Missiles range comparison

[GGTharos]

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.

 

Emphasis mine. Way - stalls are an AoA issue, and I'm not talking about high mach. At high mach it will become AoA limited (ie. it will hit max possible AoA).

The surface area of the AIM-9X controls is actually larger ... now, speaking of stabilizing fins, they're there for a reason - and yes, they do add drag (it is a function of surface after all).

 

 

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.

 

 

It is a five second burn time motor as of the L, and it has received incremental upgrades since. Other details, if you want'em, is a 30kg with a 218 ISP.

 

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

 

You're right, I apologize.

 

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

 

I'll grant that it has longer range, but I question just how far longer; I really don't think it's as long as people think.

 

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

 

Since the boost-sustain profile was invented. For long ranges, all-boost is not a great method to get your missile farther, unless you have something Phoenix-ish that's running an all-boost motor for half a minute.

It's an optimization between all-boost time, propellant mass, and other factors.

 

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

 

Let's not, since it is a missile on which good unclassified data is available.

 

 

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

 

If you can't compare the two missiles for their intended function, you can't compare them.

 

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.

 

Try more. A whole lot more. As for the ASRAAM having an energy advantage, this will be true only if it isn't being used in a situation where a reasonably high off-bore launch is required. If it is, ASRAAM's rockt motor becomes pretty moot. The sustained turn is going to bleed a lot of its energy.

 

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.

 

Five seconds or potentially more, real data. If it's four seconds, they've given it a faster burning propellant and increased peak speed.

TVC is not useful (nor necessarily desired) for high-g maneuvers. TVC is used to point the missile to the intercept path initially. The high-g maneuver figure for the AIM-9X is an aerodynamic capability, using its flight control surfaces, not TVC. The AIM-9L is capable of maintaining overtake on a target for 2.5nm+ (0.9M launch, 0.9M target) in a perfect profile, so that should give you an idea of how long it's able to maintain a reasonable speed.

 

 

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

 

I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove with this question. These high g maneuvers are in the terminal phase, if then. You do one or two of those. The missile that can hit a higher number, can hit an iarcraft that's conducting a more violent out-of-plane maneuver. Though I heard 80g's for 9X, I haven't heard it from any official site.

 

 

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.

 

Superior tactical deployment comes with fitting well with the rest of the package. I believe Mr. Fleeman alludes to the same. In a close quarter fight the TVC on the missile, NOT the g, will dictate the fight. In that respect, the ASRAAM is a little more agile than a 9L/M - which isn't anything to scoff at, but the TVC reduces min range and time to target for the 9X in serioualy nasty tight fights.

 

As for Rtr (and I'd ask you to call it the Rtr, the AF has stopped calling it the NEZ for a reason), the only meaning is that you cannot outrun the missile. That's it.

Again, the 120 will take care of anything that it needs to before you get in 9X range, and the 9X overlaps the 120 enough to ensure a smooth transition. When you're constrained by VID rules, or a furball, or any other situation that FORCES you into a tight turning fight, the 9X is the winner.

 

The point here is, this is what the 9X's purpose is. It is meant to give you a serious edge in such close combat. For everything else, there's MasterCard. I mean AMRAAM.

 

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.

 

No, the trade off is not for nothing; realize that just because things make sense to you does not mean they are that way - we had the same story with the R-27ET datalink. It was assumed that since the ER had one, the T/ET would also. It never did.

A larger diameter motor gives you faster burn - ie. more thrust, but for less time. Again, unless the ASRAAM is using some seriously revolutionary materials technology and/or somehow it has miniaturized/lightened the rest of its insides compared to the 9X, I don't see how it can carry a heavier motor. I'm not ready to make the assumption that they've managed to do all those things, though I'm not ready to entirely reject the possibility, either. However, I would prefer to be conservative in this case, rather than making it up to be a super-missile.

 

 

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.

 

Yeah, there's plenty of hope. Those fins were HUUUGE. :)

I'd also like to point out that according to Fleeman, tail control surfaces are more efficient - that implies less power to achieve the same effect, not more; I've not checked on thrust deflection.

 

 

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.

 

The 9X doesn't have them for more than 4 seconds. It has them available for over 15, IIRC, depending on launch altitude (less at lower altitude due to lower peak speed and higher speed fall-off). Available - note the word - and I base this on the 40+ g availability time of the 9L ;)

 

 

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.

