New Generation Dogfighting Missiles, page 2

Japan is also said to be developing a short range air to air missile - the XAAM-5. Again there is not a lot of info available on this.

To effectively deal with the future air threats in the early next century, the XAAM-5 Short Range Air-to-Air Missile IR homing dog-fighting missile will give extended lock-on range, improved off bore-sight, and enhanced IRCCM capabilities.

www.fas.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

This is a picture of the very missile being test fired :


__________

In addition here's more on the Python-5

Python 5 combines advanced new technologies with operationally proven Python 4 components. The missile incorporates a new dual waveband imaging seeker, advanced computer architecture, Inertial Navigation System (INS), sophisticated Infra-Red Counter-Counter-Measures (IRCCM) and sophisticated flight control algorithms.
Python 5 maintains Python 4’s unique aerodynamic airframe, INS, powerful rocket motor, warhead and proximity fuze.

Python 5 provides revolutionary full sphere competence, achieved by a combination of Lock-On-After-Launch (LOAL) and excellent acquisition and tracking capabilities. Its dual waveband Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker and sophisticated algorithms enable acquisition of even small, low signature targets in Look-Down, adverse background and cloudy environments.

www.rafael.co.il...

Official Brochure >> www.rafael.co.il...



[edit on 2-2-2006 by Stealth Spy]

Orca,

>>
There are, of course, a number of companies that are working on the true next wave of unmanned aircraft. Dont be surprised if you see horrible little dictators and tyrants employ these more than we do at first.
>>

Not in this country. Not in a land where A-UAV weaponization of more than sailplanes is nothing less than a nightmare to be endlessly 'delayed' and fought off by those interested only in the largest discretionary budget segment (/every/ year) as a federal dole.

>>
I know of atleast one company that is going beyond just stealthy unmanned reconnasance and fighter aircraft which seem to be the vogue. Fancy aircraft are nice but theyre strategic value is inversely proportional to their unit price.
>>

If there are three most basic laws of Firepower-

1. Shoot, Shoot, Shoot.
With the cheapest, most enduring, platform. Because the more you are PRESENT to take shots, for any given SSPK, the more you will win.
2. Maneuver to Target, Not to Engage.
So that you may reserve your operational initiative by NOT coming into the briar patch as a predictably exposed ATO as much as force composite.
3. Never associate your Fires with your Targeting.
So that you do not compromise secure system databases or the bottom line with 'multirole' homogenization of performance and survivability beyond the value of the mission left undone.

Then there truly is no place for manned platforms. Because the payload loft penalty, even on the most COE-centric systems (TAV skip bombers and the like) is just so horrid for every 6X3ft 'hole' you put in the systems volume, that there is no point.

>>
Most UAV/UCAV projects are building on a very rough and early conception of these, almost as add-ons to existing military infrastructure. The key is to reform the military around the new technology. This is the real next wave. I wish I could tell you a little more about this. It's quite exciting.
>>

If you care to do so, leave me some kind of U2U and I will try to listen, objectively.


Realistic Patriot/Planeman,

>>
Great posts... you two sure know your missiles...I know this was brought up in another thread but i want to get your input CH on the AIM-54 Phoenix Missile...I know its really old but I always thought it was the US's best missile platform.. when they retired it along with the only airframe that carried it, i thought it was quite stupid. What are your thoughts?
>>

I like reach in more than fly in because I prefer wheels-in-well total control of an enemy baselane without having to come anywhere's near the target defenses. Sparrow doesn't really give you enough trajectory control to keep from having to point the nose down to satisfy gimbal limits on a conventional platform in the 15nm range. And while AMRAAM does better, it's longest ever shot was still a mere 21nm from a Dutch jet looking to bag a Serb Galeb doing roundabout orbits rather than (say) flushing away from it's nest only to come back at you as the strike package tries to egress.

This opinion will only get stronger as we move to glide-IAMs which no longer require us to cross much more than a 15nm BRL to get gliding impacts without extended laser designation orbit lags.

In any case, if you are facing an S-300 or better threat with vastly superior kinematics and potentially (9M96) a similar degree of LOAL (ARH+INS) allowing for a separate illuminator to use the battery as little more than a smart (landline LINK'd) launch box, you are better off not challenging the threat to get even a transient blip track from some bizarre aspect (or low bandwidth) and subsequently fling a Mach 5 weapon along the bearing from right under your ground track.

