Actually I didn't...
which describes new
>build Mk.36 motors for the AIM-9X which have a TVC tailsection attached.
>Thrust vectoring or not, a Mk.36 on an AIM-9X is still a Mk.36 ;-)
Alliant is developing a *new* engine with different propellant grain
configuration. This is a fact. The AIM-9X was not even tested yet in its
final planned configuration since the new engine is still in development. I
can see that you are arguing just for the sake of the argument. How can you
say AIM-9X is using the AIM-9M motor when its developer and manufacturer say
that it would use a new motor? For all practical reasons AIM-9X *doesn't
have* a motor at this time. It is still over a year until the Alliant is
done with the development program.
D. Scott Ferrin
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:55:18 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F56933...@aus.net>...
>
>>I'd say Venik pulled this off the Alliant webpage,
>
>Actually I didn't...
>
>which describes new
>>build Mk.36 motors for the AIM-9X which have a TVC tailsection attached.
>>Thrust vectoring or not, a Mk.36 on an AIM-9X is still a Mk.36 ;-)
>
>Alliant is developing a *new* engine with different propellant grain
>configuration. This is a fact. The AIM-9X was not even tested yet in its
>final planned configuration since the new engine is still in development. I
>can see that you are arguing just for the sake of the argument. How can you
>say AIM-9X is using the AIM-9M motor when its developer and manufacturer say
>that it would use a new motor? For all practical reasons AIM-9X *doesn't
>have* a motor at this time. It is still over a year until the Alliant is
>done with the development program.
One of the reasons they picked the 5" motor over the 6" motor was so
they wouldn't *have* to make new motors.
>
>Venik
>________________________________________\_
> Visit Venik's Military Aviation Page /
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~venik/index.htm
> updated weekly
>________________________________________\_
> /
>"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell
>you today that I've signed legislation
>which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing
>begins in five minutes."
>
>Ronald Reagan
>
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Don Friedman
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:04:25 -0000, "Paul Owen"
<po...@netcomuk.NOSPAM> wrote:
- snip
>Since AIM-9X (which was/is quite a major development program) is still some
>way off deployment I believe ... this isn't a particularly good situation is
>it? I'm sure AIM-9X will be a lethal missile ... I just think it isn't the
>quantum leap it could've been and stands every chance of lossing out to
>ASRAAM, Python-4 and IRIS-T (when it arrives) in the various sales all the
>missiles will be put up for in the next few years.
Absolutely no way AIM-9X is losing out to anything. The USAF is buying
it, and all those other FMS missiles are second in line, and whatever
USAF buys the FMS countries will want to buy.
Regards,
Don Friedman
AMRAAM, ASRAAM, AIM-9 Lead
(& any other A/A missile you can think of!!)
Lockheed-Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
Paul Owen
Don Friedman wrote in message <34f5eb9f.104722690@news>...
>Absolutely no way AIM-9X is losing out to anything. The USAF is buying
>it, and all those other FMS missiles are second in line, and whatever
>USAF buys the FMS countries will want to buy.
hmmm .. well Australia didn't see it that way, true that AIM-9X was a 'late'
entry in that competition but even with the pressure excerted by the U.S. to
have it entered so late it didn't prevent it from losing out. (perhaps Carlo
has some info on the decisions taken/conclusions reached now?) And I
definitely wouldn't put IRIS-T second in line to AIM-9X at least not till
the first test firings are carried out, I believe only seeker trials have
thus far been performed, and that seeker combined with those aerodynamics
.... well. But, there's plenty of room in the market for all these missiles
and assuming that -fair- trials are performed in any future competitions
then I say 'may the best system win' ;)
Paul Owen
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F5E935...@aus.net>...
> and using a tweaked P-nav algorithm designed to
> collide the missile with a programmed aimpoint
> on the target
ah, good, I know it's been rumoured, particularly since BGT announced that
IRIS-T had such software but I've not seen it confirmed, thanks Carlo I can
update my weapons page ... could you give me a source?