 

If you're employing an ASRAAM you are -already- doing this. They'll shoot you with the entire arsenal of 27's, 77's, 73's, and whatever else they've come up with - and half that arsenal has you in the heart of its envelope while you're at max range.

 

The ASRAAM's job is to be an SRM. That was its purpose.

 

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

 

Specifically, it will surpass that figure on a straight shot. Once it starts maneuvering, things start changing.

 

Of course there will be less drag.

 

That is the idea. ;) It's also why on such a similar shot with control sufraces similar to the ASRAAM's it will go a little farther.

 

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

 

Like the part of the fuselage that holds the fuel and the rocket casing. Not a big deal - in other words, I believe you've made a mountain out of a molehill. Higher mass allows you to keep speed longer. Inertia.

[X-man]

I think the most important thing in a SHORT-range missile would be maneuverability. Range is left to the Medium range missiles...

[GGTharos]

Well, yeah, but it depends on what you want to do with this missile.

 

ASRAAM has its merits in certain types of applications, the AIM-9X has them in the more obvious applications. For example, if you were to get a stealthy shot with help from a targeting pod, against a non-maneuvering (ie. not warned) target, the ASRAAM gives you a longer shot probably.

[GGTharos]

Vault, when you said that 'Fleeman Backs up Kopp', were you referring to the AIM-9L/R-73 data by any chance?

[Vault]

... 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.

Emphasis mine. Way - stalls are an AoA issue, and I'm not talking about high mach. At high mach it will become AoA limited (ie. it will hit max possible AoA).

The surface area of the AIM-9X controls is actually larger ... now, speaking of stabilizing fins, they're there for a reason - and yes, they do add drag (it is a function of surface after all).

I was not the one who stated "the poor thing with its little control surfaces will start getting itself into a stall", considering AoA and stall parameters are classified information, I'd like to know how you

got your hands on this information considering its classified, I'd really like to see you back up this claim of stall for the 132, but lets be honest you can't. The 132 relies mainly on velocity to

intercept its target and not G making your stall theory redundant.

 

The control fins on the 9X are only slightly bigger than the 132 considering both fins are trapezoid shaped which give superiour control, I doubt the 9X is able to pull more than 60 G sustained

and 70-80G instantaneously with TVC off the rail.

It is a five second burn time motor as of the L, and it has received incremental upgrades since. Other details, if you want'em, is a 30kg with a 218 ISP.

The official figure I got for the MK36 is a 4 second burn time.

I'll grant that it has longer range, but I question just how far longer; I really don't think it's as long as people think.

I think there's is a reason the 9X is often quoted as a 10:20 missile, Albeit most experts agree the 132 has alot more velocity and range than the X9.

all-boost is not a great method to get your missile farther, unless you have something Phoenix-ish that's running an

all-boost motor for half a minute.

With respect you're contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

Let's not, since it is a missile on which good unclassified data is available.

OK but the 132 is superiour to the 9L in every specification.

Try more. A whole lot more. As for the ASRAAM having an energy advantage, this will be true only if it isn't being used in a situation where a reasonably high off-bore launch is

required. If it is, ASRAAM's rocket motor becomes pretty moot. The sustained turn is going to bleed a lot of its energy.

50G of the rail combined with an extra mach of velocity over the 9X will get the 132 to its target much quicker than the 9X. The extra mach of velocity

the 132 is sporting will always give "first shot" capabilities at ranges over 300m as many experts agree, The slower 9X 2.56 mach motor is to slow to keep up with the 132 even in high off bore shots.

Sure TVC gets the 9X pointing in the right direction quicker but the 9X doesn't have the velocity the 132 has.

TVC is not useful (nor necessarily desired) for high-g maneuvers. TVC is used to point the missile to the intercept path initially. The high-g maneuver figure for the AIM-9X is an

aerodynamic capability, using its flight control surfaces, not TVC. The AIM-9L is capable of maintaining overtake on a target for 2.5nm+ (0.9M launch, 0.9M target) in a perfect profile, so that should

give you an idea of how long it's able to maintain a reasonable speed.