That said, see (below) my subsequent 'how I really feel' about the AIM-54 specifically and LRAAM in general to understand that if you make the missile cost as much as the airframe you need to loft it so that one or both can SEE a target 300-500km downrange, you have gained little or nothing when that (conventionally signatured) airframe is butchered coming into the F-22's turf.

Keep in mind folks, P3I is a /phased series of upgrade steps/ not any one variant of AMRAAM but many. In this, it is not unlike the 'MSIP' by which F-15/16 gained capabilities within separate block numbers of the same 'model' (A or C)airframe. As such, when they repackaged the AIM-120 guidance section and warhead using MMIC/VHSIC circuitry, along about the AIM-120C4, they effectively created _ELEVEN INCHES_ of dead space in the missile. Five of those inches were immediately taken up by the AIM-120C5 motor extension. The remaining 7 are still spacered-out. According to what I read, the AIM-120C6 is a USAF version which uses some of all of this area to support yet another 'enhanced' warhead system designed to accomodat the very fast missile velocities of a Supercruise (F-22) launch scenario. It is essentially a directed warhead that fires forward, along the missile vector. AIM-120C7 is the USN response to a need for an AMRAAM with more positive control of it's kinematics inherent to a new digital autopilot and GPS/INS navigator which provides more consistent downrange shot control (time of flight to Xnm) so that the F-18E/F are not completely outclassed by their slug-bug low PS numbers and non-existance acceleration, over the Mach. That leaves the AIM-120C8, which has occasionally been called the 'AIM-120D', to incorporate what we are all looking for in these missiles:

1. Digital Datalinks.
Allowing separate 'Illuminator/Spear Chucker' tactics, (based on you shoot, I drive midcourse guidance support). These will more or less provide robust time of flight parameters (as viewed on the pilots countdown clock) for any given shot conditions as well as allowing X to shoot closer than Y before /immediately/ turning away from continued closure. i.e. Finally a reason to have a 300km capable radar.

2. ERAAM level biplateau/throttleable solid or gel impulse.
So that we can tailor each shot to the 'is he FQ closing or is he tail-chase running away' for pole separation and overtake without totally compromising the missiles endgame performance. At the time (1993 or so) the U.S. was urgently lobbying Britain NOT to go with the BVRAAM, it was said that Raytheon's ERAAM (extended range AAM) could achieve 80% of it's projected performance for about 50% of the development cost by essentially sticking with the AIM-120 baseline and just using a new motor. The Brits wanted independent GCS/ECCM which we wouldn't yield on (they later got them through the AD4A seeker on the MICA) and in the end, BVRAAM was just plain better for what they need to do (max standoff with a conventionally signatured Typhoon that looks 'similar' to the F-22's BVR exchange ratio vs. other conventionally signatured threats like the Su-30. Without raising the principle-threat spectre of S2A vulnerability). AIM-120D or 'whatever comes next' is likely this missile. And while it will not allow a Super Horror to beat a Meteor equipped Eurofighter or Rafale, it will likely allow an F-22 to score 40-60nm wheel in well kills while playing 'sniper rifle in a shopping cart' (no supersonics to impale itself on the larger threat poles). Such being the case book definition of look-in/reach-in, IMO.

>>
quote: Novator R-172 The R-172,previouslydesignated the KS-172, is adeparture from the establishedfocus of Novator, designers ofthe S-300V (SA-12) system'slong range SAMs. Like the R-37,the R-172 was developed as an'AWACS killer'. The missile employs an active radar seeker and inertial midcourseguidance.Two configurations are known, with and without a booster pack.With the boosterthe missile is claimed to achieve a range of 215 NMI, without 160 NMI. Cited seekerperformance is similar to the R-37.While the R-172 is less mature than the R-37, India hasrecently negotiated an arrangement to fund final development and licence produce theweapon, not unlike the extant deal to licence the Yakhont as the BrahMos
>>

First off, it really should be Ks-172 which, if strictly parsed to the /original/ Russian designation system would mean 'komplex' or complete missile system including launcher and 'boosted' or 'plus stage'. This would be separate from an industry/MOD internal 'article' or Zdeliya number which has about six total fields defining who-what-does-how-when-in-series. The appropriate designators now being put forward for the 'Rakete' (literally) Rocket (missile itself) are actually R-72 and R-90.

