AD,
>>
Further to Kurt, the RAAF have been so impressed by ASRAAM, in particular it's long range (compared to other WVR weapons and "older" BVR weapons)that it borders on being considered a true modern "BVR" weapon. Pretty handy given the lack of AMRAAM's our Hornets can carry on "swing-role" missions...
>>
The big problem here is that ASRAAM is still a rail-forward missile with fairly big tails. This means that you are going to have a hard time nesting them in the F-35 weapons bay and as soon as you go external, you lose your LO. Of course I will also never understand why it was considered a 'good idear' to go with a 2-station bay with one well so deep that (according to Sweetman) you buy the GBU-31 at the cost of all other weapons.
Going into a fight with all of 2 heat weapons and no preattrition/turnsignalling threat nose control is a _mistake right off the bat_. The combination of advanced optical cueing, shooter-illuminator datalinks and HOBS /ensuring/ that there will be missiles all over the sky at huge initial-or-dead expenditure rates.
>>
Kurt, you don't think "evolved" C and D AMRAAM variants will minimise the threat posed by such long ranged missiles as the Meteor???[/quote]
>>
As I understand it:
AIM-120C6: New warhead with tailored (forward directional entrainment) burst against LPI cruise and high closure rate targets.
AIM-120C7: new IMU/GPS autopilot to improve the longrange trajectory tailoring.
AIM-120D: 2-way digital tether and further improved profile tailoring for extended NEZ shots.
The USAF having backed off saying that the void space of some 7" remaining after the 'repackaging' upgrade of the C4 is now motored up. Without which _even the D_ is not an ERAAM with the 11" motor length increase.
Even if it was, you are lookng at a Mach 4++ category weapon for the first 10-15nm and probably an average of Mach 2-3 thereafter. Because as far as I can tell, it's still a solid, not a gel, and that means it's not throttleable/relightable. Better NEZ but not better NEZ @ extended range.
Comparitively, BVRAAM is supposedly a 'Mach 5' class weapon and will probably have an average Mach of not less than 3.5 all the way out. This means that it will get to pole first. And when it arrives, it will have a lot more endgame energy. Along with all the missile datalink and precision positioning capabilities of the AIM-120s (if not quite the ECCM as our next upgrade is going to be to a MEMS type AESA).
Add to this a potential of up to 150-200km worth of full envelope flight range and you have a Ks-172 monster in an AMRAAM sized midget carriage box.
Such is simply not beatable by conventional or even pulsed rocket motors, IMO.
As I said, between the supercruise boosting and the VLO, the F-22 may not care. But fools that we are, we have abandoned an all-Raptor Blk.20 D1/R1 fleet sizing and will have to settle for a 'sweep force' of probably 60-90 airframes in any given combat theater. Half or more of which will be 2-shot wonders because they have secondary GBU-32/39 delivery requirements.
What really worries me of course is the notion that this technology will 'migrate' from whatever export nation is too weak willed to say no to a little cash to nations like China, Israel or Russia where you are looking at R-77PD, Idra and the PL-12 as already-ARH baselines that could equally use the range improvements. Both to survive Raptors covering a fairly limited raid-track corridor (for conventional signatured F-teens). And more importantly, to hostage support mission platforms like the RQ-4, E-3/8/10 and EA-6B/EA-18G as well as tanking. Which means that even F-35s could be hostagable to their enablers survivable standoff.
Lobshot target ID doesn't really matter when you are on the defensive because, vs. the Western sortie-saturation system in the early days of an air campaign, the numeric weighting is going to make 9 out of 10 coin flips come up 'enemy' regardless.
Which is why I desperately want to see us switch up to throwaway/ULO UCAVs, 200nm turbo-AAM (with 30minute-1hr loiter) and OCA-by-DEW.
It is 'ironic' in someways because we /told/ the Brits that they should _stick with the gameplan_ of ERAAM then RamAAM. We even gave away the rights to Euromissile switchover to the AIM-120C5 as a baseline production variant rather than making them stick with the B upgrade. But they wanted something that could compete with the F-22 on the export market. And now that they have it, they have basically ensured that our own force models will have to change past the point at which hit-or-miss-ile weapons can viably (for cost) be used.