The 9L has completley different control surfaces compared to the 9X you cannot take figures for the 9L and use them on the 9X, Infact the only thing the 9X shares with the 9L is body, motor and possibly the main warhead. The high G that most people and not the company boast are incompatible with the size of the control surfaces on the 9X considering the fins on the 9X are only slightly larger than the 132's which has a maximum 50G capability off the rail, the only time the 9X can possibly pull the unconfirmed 80G figures people so commonly state without evidence is off the rail using TVC.

I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove with this question. These high g maneuvers are in the terminal phase, if then. You do one or two of those. The missile that can hit a higher

number, can hit an iarcraft that's conducting a more violent out-of-plane maneuver. Though I heard 80g's for 9X, I haven't heard it from any official site.

That the 9X is incapable of pulling the huge G that you think it does sustained. The control fins on the 9X would have to be at least 50% bigger than the fins on the 132 to pull 80G in the

terminal phase without TVC, an 80G turn would also bleed alot of energy off of a missile with a maximum mach of 2.56. I also think the 132 would boast a much longer sustained turning capability over

any given distance compared to the 9X which is important for high off bore long distance shots against a maneuvering target travelling at high mach speeds. In a high off bore shot the 132 will also always have a firing solution with a greater NEZ than the 9X.

In a close quarter fight the TVC on the missile, NOT the g, will dictate the fight. In that respect, the 132 is a little more agile than a 9L/M - which isn't anything to scoff at,

but the TVC reduces min range and time to target for the 9X in serioualy nasty tight fights.

Velocity is what closes distance, not TVC. TVC gives you a quick draw ability but TTI will be dictated by velocity and aerodynamics.

No, the trade off is not for nothing; realize that just because things make sense to you does not mean they are that way - we had the same story with the R-27ET datalink. It was

assumed that since the ER had one, the T/ET would also. It never did.

The diameter trade off has to be for a bigger engine and more propellant, it's the only logical answer for a high velocity missile.

Yeah, there's plenty of hope. Those fins were HUUUGE.

I'd also like to point out that according to Fleeman, tail control surfaces are more efficient - that implies less power to achieve the same effect, not more; I've not checked on thrust deflection.

I was talking about the AIM-9X's small fins. I know tail fins are more efficient, trapzoid tail fins are more efficient for control and deltas for drag.

The 9X doesn't have them for more than 4 seconds. It has them available for over 15, IIRC, depending on launch altitude (less at lower altitude due to lower peak speed and higher

speed fall-off). Available - note the word - and I base this on the 40+ g availability time of the 9L .

You're taking figures from the 9L and applying the same figures to the 9X missile, I'll leave it at that.

The ASRAAM's job is to be an SRM. That was its purpose.

It has a minimum range of 300 meters with 50G and mach 3+ off the rail that's superiour to most SRM's including the 9L, albeit the 9X will pull more G off the rail but less mach, this is not to be scoffed at I think that warrants the 132 as an SRM.

That is the idea. It's also why on such a similar shot with control sufraces similar to the ASRAAM's it will go a little farther.

Lets be realistic here. The 132 has bigger motor with more propellant mass combined with a higher velocity, the 9L wouldn't out range the 132, hence why the ASRAAM engineers didn't use a similar

diameter body to the 9L.

Higher mass allows you to keep speed longer. Inertia.

And we both know what happens to higher mass when it starts losing energy, it loses energy alot quicker which has a direct effect on range.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Vault

[Vault]

Vault, when you said that 'Fleeman Backs up Kopp', were you referring to the AIM-9L/R-73 data by any chance?

 

Fleeman backs up what Kopp says about the ASRAAM with the information of the aerodynamics and control surfaces of the ASRAAM in his book.

[Vault]

Well, yeah, but it depends on what you want to do with this missile.

 

ASRAAM has its merits in certain types of applications, the AIM-9X has them in the more obvious applications. For example, if you were to get a stealthy shot with help from a targeting pod, against a non-maneuvering (ie. not warned) target, the ASRAAM gives you a longer shot probably.

 

GGT With respect everyone is entitled to their opinion but posting false information needs to be nipped in the bud.

 

The 132's minimum range is 300 metres with a LOAL 180 degree off bore capability and 50 g off the rail with mach 3+, the 9X only gives 90 degrees off bore capability anything past your wing you can't hit with the 9X. Anything you can see with the 132 you can engage, so what would you prefer a 360 degree WEZ or a 180 degree WEZ?

