SS,
Nice photos.
Some comments: The P5 is basically the P4 with a slightly modified motor impulse curve, a new strapdown IMU and, according to some, the datalink from
the the Derby.
As such, it remains a highly primitive design, only slightly better than the R-73 in terms of having multiple aerocontrols which only add to it's 1G
drag index while 'trying to immitate' a true BVR weapon system.
IRIS-T is a unique weapon in that it was a deliberate attempt to improve on Sidewinder without using /any/ of the system components as AIM-9X
eventually slaughtered itself doing. I think they shot themselves in the foot going with the initial linear-bar scanning array but as a small scale
improvement to the AIM-9S it is probably one of the more successful missile programs in existence because it has secure orders for three modern
airframes /in place/ (SAAB just confirmed for the Gripen, the Germans run it off the Flubber and the Bahraini's are using it on their F-16E's I
believe).
Darter-A I frankly don't know enough about one way or the other, it's obviously a straight up ASRAAM clone which is surprising because that is
exactly the configuration I would have expected for Darter-R/Derby as a function of max-clean aeros taking a fast but small weapon to the outer pole
limits as efficiently as possible.
The obvious question to ask of course is whether or not it has a datalink since the combination of a no-maddog shot control and the relatively clear
skies of the Cape could make even an optical homer a quite capable BVR system.
ASRAAM lost a lot of it's appeal to me when BAe knuckled to U.S. demands for launcher compatibility with existing LAU-7 rail designs and thus the
missile lost the ability to be brought into battle on TER rails. Dogfights tend to soak a LOT of halfway-there dynamic shots and particularly given
IFDL's and the natural tendency to point-and-click at the first missile plume, it makes sense to get ALL targets engaged, simultaneously.
That said the ASRAAM also points out two unique factors which have gone a long ways to change the way we perceive missiles. The first is a motor:dome
combination which supposedly makes this missile the fastest SRM in the world with 'Mach 4 class' performance (probably 3.6-3.8 but still very, very
good). The other is the realization that even with a shared detector array, 'not all missiles are equal' can apply to a system which has not quite
lost all it's black-body hotspot self-dazzling. Though the RAAF seem happy and there are rumors of MOD complaint to avoid default on contract while
they arranged better finances, this should remind us that the imaging array is itself a fairly young technology and we don't necessarily know /all/
the shenanigans that are going on from backplane to guidance processor.
One other thing which deserves mention is the fact that the ASRAAM, though not possessed of a datalink (publically) has true LOAL capabilities with a
sophisticated 'volume track' ability to score targets based on predictive vector math. This nominally takes a 60` HOBS (High Off Boresight Seeker)
capability up to 180` 'effective' /if/ the large motor impulse doesn't just wildly drive the missile out of envelope.
It should be noted that right-off-the-nose is still a powerful option for even SRMs however as a few Tornado F.3's seriously embarrassed the mighty
USAF F-15/AMRAAM comvination by running 'wide out' (offensive split) passive datalink + ISRM heatshot tactics against an AWACS that didn't quite
retrograde fast enough. This 4-5 years before Cope India.
As to the Archer as granddaddy of all 'expanded envelope' threat missiles, this system is /highly/ overrated. True, the original missiles had a
40-45` HOBS capability (at a time when the AIM-9L was about 27.5`) but the combination of IRST bore cue and helmet tracking are both dependent on
dated electronics equivalent to the 1972 VTAS system wherein 'if the radar sucks, so does your handoff' (not to mention sill lines on the Flanker
and Fulcrum and the terrible electromechanical 'flashing LED' latency of the systems themselves).
Taken together with again, a primitive aero control+hefty TVC, even in later M1/M2 missiles where the boresight finally went up to about 65-70` the
missiles effective engagement range is a /lot/ less than the 25 and then 40km it is given. Archer can be beat using proper anchor and elbow tactics
with good expendables.
However; I /believe/ that there is actually a newer design under development called the 'K-30' or 'D-30'. Drawings vary with at least one
configuration showing another ASRAAM clone and others indicating some nod to a MICA type design.
For myself, if you are going to waste money on 'gas declination vane' technology (boxkite tails) you might as well continue the Russian tradition of
a heatshot companion to the R-77. Throw in some pif-paf type controls to replace the paddle based TVC and you might just have an 'SRM' more akin to
the AA-10B shown in the background. With enought warhead and speed to work crossing shots and long stern conversions rather than trying to play
seeker-chicken keeping your pipes cold and your nose forward.
Which segueways us right on into the worthless piece of shiite that is the AIM-9X.
Roundly known as the 20km seeker atop a 10km motor as a function of readding all the canards, electronics conduits and other drek that Box Office
removed while retaining the existing 5.25", Mk.36, motor in a world of 6.5-6.7" big dawgs, this weapon is nothing if not triumph of the lowball.
Further, I have my doubts as to the missile's effectiveness of /either/ of the principal airframes it will 'eventually' get to.