Also worthy of note, the Russians have blown completely their system of not applying an 'in service' designator to both aircraft and missiles in a desparate attempt to 'promise the world' (you buy it, we'll call it real as we build it). Thus you have R-## weapons which are still testbeds and S-## which are being given design bureau codes (S-37 vs. Su-47 etc.).

In any case, while I don't know what the purpose of discussing LRAAM is in an 'new generation dogfighting missiles' thread, it helps if you don't screw things up anymore than the Russians already have: R-72 or R-90. NATO will of course remove the 'X' from the middle of the AA-13 or 14 designator as soon as it becomes clear whether this is both a production weapon and truly one of Russian intended service or merely technology coal bed which the Indians are mining for their own system (much as their ASTRA is basically AA-12 tech without the stupid GDV fins).

www.johnstonsarchive.net...
www.designation-systems.net...

I also believe that the association of the Ks-172 with the S-300V is in error. As the missile most noteably near-identical (as a function of size and performance envelope) to the AAM-L is in fact the (Almaz accredited but IMO, far more likely to be Novator) 9m96 weapon of the 'S-400' system. The S-300V (Antey 2500) upgrade weapon is based around the 9M82M missile which is most likely the 'Big Missile' that everyone has been talking about for the S-400.

The reason a certain kind of 'visual common sense' is important is simple.

9M96
www.military.cz...

PAC-3 ERINT
pvo.guns.ru...
www.kojii.net...

Ks-172
www.military.cz...
img58.exs.cx...
www.mipagina.cantv.net...

The first two (S2A) weapons systems are classed as 120km and 15-45km weapons against aircraft and missiles respectively. Indeed, PAC-3 is ONLY considered optimized for 'lower tier' ATBM work in support of the THAAD as a missile interceptor which is why it's range classification is generally looked at disbelievingly (Even though some publications put it's achieved Mach point at 5.7, or faster than the 9M96, which would indicate a very long loft). Yet there are two conditions here which are important.

1. Does it need to do better?
For S2A systems, it is actually quite hard to tailer an aeroballistic trajectory to get optimum downrange, time of flight and terminal behaviours from one parabolic arc. Something we have repeatedly discoverred in trying to engineer the Navy Excalibur/CLGP round and the SM.4/4a among others. Straight line trajectories are much easier to do, even though the achieved downrange distances are shorter, because they multiply weapon energy tremendously which in turn lowers time of flight and simplifies 'dropout' (negative lead as an altitude cube and fuzing effect) on the missile endgame kinematics compared to lofted rounds. When added to the tremendous Q penalty of low altitude firings the inevitable result is that a round which flies twice as fast as AMRAAM may not be _required_ to fly any further (20-22nm downrange).

2. Radar Horizoning and TOF.
Even with Mountain Top and similar 'Illuminator' (offboard guidance) networking construct experiments, you are lucky if the missile+midcourse system can see the target at more than about twice surface LOS or roughly 20nm for medium altitude targets and 40nm at high. Jamming effects aside, you are looking at a 25 and 53 seconds to these ranges which is quite aways. IF THE WEAPON CAN SUSTAIN MACH. And if the target remains in the WEZ which must, of necessity, include the tracking cube around the subject vehicle which is itself subject to various F-Pole maneuvers based on either detection of uplink and high PRF/dwell based tracking 'activity' indications (TWS is not itself an immunity from track warning) by an advanced RWR. Or via MAWS systems and indeed, even simple NVD on the helmet if the engagement is happening at night under suitable visibility conditions.

IMO, A2A has similar yet reversed conditional modifiers in that it's not how far downrange you can see them but how LONG they can see you. Where, to be effective against HVA/ISR type threats, you may be looking at LOS ranges that may well exceed 500km at height. Yet the LRAAM launch aircraft does not really provide significant improvement kinematics to overcome any range extension deficit (assuming the missile is itself capable of sustaining a Mach 7-8 midcourse and snapdown from near-vac loft of 100,000ft or more) because it cannot assuredly provide (survivable) midcourse guidance over the period of time required to 'get there', behind the missile. Indeed, with the /original/ (Ks-172) AAM-L spec'ing out to about 24ft long and 1,650lbs, it is questionable as to whether the launch aircraft could even function as a useful 'first stage' boost vehicle since carriage penalties would be considerable-

www.aircraftresourcecenter.com...