 

In the PDF link below it states "you can NEARLY engage targets over your shoulder".

 

http://web.mac.com/topcover/topcover/the_vault_files/LCKill-CA04.pdf

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/RAAF-Kills-Over-the-Shoulder-with-ASRAAM-05323/

[GGTharos]

The 9X mod 2 has full 360 deg coverage. Minimum range of 300m is for a tail-chase against a target in front of you. Min range for a close target in -other- positions will be shorter for the 9X, and in general for any TVC missile.

 

I suspect the original lack of datalink on the 9X may have been what pushed the RAAF to go with ASRAAM. ;)

Edited March 27, 2009 by GGTharos

[Vault]

The 9X mod 2 has full 360 deg coverage. Minimum range of 300m is for a tail-chase against a target in front of you. Min range for a close target in -other- positions will be shorter for the 9X, and in general for any TVC missile - they literally own the short range envelope.

 

I suspect the original lack of datalink on the 9X may have been what pushed the RAAF to go with ASRAAM. ;)

 

Mod 2 is not in service, and it seems they took a page out of the 132's book. The 9X in service has 90 degree off bore capability.

[GGTharos]

Actually they didn't take a page out of anyone's book - it was always supposed to have LOAL (required for the F-35), they just weren't in a rush for it for whatever reason. And indeed, note the difference in price between the 9X and ASRAAM.

 

The mod 2 will be in service - I guess just not in time for RAAF's liking.

[Vault]

Actually they didn't take a page out of anyone's book - it was always supposed to have LOAL (required for the F-35), they just weren't in a rush for it for whatever reason. And indeed, note the difference in price between the 9X and ASRAAM.

 

The mod 2 will be in service - I guess just not in time for RAAF's liking.

 

2012 it will be. Yes Raytheon did take a page out of the ASRAAM's book considering the block 2 9X will also have a diameter trade off, I think they will also finally scrap the 70's tech mk36 motor that has always been the achilles heel of the 9L/M/X.

 

The fact that the 9X has 50% less WEZ than the 132 makes the 132 far superiour to the 9X hence why RAAF choose the 132. The AMRAAM wont help you in a rear hemisphere shot either, this means there is a tactical gap in the 9X/120 combo that the 132 alone fulfills. :)

Edited March 27, 2009 by Vault
typo

[GGTharos]

2012 it will be. Yes Raytheon did take a page out of the ASRAAM's book considering the block 2 9X will also have a diameter trade off, I think they will also finally scrap the 70's tech mk36 motor that has always been the achilles heel of the 9L/M/X.

 

I'm pretty certain that pulling out of the ASRAAM development is a rather solid clue that ASRAAM's book was not, and is not wanted ;)

 

The fact that the 9X has 50% less WEZ than the 132 makes the 132 far superiour to the 9X hence why RAAF choose the 132. The AMRAAM wont help you in a rear hemisphere shot either, this means there is a tactical gap in the 9X/120 combo that the 132 alone fulfills. :)

 

I like how you throw around those numbers, yet they're usupported by the math Fleeman introduces to simulate missile flight ;)

[Vault]

Minimum range of 300m is for a tail-chase against a target in front of you.

 

Do you have a link for that information please?

[Vault]

I'm pretty certain that pulling out of the ASRAAM development is a rather solid clue that ASRAAM's book was not, and is not wanted ;)

 

Really? almost everyone knows it was because of political decisions and budget constraints.

 

I like how you throw around those numbers, yet they're usupported by the math Fleeman introduces to simulate missile flight ;)

 

There not numbers by me there official numbers by MBDA which is unlike the unofficial G numbers you keep using on the 9X. I'd love to see your math theory considering that most of the information on the 132 is classified. Fleeman's math is spot on but remeber you can only do the math if you have the figures, and there classified.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Vault
typo

[GGTharos]

Oh. Well, then, congratulations on using those classified figures to win your argument. I'm out of this one :)

[Vault]

Oh. Well, then, congratulations on using those classified figures to win your argument. I'm out of this one :)

 

yet they're usupported by the math Fleeman introduces to simulate missile flight ;)

 

It was you not me, who was trying to use classified information to simulate the flight of the 132 using Fleeman's simulated missile flight. A huge % of the data you'd need to perform a reliable simulation is classified.

