Vault

Lets not bring BVR missiles into the equation. The ASRAAM has the tactical advantage of getting the first shot, so whilst your trying to get the AIM-9X into a firing solution, the ASRAAM will already be airbourne incoming at a much greater velocity with an increasing PK and more energy. So what do you want, your life or the AIM-9X's firing solution? Remember the ASRAAM's superiour range has a stand off capability compared to the AIM-9X inferiour range which is a HUGE tactical advantage, add a fast moving target changing aspect into the equation and the ASRAAM's standoff capability will increase compared to the AIM-9X. The ASRAAM gets alot more than the AIM-9X does, it will carry more energy into a fight than an AIM-9X will at any point of the entire flight envelope, add a target that changes aspect into the equation the higher drag of the AIM-9X will bleed off energy of the AIM-9X alot quicker than the ASRAAM. The AIM-9X has jet control vanes on a missile with the small MK36 motor, so after the very short burn time of the MK36 TVC become useless. The small MK36 motor is why the AIM-9X is often referred to as a 20:10 missile unlike the ASRAAM which is a 20:20 WVR missile. Again master of the first shot, velocity, 50G, tactical advantage, range and superiour drag performance. What does the AIM-9X have over the ASRAAM? G and that's all. The AIM-9X has inferiour velocity (instantaneous and sustained), inferiour drag, inferiour motor, inferiour range and inferiour tactical deployment. The diameter trade off and the bigger motor on the ASRAAM is a good indicator that the ASRAAM has a greater mass of propellant compared to the AIM-9X. If you add the mechanics of the jet control vanes bigger battery and servos to run those vanes as well as the four extra control vanes on the body of the AIM-9X, the gross weight of both missiles would probably be about equal or even less than the AIM-9X considering the AIM-9X is slightly longer.

You need to read his book, it's called tactical missile design. There is more information in that book about the design and concept of missiles than you can shake a stick at. That book is probably the best book I've read on missile design, books like his are as rare as rocking horse s**t.

Officially the MK36 motor in the AIM-9X is mach 2.56. The ASRAAM's is mach 3+. The AIM-9X has the extra weight of four control surfaces and TVC which the ASRAAM doesn't. The ASRAAM probably makes the up this weight in propellant for the larger motor. The ASRAAM is slighty shorter than the AIM-9X but with a much bigger motor. I'd want the missile that gives me the tactical advantage of the "first shot". The main air superiourity concept of the F-22 is the advantage of the "first shot". The ASRAAM is able to pull 50G off the rail so it's far from being a slouch when it comes to maneuvering at WVR. In WVR the ASRAAM has a much higher instantaneuos velocity than the AIM-9X and at maximum velocity the ASRAAM is a whole mach above the AIM-9X. A bigger, faster motor in a missile that is slightly shorter with less drag than the AIM-9X is not to be scoffed at. From the moment the ASRAAM is launched the AIM-9X is playing catch up throughout the complete flight range of the ASRAAM. http://typhoon.starstreak.net/common/AA/asraam.html Give me the AIM120 and ASRAAM anyday. This is also true for the AIM-9X, although the ASRAAM will incur more drag from the higher velocity at altitude it is unlike the AIM-9X more optomised aerodynamically for these types of higher velocities so at altitude the AIM-9X with a higher drag profile will infact incur more drag.

We'll agree to disagree. ;)

AIM-9X speed is Mach 2.56, The ASRAAMS speed is Mach 3+, The ASRAAM has a bigger motor and is aerodynamically optomised for longer distances than the AIM-9X. The ASRAAM does have a larger diameter but the AIM-9X has double the amount of control surface and leading edge profile compared to the ASRAAM the AIM-9X will also suffer more from oblique shock on the leading edges. Considering the weight of both missiles is similar what the AIM-9X's extra control surfaces and servos use up in weight will probably be the extra propellant in the ASRAAM bigger motor. Without bringing BVR missiles into the equation the ASRAAM will have the "first shot" capability over the AIM-9X.

You're wrong GGTharos, The ASRAAM has a far greater range and a greater burn time. The AIM-9X has a 5" motor with larger control fins creating more drag, drag has a direct aerodynamic effect on energy (velocity) and distance. The AIM-9X is optomised for a much close range than the ASRAAM, the ASRAAM is also sporting a much bigger 6.5" motor, it is also alot more aerodynamically optomised for longer range flight. In WEZ parameters the AIM-9X has nothing on the ASRAAM, but the AIM-9X can pull a higher AoA/G.