It is worth of noting that the Indian AF ideal for 'Mixed Fighter Force Concepts' or 'Cooperative Fighter Ops' employment of LRAAM would have you believe that even smaller aircraft (LCA= throwaway) would be the best choice for granting initial missile boost while the Su-30 remains 'firmly subsonic and a decent (say discrete) distance' stood off behind the lot.

www.indiadefence.com...

This might work in the sense of providing the Su-30 a speedbump of defensive escorts. But it would not be possible if a larger motor is the sole way to make the smaller fighter competitive in a netcentric engagement environment. And as soon as the Flanker commits to a sprint, there is not thing any screen can do to keep it from impaling itself (or running out of gas for the return trip).

Why is this time vs. range modfier so important? Because a Mach 5 TOF to even just 300km (163nm) is on the order of 208 seconds or approximately Three and a Half minutes. Three and a half minutes for even an E-3 AWACS is on the order of 24 miles worth of 'fall of shot' scatter adjustment on a lofted round. And particularly if your weapon homing is ARM based (but even really if it is just INS+ARH without constant updates to at least <30miles from the target cube), you are just plain screwed if you cut the tether much before 2 minutes 30 seconds. Elvis will leave the building and your MILLION DOLLAR round will have less chance of hitting the VLA than a horseshoe.

OTOH, a Raptor, at full honk, (Say Mach 1.93) in those same 2 minutes 30 seconds, is going to move just shy of 20nm itself. And that will be atop whatever time interval it has while you launch and get oriented.

Which means that if you loft an LRAAM system, whether 'illuminator' or 'sprint chucker' or 'missileer' combined, you had bloody well better pray that the VLO Predators are not in amongst you already. Or they will stick a spike in the base of your skull as you drive by. Alternatively, if you somehow use sacrificial sprint shooters to attack the strike package as it comes up just behind the fence of a national border or feet-wet barrier, the question becomes why pay for the missiles to be airlaunched when you can presumably use the BARS (No-11M is a monster radar) to simply illuminate from deep within the country on a truly 'big' missile class like the 48N6E.

Of course the notional best choice is a Missileer or 'flying SAM site' that combines both the multicarriage and picket roles while sacrificing any and all followon fighter combat capabilities for lower cost and great endurance. In the F6D (6-8 AAM-N-10 with 300km max flyout, 5ft wide APQ-81 radar with 300-500km tracking range) the requirements implied an airframe which looked like this-

www.geocities.jp...

Not this-

airbase.ru...
img189.exs.cx...

(I laugh at the number of pole overlaps this plane expects to see /before/ getting to 'boot knife' WVR but at least I respect the need for a very large degree of EW capacity as represented by the Sorbitsaya pods in the otherwise 'Yea Compleat Warrior' loadout.).

And while potentially effective in an isolated naval FADF mission (no ability to select specific aimpoints for cruise on a mobile target, multiple hundreds of nm of space between the carrier and any landwards fighter threat) the 50-60,000lbs, 70ft wingspan, giant has little or no ability to displace from conventional airbases or to 'outrun' penetrating OCA.

Thus, IMO, the entire concept is faulted based on the need for high-value/large-force-numbers on /everything/. All for a fleeting shot that you may not live to see go home. God help you if you miss. Because a /miss/ is not just another flyout. It is a shoot-shoot-look -extension- (insurance policy) of the first one. So that your torpedo spread has an additive effect inherent to falling curtain of trajectory variable missile arcs and intercept windows this can mean upwards of a 38-45 second long firing window /before/ you factor in final TOF.

If you take the range down to the 60-100km of the rest of the (Meteor etc. though I've seen as high as 180-220km for that one too) LRAAMs, you can probably dump the booster section and get weapon carriage boxes down to a more manageable 12-14ft and 600-800lb category (still a very big solid motor) vice the 450lbs of a VFDR airbreather. And it will almost certainly get there quicker for most rangepoints by virtue of a faster loft. Yet, especially, if it is a true hypersonic-all-the-way weapon, it will also pay a penalty for things like PifPaf shunt-motor controls and long-body flex dynamics on the terminal tracking (which will almost certainly mean a bigger warhead). Compared to the airbreather which will be more flexible by virtue of being /slower/ to rundown targets with more variance in it's total thrust curve and cruise vs. terminal Mach point tracking behaviors. M3.5 against a strongly opening target in the 700 knot/30km range arena is going to play out at about 45km and 50 seconds. As the missile steams right up his tailpipe, defeating any range or altitude 'stagger', in plane, as it chases.