 

I agree this discussion has come to an end. It was a good a good debate GGT, and I'm sure you'll look at the 132 with alot more respect from now on. ;)

[GGTharos]

It was you not me, who was trying to use classified information to simulate the flight of the 132 using Fleeman's simulated missile flight. A huge % of the data you'd need to perform a reliable simulation is classified.

 

Don't need classified data.

 

I agree this discussion has come to an end. It was a good a good debate GGT, and I'm sure you'll look at the 132 with alot more respect from now on. ;)

 

Nope.

[Vault]

Don't need classified data.

 

Yes you do, you'll need the parameters of dynamic lift, control surface area, control surface defelection, oblique shock, exact amount of energy the propellant contains, drag and AoA at various mach....There are literally thousands of variables that you would need to know before you could make a realistic simulation, and there all classified.

 

Nope.

 

There is a proverb in my country that says "you can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink".

[GGTharos]

Yes you do, you'll need the parameters of dynamic lift, control surface area, control surface defelection, oblique shock, exact amount of energy the propellant contains, drag and AoA at various mach....There are literally thousands of variables that you would need to know before you could make a realistic simulation, and there all classified.

 

No, I most definitely do not need all of that. ;)

I don't need something that's accurate to the tee - all I need is something that's accurate enough to compare reasonably.

 

There is a proverb in my country that says "you can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink".

 

... did you ask me to be respectable?

[Vault]

No, I most definitely do not need all of that. ;)

I don't need something that's accurate to the tee - all I need is something that's accurate enough to compare reasonably.

 

Yes you most definitley will, how can you simulate a missile if you don't have the data, and I'm talking about thousands of variables. If you don't have something that is accurate to the tee then it's not an accurate simulation is it?. If you use inaccurate or missing data and alot of it at that, then you will get a very inaccurate result. Logic really isn't it.

 

... did you ask me to be respectable?

 

I'm being respectable, it was a proverb that you've taken out of context and it was in no way meant to be disrespectful.

[GGTharos]

Yes you most definitley will, how can you simulate a missile if you don't have the data, and I'm talking about thousands of variables. If you don't have something that is accurate to the tee then it's not an accurate simulation is it?. If you use inaccurate or missing data and alot of it at that, then you will get a very inaccurate result. Logic really isn't it.

 

That's interesting logic which is correct on the surface and yet not applicable to practice. That's all. As I recall it was also 'logical' that the T versions of R-27 would have datalink because the R versions did. This is exactly the type of logic you are using right now.

 

The truth of the matter is that no, you do -not- in fact need all that data; I used to think you do, got proven wrong. ;)

[Vault]

That's interesting logic which is correct on the surface and yet not applicable to practice. That's all. As I recall it was also 'logical' that the T versions of R-27 would have datalink because the R versions did. This is exactly the type of logic you are using right now.

 

That's assumption not logic. You assumed that because the R-27 had datalink the T version would too

 

The truth of the matter is that no, you do -not- in fact need all that data; I used to think you do, got proven wrong. ;)

That's not the truth of the matter, logic dictates that you'll need all accurate data for an all accurate result. If you're missing thousands of varibles you will get a result that is a thousand times wrong.

 

Now lets get back on topic.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Vault

[GGTharos]

That's assumption not logic. You assumed that because the R-27 had datalink the T version would too.

 

I wasn't the only one.

 

No that's called assumption.

 

No, that's called experience.

 

Logic dictates that you'll need all accurate data for an all accurate result. If you're missing thousands of varibles you will get a result that is a thousand times wrong.

 

You should re-read Fleeman's book. Carefully.

[Vault]

I wasn't the only one..

 

OK.

 

No, that's called experience..

 

Experience at making assumptions?.

 

You should re-read Fleeman's book. Carefully.

 

I have read Fleeman's book, now lets get back on topic.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Vault

[Wilde]

Oh man this thread is both interesting and horrible. Lots of people claiming lots of things. Using Wikipedia as a source is, well, questionable. The Carlos guy seems to be pretty much in it but he clearly has an agenda. But wow, what GGTharos is posting lacks any source at all.

 

Seriously, you guys should get a grip. In armaments industries nobody is telling the truth. You're making yourself a tool if you phrase someone's "publicity facts" (that's especially for the people who believe in the marketing statements of companies like Lockheed Martin and the likes...)