Paul Owen
Venik wrote in message <6d4dsd$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>say AIM-9X is using the AIM-9M motor when its developer and manufacturer
say
>that it would use a new motor? For all practical reasons AIM-9X *doesn't
>have* a motor at this time. It is still over a year until the Alliant is
>done with the development program.
I think both of the other replies sum it up really. Hughes (well, Raytheon
now, the company contracted to construct AIM-9X) seem to think that the
AIM-9M motor is to be used (all be it with a TVC upgrade) ... I believe USAF
also states that AIM-9X is to use the AIM-9M motor, have a look at the Eglin
pages for confirmation, should be somewhere there I expect. For web based
Raytheon discussion, don't forget their pages
(http://www.hughesmissiles.com/)
Carlo Kopp
Paul Owen wrote:
>
> Venik wrote in message <6d1msl$h...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >I remember reading something about Alliant Techsystems' Allegany Ballistics
> >Lab developing a new rocket motor for the AIM-9X with reduced smoke
> >propellant and some other refinements (ALB also developed the missile's
> >thrust vectoring capability). If I am not mistaken ALB's AIM-9X program
> will
> >not be over until the summer of 1999 so more info may surface.
>
> Well, according to Hughes the AIM-9X is to use the AIM-9M motor thus making
> it 'more' common with the current AIM-9 stockpiles while reducing cost.
> Unless they've made significant changes (including to the project as a
> whole) I don't see how decreasing an already almost smokeless propellant
> would change anything that's been said about AIM-9X's propulsion system.
>
build Mk.36 motors for the AIM-9X which have a TVC tailsection attached.
anybody out there know how long the basic Mk.36 has been in production ?
I have refs to Mk.36 mod 7 or 8 on the old Lima, which is mid eighties
technology.
If Venik knew his AIM-9 history he would not have posted "developing a
new rocket motor for the AIM-9X" since it is really a case of adaptation
of an established motor. It is also likely to be the principal
limitation of the weapon as well.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
intentional, since they evidently wanted max acceleration and speed over
a relatively short distance.
Here's a question, if I may, is it common to layer different
propellant/oxidiser materials as an alternative to propellant/oxidiser
densities, to profile the thrust ? I have never seen this described
anywhere, only the technique of varying propellant/oxidiser density or
mixing in agents to slow the combustion rate.
Something I don't see published are the typical ratios of boost phase
impulse (ie thrust + time) to sustainer burn phase impulse (thrust +
time). What would be typical values for various classes of missile, eg
SAM, IRBM, IR AAM, BVR AAM etc ?
Thanks,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
Probably not.
Evidently you have strange ideas about how missiles are evaded. So let
us restate the "Venik hypothesis" here - "if you stick thrust vectoring
nozzles on a Flanker it will be able to physically dodge an ASRAAM while
the ASRAAM retains lock with its seeker" ?
Evidently Venik believes that Flanker pilots (and TVC Flankers) can pull
>12G as a matter of course (or more), are capable of reacting in about half the time that any other pilots do, and that by doing so they can physically dodge a 50G class missile travelling at twice the speed of conventional missiles, and using a tweaked P-nav algorithm designed to collide the missile with a programmed aimpoint on the target (did you know the ASRAAM is programmed to select where it hits its target for maximum effect ?).
Your whole hypothesis is completely wrong, Venik, since you are arguing
that an incremental improvement in turn rate defeats a doubling of
missile speed and turn rate. Why don't you get a copy of Shaw and read
the chapter on missile evasion ? Moreover your hypothesis also
completely ignores the limitations of the human being driving the
Flanker (perhaps you are assuming, as you often do, that Flanker pilots
by definition can react at twice the speed and pull much more G than
other pilots ?).
Your argument this time around is so bizarre that it doesn't even
qualify as intentional disinformation, you are simply showing a complete
incapacity to grasp the issues.
C
Carlo Kopp
Venik wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F56933...@aus.net>...
