| Author |
Message |
|
elp
|
Posted: Apr 02, 2007 - 09:21 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2850
|
AIM-132, this weapon was tested on an F-16 at Eglin. RAAF and RAF use it and it is in the plan for the RAF JSF-STOVL.
This page gives one a good overview of it's public consumption ability.
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Oct 16, 2008 - 4:00 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
parrothead
|
Posted: Apr 03, 2007 - 07:19 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 10, 2004
Posts: 3039
Status: Offline
|
Thanks for the info .
Now, which would you take - the ASRAAM or an AIM-9X ? |
_________________ No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Scorpion1alpha
|
Posted: Apr 03, 2007 - 06:41 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Oct 20, 2005
Posts: 772
Status: Offline
|
| I'm happy with either, thank you. But I'm biased for the 9X though. OK, I'll admit it...the Python 5 too. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Apr 03, 2007 - 07:27 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2850
|
|
parrothead wrote:
Thanks for the info  .
Now, which would you take - the ASRAAM or an AIM-9X ?
Heck if I know. Which can you get more for on E-Bay?  |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Tintin
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2007 - 05:58 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 28, 2006
Posts: 29
Status: Offline
|
| Perhaps not such a difficult choice. AIM-9X - 5inch motor, not much faster than a AIM-9M and a TVC pack that does nothing for you after the motor has burnt out. ASRAAM - 6.5inch motor, low drag, looks to me like it would get the first shot first kill that you need. Python 5 must have very high drag – just how many wings and fin can you fit on a missile?? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boman
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2007 - 06:18 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
IRIS-T for me  |
_________________ Best regards
Niels
|
|
|
|
 |
|
ViperDude
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2007 - 02:10 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 139
Status: Offline
|
I was the lead engineer on ASRAAM from 1993 to 1998 for the F-16 and I spent a lot of time at Eglin. Here is the a pic of me (In the Yellow hat, & now close shaved..lol), guy next to me was the FTE, the USAF guy was the weapons toad at Eglin, and then my British BAe buddies who worked the program.
This is the first ASRAAM (Instrumented) fired from an F-16.
Cheers,
ViperDude |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
115.31 KB |
| Viewed: |
4971 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2007 - 02:50 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2850
|
Very cool! Thanks for sharing.  |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
AegeanHawk
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2007 - 08:20 AM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 7
Status: Offline
|
|
Boman wrote:
IRIS-T for me
Same here |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
boff180
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2007 - 10:22 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Posts: 789
Status: Offline
|
Iris-T doesn't really "do it" for me, all it really is is a Aim-9 merged with an R-73
Between ASRAAM and 9X, ASRAAM every time, can pull a full 180 as it leaves the rail, 100% engagement envelope in relation to launch aircraft, loal, BVR capability. Couple it to the sensor suite on something like Typhoon or JSF (eg. capable of accurately tracking aircraft immediately behind it), no need for rearward pointing missiles, just fire it and the missile will go after the target itself pulling a 180 off the rail!
Then again they are built to two different doctrines....
9X = High terminal manouveurability.
ASRAAM = Awesome initial manouveurability, unrivalled speed, and good terminal manouveurability.
Andy |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Purplehaze
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2007 - 05:15 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 1206
Status: Offline
|
| Does anyone have cost figures for any of these? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
donk14N
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2007 - 06:41 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Nov 06, 2006
Posts: 65
Status: Offline
|
| Python 5 would eat both for lunch. But considering the Python 5 cost a heck of alot more, I guess it should be better. |
Last edited by donk14N on Oct 29, 2007 - 02:29 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
falconloader
|
Posted: Apr 20, 2007 - 03:09 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: May 26, 2004
Posts: 35
Location: azang
Status: Offline
|
| I've seen video of both missiles at work, supposedly Python 5 can make a 180% turn, but on their own website they show it on a grainy hud film shooting a low flying uav (wow) without any discernable changes in degrees of the shot. Then take a look at aim-9x video, I don't think there is any comparison. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Kaasjager.
|
Posted: Apr 20, 2007 - 09:56 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Posts: 210
Status: Offline
|
| Isn't the IRIS-T a much more radical upgrade over the AIM-9M than the AIM-9X? |
_________________ As a finishing touch God created the Dutch!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
donk14N
|
Posted: Apr 20, 2007 - 03:28 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Nov 06, 2006
Posts: 65
Status: Offline
|
| The Python 5 has the same maneuvering characteristics as it's predecessor, the Python 4. Where the difference is, is in the seeker. The Python 5's seeker is awesome. It has an IIR seeker, that can identify the type of aircraft. Unlike other IR missiles which go after engine exhaust heat (or other sources of heat from an all aspect missile), the Python seeker (after identifying the target) locks on to the most vulnerable areas (i.e. cockpit). It also does not depend on thrust vectoring to achieve it's super maneuverability (that is why it has 18 different control surfaces). It has a two stage motor, one for initial thrust and one for chase. There is so much more to this missile (than what I had time to type) it is sick. But again look at how much a Python 5 cost compared to the cost of an AIM-132 or an AIM-9x. I would hope that it would be a better missile. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|