It's useless against the HVA but it is /survivable/ against the F-teen+AMRAAM. Leaving the Turbo-SAM to more enduringly push-off the HVA-ISRs by literally walking-pace going out to sit on their SENSCAP orbits.

Which brings me to the AIM-54. Called the Phoenix but known as the Buffalo, despite a 'Mach 4 class' (Mach 3.8, AIM-54A Rocketdyne Mk.47 motor) and even 'Mach 5 class' (Mach 4.5, AIM-54C, Aerojet Mk.60 motor) what you have in this weapon is a 'trainwreck' (or a thundering herd of buffalo, driven off a cliff) mechanic in which a very slow start and midcourse also employs terminal dive attacks that (though greatly complicating endgame intercept geometry for the missile) reenergize it's final approach.

As an example of how bad this 'getting there' deficit can be- In April 1973, a single Tomcat, flying a standard loiter at about Mach .67 and 25,000ft (i.e. a preplaced FORCAP orbit), with one AIM-54 Phoenix aboard (minimum weight and drag) was turned to intercept a BQM-34E which was _itself_ closing at Mach 1.5 and 50,000ft. Starting from initial detection at 132nm, the F-14 flew an additional 20nm (1 minute) to achieve firing parameters of Mach 1.5 and 44,000ft. The missile then flew for 2.62 minutes or 157 seconds. To achieve a downrange intercept at a mere 72.5nm. DURING THIS TIME, average /missile/ velocity, including the parent boost and a specially tailored (engineers spent all night tweaking the analogue autopilot gains, something which would never happen in the fleet) profile of 103,500ft altitude (as near zero-drag vacuum as you can get) was no more than 1,656 knots. Or roughly Mach 2.93.

What happens if, the target turns away? If the target is going slower? If the target performs a beaming or 'notch' maneuver? If the target postholes down into the clutter where the Hi-PRF looses it in the clutter? The missile misses that's what.

In another 'miracle mile' event, an F-14, firing at a BQM-34A with an initial setup of 10,000ft and Mach .72 vs 50ft and Mach .75 at 22nm separation showed the weapon intercepted at around 16nm in 54 seconds. DESPITE being a SARH-PDSTT all the way (no firing lag to account for time share TWS on multiple missiles) in nominally 'snap down' assisted conditions for acceleration, where there was no time spent climbing to the loft. DESPITE the fact that the missile was indeed /powered throughout the flight/. Average Missile Mach was only 1.88.

In the 'so impressive' 6v.6 engagement, the aircraft _could not_ achieve 'maximum kinetic assist' because, with six Phoenix aboard, it didn't have the gusto to do more than about Mach 1.2 and could not achieve even this _in the time available_ to initiate TWS tracking on 'fighter sized' (3-5m augmented drones) targets. And the crew were pressed so hard already (in retaining adequate radar scan volume overlay) that, instead of a wall or conventional shelf, the UT-33 and BQM-34 were arranged in an 'extended card' type formation with azimuth spacings on the order of 5nm in frontage (three sets of two for 15nm) and with upwards of 35nm in trail (83 vs. 110nm) yet only 5,000ft of altitude separation. What this allowed the F-14 to do was generate a maximum X minimum scan of 120` X 2 bars in a giant pie-slice sectoring of sky that kept everybody visible with missiles in the air and with no AWS-27 (E-2) uplink.

Even so, at the outset of engagement, a completely bogus 'orchestration' of formation behaviors had to occur so that none of the targets drifted out of the scan volume or steamed right through it so that the initial drones flew at Mach .6 and the trailing aircraft at Mach .8 while the last was a 'sprinter' coming in at about Mach 1.2 to play catchup. The F-14 initiated firing at a mere 31nm and continued to do so over a steady-flight period of 38 seconds, opening up on the closest targets /last/ (exposing itself to their weapons systems) to ensure that 'all missiles impacted within a few seconds of each other' for a virtual simultaneous seeming engagement. As a part of this exercise in idiocy, it 'maxxed the dot' (ASE starboard) so that it could bias it's TWS volume into the target lane while setting the geometry physically to engage the final AQM-37 (sprint) target coming up the far right side of the engagement.