Thus we have returned to a state where the bullets no longer matter as much as the airframe does and indeed, the next standard of Ultimate Air Superiority Fighter _will be_ a 747 (I have ZERO confidence in 'digital' diode/FO laser technology progressing in time to make a JSF/ATL combinaiton possible.).
KPl.
Regarding the R-73. The Russians peg this out as a 20-40km weapons system. Yet it's still basically a 6.5" motor case with all of the 1970s-80s typical (macroscale) Russian missiletronics limitations on efficient internal volumetrics use.
Since physics remain a constant for everybody, it's also a given that they have a HUGE drag penalty off those 12 lift/control surfaces and 2 AOA whiskers.
Indeed, for the improved R-73M2/K-74 they had to lock down the TVC in extended range shots so that the missile didn't burn it's entire impulse value trying to steer immediately to bearing off the rail. Which means that the weight penalty of the TVC is also a waste for both efficient nozzle plenum design. And burnout endgame smash.
As such, I would say that the R-73 is one of those missiles that gets credit for being HOBS when nobody else was (albeit initially only 45` and with a lousy HMS) but which simply has not kept up with the SOA for either cue or absolute physical performance. Given I've seen artists concepts of the K-30 which look like either MICA or IRIS-T, I would have to say that the Russians agree with me, they just can't afford to build the followon.
But then I look at the AIM-9X and I see canards up front, bulky tail controls out back, TVC petals nested inbetween and a massive 'sculpted' body duct. And I have to wonder what, if anything the 'major aerodynamic cleanup' of Box Office effort really taught us.
Once more making it seem like the Brits are the only ones who 'really got it right'.
Until you look at the Python-4/5 and Derby. Which, if anything, again look like relics of the 1970s, even compared with the P3.
Truth be told, here's my take on optical weapons and SRM in general:
1. You can't beat an SRM in heart of the envelope. You can cook or confuse it's seeker with CLIRCM techniques to steer it way. But you can't beat it. Thus entering a visual range fight without _advanced_ IRCM and MAWS to cue it is beyond dumb.
2. Once you get beyond HOE, the missiles first=last past chances and indeed total envelope (Yay! Supercruise at 50K!) also goes right to hell.
3. There are techniques that can lessen the effects of DIRCM, the folks running the Euromissile booth showed MICA seeker with a degree of laser hardening at the last Paris Air Show. More importantly, the ability of optics to perform as _search mechanisms_ is only getting better and better as the detector counts move up and the pixel
ixel noise resolution averaging gets better (quality control and preprocessing on the FPA).
4. If you want to make a missile worth it's cost, it cannot be a one-shot throw of the dice. If the weapon misses, _it needs to come back around and try try again_. Because a manned fighter has a huge fuel tank worth of Ps Reenergization capability. But it also has a LOT of mass-inertia to compensate for. So that, if you can keep it's energy low, your likelihood of a hit on the second engagement is much, much greater with a low throwweight missile. Effectively, this means a weapon with a constant-function turbine, not a rocket or even a ramjet.
5. Microturbines, like those on AShM and decoy drones are relatively well known technologies and they can either provide you 200+nm at .92 Mach. Or 100nm/11 minutes at Mach 1.4. As proven with the MALD.
6. Missile:Missile datalinks make it possible to use pack-attack and skirmish line optical advance to sweep wide areas. While a parachute + airbag system would allow for an expended missile to potentially be recovered at a given preset waypoint area.
7. Once you put 1-6 together with the realization of what a _Subsonic, FQ-LO only_, JSF means; it becomes obvious that it is better to put 100 million into 100 missiles. Than 2 Su-30s with all the fixings. Since you can launch a missile using a catapult and a 2.5 ton truck from any backroad you please.
Since AMRAAM itself now only costs about 340,000 bucks a pop, a 1 million dollar _hunting_ weapon would have a lot of developmental cost margin. And it would be better for concentrating VALUE into the kill mechanism. Rather than the airbase, pilot skill, pilot bravery, and total-signature vulnerable platform that is what we call a 'fighter'. But which is, in fact, **Only A Bus Vehicle**.
KPl.