>
> >I'd say Venik pulled this off the Alliant webpage,
>
>
> which describes new
> >build Mk.36 motors for the AIM-9X which have a TVC tailsection attached.
> >Thrust vectoring or not, a Mk.36 on an AIM-9X is still a Mk.36 ;-)
>
> configuration. This is a fact. The AIM-9X was not even tested yet in its
> final planned configuration since the new engine is still in development. I
> can see that you are arguing just for the sake of the argument. How can you
> that it would use a new motor? For all practical reasons AIM-9X *doesn't
> have* a motor at this time. It is still over a year until the Alliant is
> done with the development program.
>
what the manufacturer has said betrays a basic lack of understanding of
engineering conventions, as well as no knowledge of Sidewinder
evolution.
Twisting and turning about your original statement does not change the
fact that the AIM-9X is using a tweaked Mk.36. When we see a new 6"
motor on the AIM-9X, then it will have a _new_ motor.
C
Carlo Kopp
It is very likely that many countries will indeed just do the "copy the
US thing" and buy the AIM-9X, without evaluation. This is very common
these days. Australia would be one of the few which does full test
trials and nit picks contenders to get exact comparisons. This is also
why many vendors and air forces use Oz as a benchmark.
The RAAF did not disclose the reasons why they selected the ASRAAM
publicly (as yet) so I can't enlighten the NG there. The original
shortlist comprised the ASRAAM and the P4, since the AIM-9X was not
thought to be ready in time for planned deployment dates. Hughes lobbied
long and hard to get included in the eval, with a deal to deliver to the
RAAF at the same time as the USN gets theirs. Evidently this was not
enough to swing the jury.
The Mk.36 motor kinematics may have been an issue, since the RAAF I know
are very keen on range performance (they did go for ASRAAM).
Sorry I can't provide you with more details, but this is all that has
been made public to date down here.
BTW the Iris T should indeed not be dismissed, it is a very slick little
missile.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
Paul Owen wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F5E935...@aus.net>...
>
> > and using a tweaked P-nav algorithm designed to
> > collide the missile with a programmed aimpoint
> > on the target
>
> IRIS-T had such software but I've not seen it confirmed, thanks Carlo I can
> update my weapons page ... could you give me a source?
Can't remember where I saw it, might have been some briefing
slides/glossies of something of the kind.
I have seen video of captive seeker imagery, it is fascinating to see a
Flir picture of the target aircraft taken from a seeker.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
Paul Owen wrote:
>
> Venik wrote in message <6d4dsd$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >say AIM-9X is using the AIM-9M motor when its developer and manufacturer
> say
> >that it would use a new motor? For all practical reasons AIM-9X *doesn't
> >have* a motor at this time. It is still over a year until the Alliant is
> >done with the development program.
>
> now, the company contracted to construct AIM-9X) seem to think that the
> AIM-9M motor is to be used (all be it with a TVC upgrade) ... I believe USAF
> also states that AIM-9X is to use the AIM-9M motor, have a look at the Eglin
> pages for confirmation, should be somewhere there I expect. For web based
> Raytheon discussion, don't forget their pages
> (http://www.hughesmissiles.com/)
>
evidently doesn't have a clue when it comes to Sidewinder motors.
Cheers,
Carlo
Don Friedman
>>
>I suspect that Venik was "doing a Venik" here and having a troll. He
>evidently doesn't have a clue when it comes to Sidewinder motors.
>
Yes the AIM-9X in its present form will use the AIM-9M motor, however
it is subject to change...stay tuned....:)
Regards,
Don Friedman
Air-to-Air Integration Lead
Lockheed-Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
Don Friedman
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:17:00 -0000, "Paul Owen"
<po...@netcomuk.NOSPAM> wrote:
>hmmm .. well Australia didn't see it that way, true that AIM-9X was a 'late'
>entry in that competition but even with the pressure excerted by the U.S. to
>have it entered so late it didn't prevent it from losing out. (perhaps Carlo
>has some info on the decisions taken/conclusions reached now?) And I
>definitely wouldn't put IRIS-T second in line to AIM-9X at least not till
>the first test firings are carried out, I believe only seeker trials have
>thus far been performed, and that seeker combined with those aerodynamics
>.... well. But, there's plenty of room in the market for all these missiles
>and assuming that -fair- trials are performed in any future competitions
>then I say 'may the best system win' ;)
IRIS-T test firings have already been carried out and were very
impressive.