/Conveniently/, not only did the drones all arrive at co-pole distance with the missiles due to their careful range distribution, but they actually /curved inwards/ to follow the Tomcat (like a drunk crossing lanes into oncoming traffic) so as to better stay in-volume.

'And So', over a total period of 3.92 minutes (235 seconds, 33 miles at Mach .9, 55 miles at Mach 1.5, a /veritable eternity/ in fighter vs. fighter ops) the Tomcat killed all but the furthest-out (lefthand biased) 2 targets, thereby proving that multi-on-multi _did not_ work. Because even with all this grooming of the engagement variables, the AWG could not keep everybody under track long enough to get a missile out to each of them, dumping one target completely before the AIM-54 could hand off. While the other drone had its FQ augmentation now so far out of field that the AIM-54 itself could not maintain the target track at the severe crossing angle.

Keep in mind that NONE of these were 'valid kills' because despite the nominally /enormous/ LAR or 'Launch Acceptability Region' of the Phoenix itself, the combination of scan lag and limited PRF ability to handle various low closure/high crossing angle targets through the Hi/Lo interleave ensured that TWS was unavailable until a point (roughly 50nm) at which the structured missile flyout sequencing necessary to get all six targets challenged the assumption of killing before being killed. And so, regardless of supposed simultaneity, the entire raid behavior was suspect, not only for being designed to bring the targets into the Phoenix envelope ONLY as the weapons came to bear. But rather for what it did NOT require the Tomcat crew to do so as to avoid threat bypass or direct engagement of the F-14 itself.

This is something which no halfway competent (threat) fighter pilot would 'step into' as he:

1. Doubled the altitude separation so as to force the F-14 RIO to compress his azimuth scan field to deepen the bar search.
2. Transited the combat area at a MINIMUM 550 knots or Mach .95 to compress the flyout vs. SARH timeshare problem even more.
3. Maximized his formation frontage densities to make sure the Tomcat had to open fire at closer to maximum (TWS interleave) of 50-60nm to have a hope of killing all targets in a very tight separation of missile guidance updates. For which sudden, drastic, formation changes would leave little or no ability to adjust final missile update steering into handoff conditions.

All of which leads to the generalized sarcasm of "Ignoring the Phoenix shots..." among those AF pilots in particular who sparred with the USN Tomcat community off Rota Spain during the late 70's and early 80's when the AIM-54/AWG-9 was at the height of it's 'mystical' powers (achievement is the inverse of expectation, the Pentagon Paradox).

Indeed, the saddest element of this story is that no Tomcat has ever flown a Fleet Defense Bravo loadout of six missiles in active (cruise) service. They cannot safely recover or (single engine ROC) launch with that much weight. And further they cannot themselves maintain adequate smash to aggressively maneuver at altitude to set the geometry vs. fighter targets without going supersonic which both eats fuel and instantly compresses the fight. Indeed, most of the squadrons did even not deploy (before 1988 anyway) with the outboard horn rails because they were draggy as hell and a pain to mount/dismount in trade for the more common Sparrow or even Sidewinder (6X2 or 4X4) alternate loadouts. Lastly, the USN only produced about 5,000 AIM-54s and of those, only about half were the AIM-54C+ 'ECCM/Sealed' (either as new or by conversion) which had the seeker, warhead fuzing and autopilot upgrades to be any good against more than the dumbest threats. The /total/ number is only sufficient to allow every Tomcat a Fleet Defense Alpha loadout of 4 missiles. One time. And the actual magazine count during cruise was never more than a fraction of even this (back when there were actually two squadrons of 12 Tomcats on every deck).

CONCLUSION:
There are many modifiers to the basic shortcomings of the AIM-54 system now. AESA technology greatly expands the number of useful pinbeam and PRF options available across what is effectively the full 120X70` of most fighter coverage arcs. With almost instantaneous refresh. Bigger missiles don't suffer particularly the AIM-54A's 'slow burn' single-plateau impulse effects on loft vs. direct shot mechanics. Air breathers do even better because they need make no such trajectory accomodation. Two way datalinks and 'digital' missile IMU's (GPS enhanced) provide much better indication of shot clock variables on actual vs. modeled missile flyout. Allowing midcourse guidance and even basic track via missile overlays to be much more positve in overlaying the seeker cube on the target volume.