Well it appears me and certain USAF officials would disagree with you if that link Groove posted holds water. What does matter is the 6 minute window and the very small 40km FC ability of the Low Blow radar giving a maximum window of 6 minutes for an engagement against an F-117 at cruise speed. Lucky? hell yeah for a SAM system that spent most of the time mobile and inactive. It was literally a one off. No other F-117's were lost. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

GGTharos I'm not a huge fan of Dr Kopp myself, and TBH you're probably correct.

Everything from seeker technology through to propellants and control surface guidance. What Kopp says in that article about the ASRAAM is more or less repeated in that book.

It's in his book called tactical missile design. Fleeman confirms all the same specification and aerodynamics that Dr Kopp uses in his Article.

According to pilot the first SA-3 missed and the proximity fuse didn't activate much to his surprise! so the pilot must of taken some type of evasive manoeuvres, The Flatface is used for long range surveillance and target acquisition only, tracking and fire control guidance for the SA-3 is handled by the Low Blow. I firmly believe that it was a lucky shot.

:megalol: Now I wish I understood the Serbo-Croatian language. Thanks for the effort though.

nscode is there any chance I could get a copy of that MiG-21bis manual please?

Groove great link, much appreciated.

I guess that Eugene Fleeman a US missile designer for the USAF for 35 years also got it wrong, he backs up every word of Dr Kopp. Those tiny control surface's result in low drag and lower AoA than the AIM-9X but they give you what the AIM-9X doesn't, the capability of the "first shot".

The cold war era R-73 was the best missile Groove, LOL Groove, Dr Kopp being biased now that's unimaginable, he's not the biggest fan of the F-35 is he! but that's because he can't have what he wants, the F-22.

The seeker on the ASRAAM is slighty more advanced than the AIM-9X seeker according to Dr Carlo Kopp IIRC who evaulated the RAAF's next generation WVR missile. The AIM-9X carries the same 4.5 inch rocket motor as the old AIM-9, The AIM-9X is able to pull more aplha/g than the ASRAAM but it sacrifices drag, velocity and range for this ability. The ASRAAM has a more aerodynamic body and greater sustained velocity giving the ASRAAM first shot capability compared to any other WVR missile incuding the AIM-9X. Again range and speed are governed by the aerodynamics of missiles body not the other way around. All the details are in the link below. http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html

ASRAAM has a far greater WEZ and velocity than any other WVR missile IIRC.

I didn't know that, Why would a VLO aircraft fly low on flat ground? Logically it just makes zero sense, it can't even use ground masking to improve its VLO parameters.

GG please ask I'd like to know the real scenario, I've searched everywhere. There is alot of evidence mainly from the pilots interview that this kill was at high altitude.

LOL Pilotasso, now that's an understatement.

Out of curiousity was that against a non maneuvering head on target?.

Thanks for the educational link, like you I can't find any litrature about the F-117 being hit at 8000ft. By flying low the F-117 is minimizing its LO parameters against ground based search radars.

Ok Thanks. IIRC ACES2 The actual pilot that was shot down states he saw the first SA-3 come out of the cloudbase. Hi GG, Do you have a figure for the maximum output of the energy of the laser?. It's more than possible, I've seen comercially available lasers that are able to penetrate clouds. I can't 100% say the F-117's laser is able to penetrate clouds but you can't say it can't either, like you I can only guess at the best. The F-117 laser output is shrouded in so much secrecy. Logically thinking it would be stupid to design a VLO aircraft that can only deploy weapons that are dictated by the height of the cloudbase even more so for an aircraft that uses LO as its main weapon, high altitude optimises VLO parameters, If a laser is unable to cut through water vapour that would mean that the laser would also be useless in enviroments of high humidity like the tropics.

nscode I can agree with non LO aircraft running sorties at low altitude, especially aircraft with ground mapping radar will perform combat operations at low to medium altitudes but I find it hard to believe that a VLO F-117 would operate well outside of it's LO optimal parameters, at 8000ft the F-117 is minimising its main tactical advantage LO. In operation desert storm F-117's flew sorties without an escort against what was arguably the most advanced IADS outside of the warpact.