Jump to content

Missiles range comparison


topol-m

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No. You have to look for aircraft manuals.

 

Suffice it to say however, if you have missiles in a similar missile class and guidance type, their range performance will be similar - not the same, but similar.

 

_To bad for us :( :(

 

_This information will be to classified for the civil fan like Me ... :(

 

LaRata

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He will say some things that are correct - that ticks me off about him is that he'll then throw in things that aren't, but the previous give him legitimacy ... if you catch my drift.

 

I didn't find what you mentioned about aerodynamics, but here's the part he was right about:

 

It is thus very difficult to make meaningful comparisons between the ASRAAM and its rivals, on the basis of trivial performance specs alone. The ultimate metric of effectiveness with any missile design is its achieved kill ratio in live combat. This kill ratio is a function of missile capability, launch aircraft capability, air combat doctrine and the pilot's ability to exploit all three to best advantage.

 

The ASRAAM, as I thought, doesn't really have a significant range advantage over the 9X. They are both missiles of similar design in terms of some aspects. The difference here is that the ASRAAM can actually take advantage of /more/ of its head-on range thanks to the LOAL feature. That's my story and I'm sticking to it ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the information is accessible, but like I said, not easily. Some data you have to buy (research papers) others you have to find in other ways (simulation based on physics, HUD camera movies showing DLZ's etc).

 

_To bad for us :( :(

 

_This information will be to classified for the civil fan like Me ... :(

 

LaRata

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ASRAAM, as I thought, doesn't really have a significant range advantage over the 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.


Edited by Vault
Wrong spec stated

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing something here ... the missile is wider (more drag), and similar weight (so probably not more propellant MASS). While the bigger diameter IS significant, so it the fact that they probably have similar rocket propellant mass.

 

Should it be shown otherwise, then I'll concede a range increase commensurate to a propellant mass increase? And again, in a straight shot, it'll go farther because its fins are that much smaller area, but if it has to maneuver it's screwed for the same reason (at range).

 

And actually, the 9X has a lot on the WEZ parameters of the ASRAAM. HOBS shots are faster, and can be done from shorter ranges. Anything much farther than 5-6km is AMRAAM bait anyway.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleeman is pretty respectable in any case, I haven't seen where he 'backs up every word' for Kopp ... the Australian AF sure doesn't.

 

That Australian AF one was what I was mostly talking about. Isn't that website just a big crusade against the Australian AF from buying the F-18?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Or F-35's. And really, if they can't have F-22's, they should be getting Su-35s, not any of that F-18/F-35 stuff ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing something here ... the missile is wider (more drag), and similar weight (so probably not more propellant MASS). While the bigger diameter IS significant, so it the fact that they probably have similar rocket propellant mass.

 

Should it be shown otherwise, then I'll concede a range increase commensurate to a propellant mass increase? And again, in a straight shot, it'll go farther because its fins are that much smaller area, but if it has to maneuver it's screwed for the same reason (at range).

 

And actually, the 9X has a lot on the WEZ parameters of the ASRAAM. HOBS shots are faster, and can be done from shorter ranges. Anything much farther than 5-6km is AMRAAM bait anyway.

 

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.


Edited by Vault
typo

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIM-9X speed is a guaranteed mach 3+. I can guarantee you it is, so long as you launch it from mach 0.9. And I can guarantee you ASRAAM's performance will be very, very similar.

 

You are hugely overestimating the range advantage given by both features.

 

I will point out again, they have similar weight, which means their motors must have similar weight. This is HUGELY important. HUGELY!

In order for ASRAAM to gain a high altitude 5km advantage, it needs 5kg more fuel, and the fin area reduction it does have.

 

And that's a 27km vs 32km range type difference. First shot? I guess, under THOSE circumstances. In WVR? Not a chance in hell -and- the AIM-9X will outfly it under those conditions.

 

So tell me, do you want an SRM that can do short-range work REALLY well, or do you want one that claims some form of BVR overlap, but doesn't do the short range job -quite- as well?

 

Because frankly, I'd rather a 120+9X combo personally over 120+ASRAAM.

 

INcidentally, I checked out the mach numbers also. The ASRAAM as parametrized by me will peak at almost a full mach number higher - but that still only gives it that small range advantage, which diminishes with altitude.

 

Coupled with a lesser ability to turn with its target at longer ranges, I just don't see the whole first shot thing in a BVR-ish engagement, and the only difference in the WVR engagement isn't first shot so much as that it'll get there faster if the shot isn't an off-bore one.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIM-9X speed is a guaranteed mach 3+. I can guarantee you it is, so long as you launch it from mach 0.9. And I can guarantee you ASRAAM's performance will be very, very similar..

 

Officially the MK36 motor in the AIM-9X is mach 2.56. The ASRAAM's is mach 3+.

 

I will point out again, they have similar weight, which means their motors must have similar weight. This is HUGELY important. HUGELY!

In order for ASRAAM to gain a high altitude 5km advantage, it needs 5kg more fuel, and the fin area reduction it does have.

 

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.

 

And that's a 27km vs 32km range type difference. First shot? I guess, under THOSE circumstances. In WVR? Not a chance in hell -and- the AIM-9X will outfly it' under those conditions.

 

So tell me, do you want an SRM that can do short-range work REALLY well, or do you want one that claims some form of BVR overlap, but doesn't do the short range job -quite- as well?.

 

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

 

Because frankly, I'd rather a 120+9X combo personally over 120+ASRAAM.

 

INcidentally, I checked out the mach numbers also. The ASRAAM as parametrized by me will peak at almost a full mach number higher - but that still only gives it that small range advantage, which dimishes with altitude.

 

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.


Edited by Vault
Added info

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of crappy information. Not because it's all incorrect, but because correct + incorrect are mixed. First and foremost, take the ranges he attributes to russian missiles and cut them in half. That is their actual useful range. Missiles launched from orbit don't count ;)

 

As for the archer - look at the employment envelope. This is why it was superior. You could launch it farther off-bore, and probably at a smaller minimum distance thanks to TVC.

 

This guys is incredible. I`ve never seen anyone saying black is white and white is black and believing himself like that. Its like someone to say: "you see that 18 km range of the Aim-9 is a lie. In fact it is no more than 9 km, so dont believe the stats". Fleeman is confirming Kopp but ok what do they know about missiles.

And Vault, that find about Fleeman is great, but insufficiant. We should try to get some confirmation from The Pentagon about the ranges, but will it be enough for some of us?

Here are some FACTS about R-73:

Range (km):0.3- 30/15

Weight (kg):105 rod type

Lenght (m):2.9

Wingspan (m):0.51

Type of seeker:infrared (heat seeking)

Kill probability fighter target:0.6

length 2.9 m. (9.5 ft)

diameter 170 mm. (6.7 in)

wingspan:51 cm. (20.1 in.)

rudder span:38 cm. (14.96 in.)

missile wt: R-73M1:105 kg.(232 lbs.)

R-73M2:110 kg. (243 lbs)

warhead wt:7.4 kg. (16.32 lbs.)

envelope:300 m. to 40 km.

(985 ft. to 22 NM.)

max range: R-73M1:30 km. (16.4 NM.)

R-73M2:40Km. (21.8 NM)

maneuvering tgt. loads:12 G


Edited by topol-m

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that find about Fleeman is great, but insufficiant.

 

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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

IIRC, the impulse and thrust in Fleeman's AIM-7 Sparrow example don't compute, and he offers no explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Okay, so while you're toting your ASRAAM, the 120 is eating you up ; and when you're in a tight circle and shooting right across it, the far more agile 9X is eating you up, and the 132 isn't keeping up.

 

So all the ASRAAM gets is the 'inbetween' which overlaps both of those missiles. Sounds poinless unless you want a longer-range sidewinder replacement on your F-5E.

 

Jack of all trades, master of none. ;)

 

I wonder how to get more propellant mass out of a missile that's lighter, yet its airframe has to be heavier (that 6.5" diameter does do a number on the amount of fuse material you have to use, you know!) and how you figure the 9X is not actually lighter than the 9M in the actuator/guidance department.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he offered something but it was really brief ... I'd probably be hard pressed to find it again.

 

IIRC, the impulse and thrust in Fleeman's AIM-7 Sparrow example don't compute, and he offers no explanation.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so while you're toting your ASRAAM, the 120 is eating you up ; and when you're in a tight circle and shooting right across it, the far more agile 9X is eating you up, and the 132 isn't keeping up.

 

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.

 

So all the ASRAAM gets is the 'inbetween' which overlaps both of those missiles. Sounds poinless unless you want a longer-range sidewinder replacement on your F-5E.

 

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.

 

Jack of all trades, master of none. ;)

 

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.

 

I wonder how to get more propellant mass out of a missile that's lighter, yet its airframe has to be heavier (that 6.5" diameter does do a number on the amount of fuse material you have to use, you know!) and how you figure the 9X is not actually lighter than the 9M in the actuator/guidance department.

 

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.


Edited by Vault
typo

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, the impulse and thrust in Fleeman's AIM-7 Sparrow example don't compute, and he offers no explanation.

 

Swingkid, the bloke was a missile design engineer for 35 years. I'm positivley sure he knows what he's talking about, he's probably forgotten more than we as a collective know about missiles.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to add TVC on the AIM-9X is also tactically inferiour because of the MK36 motor on the AIM-9X has a 4 second burn time which means to use TVC in an engagement puts you in just about every other variant of WVR missiles NEZ/WEZ. For probably 90+% of the missiles flight envelope TVC is a dead weight which will hinder the AIM-9X in the end game if the AIM-9X fails to hit its target with the 4 second burn time this factor alone dicatates that the AIM-9X is optomised for a maximm four second engagement, also the amount of G the AIM-9X can produce will reduce after four seconds to not far off what the ASRAAM can pull considering only four of the eight control surfaces on the AIM-9X deflect.


Edited by Vault

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not bring BVR missiles into the equation.

 

No, lets. They're part of it.

 

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.

 

... and will hit if you don't know it's coming, unfortunately if you do anything that resembles a pre-emptive energy draining maneuver, the poor thing with its little control surfaces will start getting itself into a stall.

 

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.

 

You are assuming it has a significantly larger range - this is likely, but it might not be as significant as you think. Further, I'm fairly certain that Sidewinder too knows how to accomplish some clever path-shaping. ;)

Where you will see the LEAST difference in ranges, it a faster moving target changing aspect. The LEAST.

 

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.

 

This is nothing short of drivel. The

 

 

 

Again master of the first shot,

 

Maybe

 

velocity,

 

Peak is higher, but that's not great in every situation. Especially in the long-range department, all-boost is not idea.

 

50G,

 

Big deal - 9L did 40, and could actually exceed it at the speeds it reached.

 

tactical advantage, range

 

Completely eclipsed by the rest of the warfighting package - ie. AMRAAM.

 

and superiour drag performance.

 

Which is great and all, until you realize it compromizes turning ability and both high and slow speed maneuver for it.

 

[quoet]What does the AIM-9X have over the ASRAAM? G and that's all.

 

G's which allow it to take advantage of ALL of its agility. And agility that blows the ASRAAM away.

 

The AIM-9X has inferiour velocity (instantaneous and sustained), inferiour drag, inferiour motor, inferiour range and inferiour tactical deployment.

 

Neither missile has a sustainer; and tactical deployment is superior where the SRM counts: The dogfight.

 

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.

 

Wow, that's a completely backwards and illogical statement. It may in fact be true due to -other- factors, but that statement just does NOT stand on its own. Funny thing is - the ASRAAM motor casing does not permit the pressures (and thus thrust) that the sidewinder motor casing is able to handle. It might be a non-factor, but who knows.

 

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

 

They are moved together. There's four movable surfaces. Altogether they are probably lighter than the 9M's fin assemblies all put together.

 

 

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 might want to seriously check your math. 2% in length difference won't make up for a 31% increase in diameter when it comes to weight ;)

In other words, you're trying to sell me a magical missile.

 

 

I forgot to add TVC on the AIM-9X is also tactically inferiour because of the MK36 motor on the AIM-9X has a 4 second burn time which means to use TVC in an engagement puts you in just about every other variant of WVR missiles NEZ/WEZ. For probably 90+% of the missiles flight envelope TVC is a dead weight which will hinder the AIM-9X in the end game if the AIM-9X fails to hit its target with the 4 second burn time this factor alone dicatates that the AIM-9X is optomised for a maximm four second engagement, also the amount of G the AIM-9X can produce will reduce after four seconds to not far off what the ASRAAM can pull considering only four of the eight control surfaces on the AIM-9X deflect.

 

You forgot that the TVC is tactically superior in pointing the missile at its target using the least energy (aka burn time) possible, which gives it superior performance across the turn circle. You also forgot that the burn-time on the sidewinder is 5 seconds or potentially more, and that the ASRAAM isn't terribly likely to have MORE burn-time since a wider rocket motor implies a faster propellant burn time.

 

The AIM-9 has been known to be involved in 10 second engagements, and is capable of lasting close to half a minute - that's for head-on situations with the old version.

 

The ranges achieved with the AIM-9M have also been known to significantly increase with the removal of those huge tailfins in the ballistic shot, and more than likely the operational range is increased by using tailfin control.

 

Its aerodynamic surfaces are also more capable of maneuvering a higher AoA, and producing more g. This missile will leave the ASRAAM in the dust in a tight turning fight.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This missile will leave the ASRAAM in the dust in a tight turning fight.

 

There you go again - advertising. Vault, give it up man. You cant convince that guy by just stating the facts or quoting experts, he will believe what he thinks is the ultimate truth until he gets shot down by the same missiles he thinks are inferior.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, topol, care to actually read that book and understand what it is you're talking about before you say I'm 'advertizing'? ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, topol, care to actually read that book and understand what it is you're talking about before you say I'm 'advertizing'? ;)

 

I`ve already begun reading it. As for the advertising its not the first time i`m having that impression IMHO.


Edited by topol-m

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and will hit if you don't know it's coming, unfortunately if you do anything that resembles a pre-emptive energy draining maneuver, the poor thing with its little control surfaces will start getting itself into a stall.

 

Will it hit? I don't know, I'd rather not take the chance would you? With a smokeless propellant and high mach velocity you'll be lucky if you see it coming let alone manouvure. A stall at high mach with dynamic lift from a wingless design? NO WAY. Remeber those little poor control surfaces are roughly the same size as the AIM-9X's poor little control surfaces, remember the other four control surfaces are just stabalising fins on the AIM-9X and add to the drag factor.

 

You are assuming it has a significantly larger range - this is likely, but it might not be as significant as you think. Further, I'm fairly certain that Sidewinder too knows how to accomplish some clever path-shaping. ;)

Where you will see the LEAST difference in ranges, it a faster moving target changing aspect. The LEAST.

 

I'm not assuming, I'm 100% it has and so is most of the worlds avation experts. The MK36 was the biggest design mistake on the AIM-9X and to a certain extent so is TVC. TVC on a 4 second motor has very limited tactical advantages when you take the complete envelope into consideration. The AIM-9X would of been alot more efficient with a bigger motor and a longer burn time.

 

This is nothing short of drivel..

 

Please don't take this conversation down to offensive remarks, please treat me with the same respect I'm showing you.

 

Maybe.

 

Definatley. The ASRAAM has a standoff capability the AIM-9X can only dream about.

 

Peak is higher, but that's not great in every situation. Especially in the long-range department, all-boost is not idea..

 

Since when was less energy a good idea for a missile?

 

Big deal - 9L did 40, and could actually exceed it at the speeds it reached..

 

Lets stay off the 9L, The ASRAAM is far superiour in every single way.

 

Completely eclipsed by the rest of the warfighting package - ie. AMRAAM..

 

We started with a WVR AIM-9X v's ASRAAM debate, after this WVR discussion, I'm all ears regarding BVR missiles.

 

Which is great and all, until you realize it compromizes turning ability and both high and slow speed maneuver for it...

 

50G which is probably about the same as the AIM-9X after burn time, but unlike the AIM-9X the ASRAAM will have an energy advantage.

 

G's which allow it to take advantage of ALL of its agility. And agility that blows the ASRAAM away..

 

Yes for a whole instantaneous 4 (official) seconds of the AIM-9X's flight envelope, as I've already stated the G the AIM-9X loses after the MK36 burns out TVC and most of the AIM-9X's high G capabilities diminish to roughly the same G as the ASRAAM.

 

Do you really think the AIM-9X can produce the high G figures it boasts sustained?

 

Neither missile has a sustainer; and tactical deployment is superior where the SRM counts: The dogfight.

 

Superiour tactical deployement comes with the stand off ability and the first shot capability of the ASRAAM, but in a close quater dogfight and as long as the AIM-9X hits the target within the 4 second burn time of the MK36 the AIM-9X is superiour in G and only G, after 4 seconds both missiles are probably about even in turning capabilities. Either way shooting at target within a 4 second window puts you into most WVR missiles NEZ which is risky.

 

Wow, that's a completely backwards and illogical statement. It may in fact be true due to -other- factors, but that statement just does NOT stand on its own. Funny thing is - the ASRAAM motor casing does not permit the pressures (and thus thrust) that the sidewinder motor casing is able to handle. It might be a non-factor, but who knows.

 

Again please be respectful, Yes the diameter trade off is a sign that the missile has more propellant, why would the ASRAAM have a wider diameter and bigger motor? If there was the same amount of propellant in the ASRAAM as the AIM-9X then it would be sporting the same size motor as the AIM-9X. What you're stating in a nutshell is that the engineers of the ASRAAM have made a diameter trade off for nothing. Think R-77.

 

 

They are moved together. There's four movable surfaces. Altogether they are probably lighter than the 9M's fin assemblies all put together.

 

Those control vanes are driven by a servo that contains a high speed motor with cobalt bearings, a gear box, spindle and the casing. There's also the weight of the control vanes and gimbal to consider, This will of course would require a larger battery to drive the servos there isn't a hope in hell they would weigh less than the control surfaces. The extra battery weight alone would probably weigh more than the titanium control surfaces.

 

 

You might want to seriously check your math. 2% in length difference won't make up for a 31% increase in diameter when it comes to weight ;)

In other words, you're trying to sell me a magical missile.

 

See above. I'm not trying to sell you a magic missile, but I'm not buying the unrealistic figures of the higher G that you keep stating the AIM-9X has for more than 4 seconds.

 

You forgot that the TVC is tactically superior in pointing the missile at its target using the least energy (aka burn time) possible, which gives it superior performance across the turn circle. You also forgot that the burn-time on the sidewinder is 5 seconds or potentially more, and that the ASRAAM isn't terribly likely to have MORE burn-time since a wider rocket motor implies a faster propellant burn time.

 

I agree that in very close range the AIM-9X's TVC is superiour, but dont forget that for 90+% of the missile envelope TVC is a burden on the AIM-9X. Either way putting yourself that close to an enemy is very risky buisness indeed.

 

The AIM-9 has been known to be involved in 10 second engagements, and is capable of lasting close to half a minute - that's for head-on situations with the old version.

 

Yes perfect parameters don't exsist IRL. The ASRAAM will surpass that figure given the exact same parameters because of the more efficient aerodynamics.

 

The ranges achieved with the AIM-9M have also been known to significantly increase with the removal of those huge tailfins in the ballistic shot, and more than likely the operational range is increased by using tailfin control.

 

Of course there will be less drag.

 

Its aerodynamic surfaces are also more capable of maneuvering a higher AoA, and producing more g. This missile will leave the ASRAAM in the dust in a tight turning fight.

 

For a whole four seconds. After those four seconds TVC becomes a negative factor.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...