But the fact remains that if you attempt to pull any of this crap against a fighter force which has the inherent advantage of _making you come through them_ on a predictable (Airbase Here, E-3 There) lane corridor, you had better count on making it your best, first and last, shot. Because you're only real hope is to put the airframe in burner at launch from a roadbase and never take it out during a one way flight to put as many rounds as your airframe can still acheive a median (1.4 or better) supersprint with. And even in this, the likelihood that you will live long enough to provide MCG through to handoff on the missile vs. a rapidly retrograding standoff asset is nearly zero. So that you are almost better off taking an approach like that of the Sunburn or late Kingfisher with organic network-search by the missiles themselves. Against smaller ISR assets like the Predators and U-2 or GHawk, this capability is actually even /less/ valuable because while they are precious assets in terms of inventory numbers, they are nowhere's near the asset value (50+2) of the Su-30 which is the sole system able to loft both the R-72 and the No-11M far and fast enough to even get the shot off.

Westpoint,

>>
Maybe he was talking about the ADM-160 MALI, below is an excerpt from your source.
>>

Thanks for the catch. I was indeed referring the the MALI though I think it would most likely get a FIM or MIM designator in the ground launch role (ADM = literally Air Launched Decoy Missile I believe). Sorry I didn't make that more clear.


KPl.

external image

JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - MAY 01, 2004

India and Russia negotiate co-operation on KS-172 AAM
David C Isby

Russia and India are currently negotiating a long-range air-to-air missile (AAM) project as a follow-on to the joint Brahmos supersonic anti-ship cruise missile programme, writes David C Isby. The Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg is developing a long-range missile designated the KS-172 or R-172 (see JMR March 2004, p1). The proposed negotiations would make available Indian investment and technical assistance.

Novator's proposed partner, India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is currently working on its own beyond-visual-range AAM, the Astra. A variant of the KS-172 could be used to arm India's Su-35 fighter force for use against high-value standoff targets such as radar surveillance aircraft and flight-refuelling tankers.

FORCE Mag .Volume 1 No 6 April 2004 , Page 55 .

Excerpts from the Article:

KS -172

- Joint Venture between India's DRDO and Russias NPO Novator.

SpeciFications :
- It is an ultra Long Range AAM with a Development Range of 400KMs To Target AEW/AWAC Type High Value Aircrafts.
- Sole Carrier in the Indian AF will be the Su-30MKI

Features ( Dimensions) :
- 1.4 Meter long Rocket Booster
- Weight 748Kgs
- Core Diameter 0.40 Meter , Total Lenght 6.01 Meters , Span .61 Meters
- Launched by a Solid-propellant Tandem Rocket Booster
- The KS 172 will attack its Targets with an adaptive high explosive ( HE) fragmentation warhead.
Guidance
- Secure Data-Linked Based inertial Navigation System for MidCourse Guidance ( This would probably be done by AWACS or the 2-3 MKIs Working in Tandem with their Mini AWACS Capability)
- Active Radar Homing for its Terminal Phase.
-The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from 3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g.

INDO-RUSSO CO-OPERATION

DRDO and NPO will jointly Develop:

- An Active Homing Radar Seeker with a Wide Lock-On Range Which is able to recieve targeting data from the launch AC.
- Design a combined Gas/AeroDynamic Control system with 3d TVC . Provides High Manoeuvrability irrespective of launch Conditions and allows for missle launch with AC in super Manoeuvrability flight mode.
- Create and Adaptive Rapid Reaction Autopilot Which Optimises with Missile Stabilization and control Parameters within the firing range.
- Development of Special Interaction Logic btween the KS-172 Explosive Fuse and Guidance system Which ( In addition to structural and config features) gurantees absolute immunity of the Warhead detonation system to Jamming

India, Russia negotiate partnership for a new missile
After their recent success in developing a supersonic cruise missile, Brahmos, India and Russia are negotiating a partnership for developing an ultra long range beyond-visual-range air to air missile.

The missile is at present being developed by the Russian guided weapons builder Novator and highly placed sources here indicated that India was involved in the project by way of investment and technical participation.The missile, designated so far as R-172, is being developed by the Russians to be integrated with the fifth generation aircraft, with New Delhi likely to be a customer for its export version.