First off, X-Ray is /viciously/ unstable, right off the rail, such that it is literally scarey (for the shooter) to see what I presume are sanitized
publicity videos. If an opposed vector F-4 about 70` off and 2 miles out causes the weapon to exhibit such epileptic 'shivers' from a 1G F-15
launch, imagine what will happen when it's a loaded turn and the missile is coming over-shoulder to cut across the angle.
Take this another step further and look at an F-22 firing out an acoustically and Q firehydranted sidebay onto targets as much as 20,000ft below from
a high end supercruise. The pilot rolls to acquire with JHMCS, and then the targets reverse under to denied the shot and so he either has to handoff
to the other side bay (with no LOS maintenance on an AIRST or cheek array, the cockpit floor blocking his view with the helmet and the weapon
enclosed) as he rolls back to prevent a condition wherein the weapon's need to cut back /against/ a Mach 1++ velocity vector before snapping down
literally has it flying backwards.
On that damn tiny a$$ motor impulse curve.
/Ugly/ doesn't begin to describe the kinematics of that kind of engagement and it is made worse by the fact that (in direct contravention of early
ATF-22 program descriptions) the sidebays cannot take anything bigger. Which means if you are doing something /useful/ with the main bays (A2G) you
now have all of two AMRAAM @ 30nm pole out. And two AIM-9X at perhaps 10nm pole out with a heckuva long do-nothing-aggressive inbetween period.
Only ASRAAM and Meteor have greater RMax diversity and at least those numbers are are because the former is actually an LRM.
Of course it doesn't get any better on the slug-bug or super-slowmobile of BGPOS that we call the F/A-18E/F. Because now you have a plane which
cannot pitch up, recover from pitch, change roll index relative to loaded energy state or /recover/ energy once a maneuver excursion has been made.
Heck it slows down in level flight if you let it.
Largely because it's as close to an A-12 as you can get with a 'modification only' design that pretends to have a 'fighter pilot' still
aboard.
In this, the problem isn't excessive smash or high AOA change relative to missile weathercock and altitude band diversity with most targets.
Because, just like it's predecessor, the Super Horror doesn't even /want/ to fight much above 15,000ft. And the MSI is actually pretty.
OTOH, the problem is similar to that of the F-22 in one way: The F/A-18E doesn't carry MRM on the outboard stations well and it is conflicted (with
the ASQ-228) on the fuselage shoulders. Which means, particularly if you are making up range with wing tanks, that you will have all of ONE BVR shot
per airframe.
And you can just about guarantee that that shot will be nose:nose as a fully loaded Ho-net doesn't have the energy to convert on it's own shadow,
let alone play wide-around games like an F-14 or 15.
CONCLUSION:
The 'state of sub-parity' is just evilly bad news 'all round' IMO and yet it ultimately is less indicative of what is wrong with our own SRM
development roadmap than the undertones of a world that secretly acknowledges that putting a 30-60 million dollar fighter through the wringer of
max-pilot-error-possible WVR combat is FOOLISH when BVR weapons operating on 100-120 seconds worth of flyout (the longest AMRAAM shot was 21 miles off
a Dutch F-16 which timed a Serb jet coming around the farside of a CAP orbit and too three minutes IIRR) can do so much more to keep him/her from
making an idiot of themselves.
Argumentatively, it can be said that we have become so enamored of the gun that we forget the 'Clint Eastwood Defense' of having a better
boilerplate worth of defensive armor. That armor being almost certainly a microminiaturized WANDA or VIPER DIRCM turret which can use CLIRCM
techniques to steer weapons from over 2nm out. Or simply flash-burn the detectors as they get closer.
Of course a laser can also be sparkled across a 10ft canopy from 30km away...
In any case, THIS-
www.airwar.ru...
www.designation-systems.net...
Is the 'future of dogfighting'. Because it hunts. I can literally launch a pack of them like wolves and they will fly upwards of 230nm downrange
using linked seeker coverage to defeat all manner of RF and Optical LO. And once they find something, by definition of DACM as a subsonic art, they
will be able to 'formate' in a fashion that allows for multiple passes rather than 1-shot 'hit or miss' expenditure.
Such that I can fly one up alongside the canopy and explode a handgrenade sized warhead right in the worthless gutsacks ear.
10 of these things might cost 5 million bucks. And if it takes all ten to keep hamstringing a single fighter from a look-break-look escape, it will
STILL be literally 'worth every penny' in terms of munition stockpile economics to buy 40 to kill four such 60 million dollar 4th Gen pieces of crap
over the homes of the defenseless.
Such being the stupidity of man that everyone 'oohs!' and 'aaaahs!' over these anachronistic platforms on airshow flightlines like they were
(conceptually almost 100 years old) the latest Ferrari. Never realizing what a horrendous waste of their taxpayer money they are cheering on.
When you have to kill, do so with utter contempt of your enemy's existence. Overwhelmingly and with as little effort as possible. DO NOT 'duel
him' like he deserved a fair fight. Not if you want to win. Not if you want to live. Not if your nation means more than your pride of place.
/That/ is effectively what all the uber-missiles on duncecap manned airframes really represent. And the U.S. is no better than anyone else in this
balls-before-brains sportwar egotism.
KPl.
. In WVR airplanes might stand a chance. 