Venik
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F5E935...@aus.net>...
>Evidently Venik believes that Flanker pilots (and TVC Flankers) can pull
>>12G as a matter of course (or more), are capable of reacting in about half
the time that any other pilots do, and that by doing so they can physically
dodge a 50G class missile travelling at twice the speed of conventional
missiles, and using a tweaked P-nav algorithm designed to collide the
missile with a programmed aimpoint on the target (did you know the ASRAAM is
programmed to select where it hits its target for maximum effect ?).
Reading the nonsense above one may imagine that the Asraam is a golden arrow
of AA missile technology, panacea against all Flankers out there. What you
are saying is that once the missile is locked it will hit the target.
Considering that all missiles are launched when lock is achieved, according
to your theory, none of them should miss. Bravo Copp, perhaps you should
write a book instead of wasting your time on this NG.
Are you saying that Asraam cannot be evaded? Can't a Flanker deploy a decoy
that would momentarily confuse Asraam's seeker, while pulling off some nifty
TV trick to get out of the way? A concept of a flare should be familiar to
you. If and when the seeker re-establishes lock it may too late to adjust
the intecept course, but it may not be too late for a TV-capable missile.
And whether Asraam is programmed to hit the most volnurable part of the
Flanker is completely irrelevant if it cannot intercept the target.
Lately you exhibit difficulties following simple arguments: are finals
coming up or something?
Venik
Venik
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F5ECB3...@aus.net>...
>Venik wrote:
>>
>> Carlo Kopp wrote in message <34F56933...@aus.net>...
>>
>> >I'd say Venik pulled this off the Alliant webpage,
>>
>> Actually I didn't...
>>
>> which describes new
>> >build Mk.36 motors for the AIM-9X which have a TVC tailsection attached.
>> >Thrust vectoring or not, a Mk.36 on an AIM-9X is still a Mk.36 ;-)
>>
>> Alliant is developing a *new* engine with different propellant grain
>> configuration. This is a fact. The AIM-9X was not even tested yet in its
>> final planned configuration since the new engine is still in development.
I
>> can see that you are arguing just for the sake of the argument. How can
you
say
>> that it would use a new motor? For all practical reasons AIM-9X *doesn't
>> have* a motor at this time. It is still over a year until the Alliant is
>> done with the development program.
>>
>what the manufacturer has said betrays a basic lack of understanding of
>engineering conventions, as well as no knowledge of Sidewinder
>evolution.
>
>Twisting and turning about your original statement does not change the
>fact that the AIM-9X is using a tweaked Mk.36. When we see a new 6"
>motor on the AIM-9X, then it will have a _new_ motor.
Then you'll say that it is a 6" modification of Mk.36.
Venik
Carlo Kopp
flare works, or how the guidance package on an ASRAAM is designed.
Applying arguments which may be true for older analogue reticle guidance
systems makes no sense with an FPA seeker, since the fundamental manner
in which track information is extracted is quite different.
BTW, Venik, the ASRAAM may also be launched in LOAL mode, over the
shoulder for instance, under IMU control. Thus you interpretation of my
earlier statements is also quite wrong.
Perhaps you should visit the SBRC website and read up on FPA seekers and
have a think about possible IRCM for such devices. Then you will see how
totally _inane_ your statements actually are. You seem to know so little
that you don't even know what you don't know :-(
Why is it Venik that you either compulsively fib, or compulsively get
into arguments about things you are not competent to understand ? You
seem to repeat the same pattern of behaviour, over and over again. And
you never seem to learn, either :-(
C