The new missle, the sources said, was aimed at engaging high asset airborne targets such as AWACS aircraft, air to ground surveillance and mid air refullers, which normally operate from stand off distance during battles.

The proposed acquisition assumes significance in the wake of recent media reports that Pakistan was in the process of purchasing such a missile from western countries to counter India's moves to acquire Israeli AWACS and the recent induction of Uzbek IL-78 mid-air refuellers by the Indian Air Force.

Full Article >>

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

India, Russia negotiate partnership for a new missile
After their recent success in developing a supersonic cruise missile, Brahmos, India and Russia are negotiating a partnership for developing an ultra long range beyond-visual-range air to air missile.

The missile is at present being developed by the Russian guided weapons builder Novator and highly placed sources here indicated that India was involved in the project by way of investment and technical participation.The missile, designated so far as R-172, is being developed by the Russians to be integrated with the fifth generation aircraft, with New Delhi likely to be a customer for its export version.

The new missle, the sources said, was aimed at engaging high asset airborne targets such as AWACS aircraft, air to ground surveillance and mid air refullers, which normally operate from stand off distance during battles.

The proposed acquisition assumes significance in the wake of recent media reports that Pakistan was in the process of purchasing such a missile from western countries to counter India's moves to acquire Israeli AWACS and the recent induction of Uzbek IL-78 mid-air refuellers by the Indian Air Force.

Full Article >>

AWACS is another dying concept but there is a solution.

It is a small air to air missile that is IR guided, so no. It may be testing on submarines for the SAM protection role in the future.

Correct,
But out of interest i thought I might mention the AIM 9C sidewinder which admittedly was differant in that it was fitted with a semi active radar seeker head,and developed in to the AGM-122A Sidearm in 1981.

Basicly the narrow band seeker was replaced with a broad band one and a proximity fuse added et voila a small and capeable anti radar missile was created for use primarily by the USMC on their Cobras, it didn't last long though it was phased out when the AIM 9C stocks ran out(and not many of those were built ).

Also there is precidance going back through the years for IR guided sidewinders being developed in to AGM munitions the AGM-87 Focus was developed from the earlier AIM-9B variant, it was actually evaluated in combat for use against visable heat sources on the ground like vehicles in vietnam in 1969 and was supposedly quiet effective but was phased out shortly after, maybe because the IR seeker was not sensitive enough to be used in day time?

Im sure that with some tinkering with, the AIM 9-X could be used in an Air to ground situation though i dont think this is very likely attall and why would it be needed? but i thought id just mention some of the older variants that have been used in such a fashion.

good stuff on the history of sidewinder@

www.astronautix.com...

By early 2004 it became apparent that after successful joint-development of the BrahMos Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM), Indo-Russian scientists and defence manufacturers had again teamed up to resurrect the formidable Russian Novator R-172/Ks-172 (AAM-L) ultra-long-range BVRAAM (Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile) project that remained "temporarily frozen" because of paucity in funding. Russia's NPO Novator's proposed partner is slated to be India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). This critical Indo-Russian partnership will make available much needed Indian investment, in addition to technical assistance especially in fields of micro-electronics and software. In Indian Air Force (IAF) service this formidable anti-AWACS (Airborne Warning & Control System) BVRAAM is to be carried by Su-30MKI air dominance fighters. Their future target appears to be the proposed Hawkeye 2000 or ERIEYE AEW & C platforms proposed for induction by the Pakistan Air Force and the A-50 "Mainstay" AWACS platforms of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army-Air Force (PLA-AF). The R-172 may also provide the basic design to be developed into a "lightweight" anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon - at least the potential remains. The Su-30MKI in this case serves as the launch platform at high altitude while missile guidance is provided from ground stations.

Article >>

Hmmm...interesting info.

Python 5, followed by Python 4, are the most effective dogfight missiles in use today

www.youtube.com...

www.sci.fi...

Unmarked Chinese 747 rolls through SFO (San Francisco International airport)
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags

Eerie Second World War RAF fighter plane discovered in the Sahara
  Posted 14 days ago with 8 member flags

Stealth chopper based in Nevada
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

HIFiRE Scramjet Research Flight Will Advance Hypersonic Technology
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: