Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

ACMIguy wrote:

"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."
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html

This is from the first post and I agree, until we have real kill data the rest is just speculation. And so far the Python leads the kill tally.

Well if you're use this logic in comparing these two systems, i.e. untill they have real kill data, comparison is just speculation and therefore irelevent, then perhaps we would be unwise to summise that the F22A is a more capable platform than the F15 familly because it has yet to achieve a kill? The fact that Python 5 has more kills reveales nothing on the systems capabilities, simply that the airforce using it has seen more combat. Making assumptions as long as they are logical and in line with available information is something we should not critisise or shy away from, after all that's how most of physiscs is done.

F-16.net Sponsor

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:

Python 5 should have the same advantages and disadvantages vs the AIM 132 than the 9x since it has similarities in design and doctrine. It would be safe to assume that its various control surfaces, TVC and 5inch motor give it much less range than the AIM 132, and AFAIK it does not have a 360 degree engagement envelope.

The Python 4 and 5 share a 160-mm (6.3-inch) rocket motor, affording it greater range than the AIM-9X - although less than the AIM-132. The Python 4 and 5 are likewise capable of "over the shoulder", 360-deg engagements, no less so than the AIM-9X or AIM-132.

I would suggest that everyone review the comments made by ACMIguy, made previously under this same thread. Every weapons analyst or test engineer that I have seen quoted - who has actually seen the Python 5 perform alongside the AIM-9X - has come away truly in awe regarding just how lethal the Python missile is. There's much more behind this than just missile range or theoretical seeker performance.

The Python 4 and 5 do not follow a traditional, heating-seeking missile pursuit trajectory. It instead follows what Rafael describes as a "type 2 engagement". To quote Jane's Air Launched Weapons,

Quote:

The missile flies out in a wider circle around the target before turning in on it. The timeline for a type two engagement is longer then that of a more direct point-to-point engagement, but it was felt to be the best way of achieving a positive kill.

To make this type of engagement possible, the Python 4 and 5 motor burns in a "shaped thrust profile":

Quote:

A high impulse fast launch accelerates the Python 4 to a maximum speed of M2, in a 4 second boost phase followed by a sustain phase. As it flies out the motor can idle to avoid overspeeding into an engagement corner, before accelerating to provide energy for the terminal phase.

The Python 5 IIR seeker also out-performs that of either the AIM-9X or ASRAAM, with a 320 × 240 focal plane array - compared to the 128 x 128 array used by AIM-9X and ASRAAM. As for countermeasure resistence, every manufacturer can make their own claims. Based on combat experience, however, I'd have to put my money on Rafael to get it right.

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:

As i see it the AIM 9x and AIM 132 are different aerodynamic doctrines for the same (or very similar) electronics package. . . . The '132 seems to be designed to get the first WVR shot off and therefore the first kill. . . . The 9x on the other hand, due to its impressive of the rail maneuverability (thanks to its weight and TVC) is designed to to defeat comperable systems in the close WVR fight.

In general, I would have to agree with this comparison. The ability to add off-the-rail agility was an afterthought for the ASRAAM, and not part of the original contract. For both the AIM-9X and Python 4/5, that agility goes to the heart of why these missiles were developed.

Yes, I am sure that the Aussies are delighted with their AIM-132s. It is a formidable weapon. It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the lethal potential of the Python 5 - as ACMIguy and others have alluded to.

Last edited by Spartan-120 on Dec 07, 2007 - 03:26 AM; edited 1 time in total

I would note that, based on youtube videos I've seen (composed of test footage from places like Eglin AFB), the AIM-9X has the P4/5 beat in terms of off-the-rail maneuverability, because unlike the Python's aerodynamic control approach, the SW II's Thrust Vectored rocket motor gives it its maximum control authority almost instantly, just as soon as the motor fires. But after that, their performance appears pretty well comparable, and more than sufficient to do the job.

tmofarrvl wrote:

The Python 4 and 5 share a 160-mm (6.3-inch) rocket motor, affording it greater range than the AIM-9X - although less than the AIM-132. The Python 4 and 5 are likewise capable of "over the shoulder", 360-deg engagements, no less so than the AIM-9X or AIM-132.

AFAIK AIM 9X does not have a 360 degree engagement envelope, its more like 280/90 degree. I thought (i am more than willing to stand corrected here) it was similar for Python 5, and therefore AIM 132 was the only system that could target and engage a threat directly behind the aircraft, hence the spherical engagement envelope.

Quote:

I would suggest that everyone review the comments made by ACMIguy, made previously under this same thread. Every weapons analyst or test engineer that I have seen quoted - who has actually seen the Python 5 perform alongside the AIM-9X - has come away truly in awe regarding just how lethal the Python missile is. There's much more behind this than just missile range or theoretical seeker performance...................................
...The Python 5 IIR seeker also out-performs that of either the AIM-9X or ASRAAM, with a 320 × 240 focal plane array - compared to the 128 x 128 array used by AIM-9X and ASRAAM. As for countermeasure resistance, every manufacturer can make their own claims. Based on combat experience, however, I'd have to put my money on Rafael to get it right.

I do not doubt the Python 5's lethality or capability. I think you missed the point i was making. The comparison between AIM 132 and Python 5 is not just between the individual systems capabilities. The Pythons focal plane array may indeed have a higher resolution and it may be a better aerodynamic performer. However the comparison is between the separate doctrines used in these systems, i.e. is it better to get the first shot off or have a more maneuverable missle for in closer? And due to the Pythons smaller motor, various drag inducing control surfaces and TVC, it is obviously of the latter train of thought. Therefore it has the same advantages and disadvantages vs the AIM 132 as the 9x.

Quote:

It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the lethal potential of the Python 5 - as ACMIguy and others have alluded to.

I'm not, Python is undoubtedly a formidable weapon. I also respect the experience of people who have used the system or seen it used. However that does not alter the point i was making. AIM 132 would still get the first shot over python 5, the same advantage it has over AIM 9x. At medium WVR range Python 5 would probably be more capable given it higher seeker resolution and control surfaces (however in reality you would be very lucky to escape from either so you would probably see a mutual kill). In close, the Pythons TVC would be a real advantage, allowing the missile to engage off broad-sight targets at very close range, were AIM 132 could not to the same extent. Very similar comparison to the 9x which is probably shares more similarities with Python than ASRAAM.

Anyway perhaps we are comparing these systems in the wrong way? When are they likely to go up against one another? Indeed this was not in their design parameters. Maybe a better comparison would be which system would effectively counter the R73 in terms of capability, reliability, IRCCM and affordability? In such a comparison the AIM 132 may indeed come out on top????

Question

Ozzy_Blizzard

I want to address two points, one is the question for the F-15 and the Harpoon missile. The F-15 is 1970's technology. The ones in the US have been upgraded to Mil Standards so they can use a number of weapons that previously it could not. The export version may or may not have a full upgrade.
The F-15 is a USAF product thus flying the Harpoon was never envisioned for this airframe. The selection of the F-18 rather than the F-15 was logical because it was designed from the start to fly the Harpoon and second it has the upgraded Mil Spc's needed to add weapons as I described before. I worked on some of the prototype upgrading so what I'm saying is not from some reporter, but first hand knowledge.

Now to the Python vs. AIM 132 issue. I have provided some information for the Python below that disputes some of the claims made against it. If your people are happy with the AIM 132, as it looks they are, then fine no problem with that.
But to say it is better than any other system without real world results is wrong. I like the AIM 9X, I like the Python a little better and I have no real opinion on the AIM 132.

"New technologies implemented in the Python 5 give it maneuvering and launching skills unimaginable just few years ago. Instead of talking about certain “killing hemisphere” we are talking about an ability to shoot any target at any angle, including backwards launch (!). This ability is possible by applying LOAL (lock on after launch) technology. In oppose to LOBL (lock on before launch), that is used in all short range air-to-air missiles (excluding the Python 5 of course) in LOAL mode the pilot can launch a missile without being locked on the target,"
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/ ... thon5.html

The missile can be launched from very short to beyond the visual range with greater probability of kill, excellent resistance to countermeasures, irrespective of evasive target manoeuvre or deployment of countermeasures.
http://defence-data.com/paris2003/pagep119.htm

ACMIguy wrote:

"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."
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html

Ooh that's rich. Thanks for posting that...

Apparently it's not so hard though to make meaningful comparisons on Super Hornet, JSF and Flankers on the basis of trivial performance specs though, eh?

Very Happy

A lot of things look good on paper.... Salute

Conan wrote:

ACMIguy wrote:

"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."
http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html

Ooh that's rich. Thanks for posting that...

Apparently it's not so hard though to make meaningful comparisons on Super Hornet, JSF and Flankers on the basis of trivial performance specs though, eh?

The difference is that missiles lack the man-in-the-loop. With an aircraft, we can all make comparisons with the caveat that we are "assuming that both pilots have similar experience and skills". You can't make that assumption with missile systems, because so much of their effectiveness is predicated on how the guidence system operates in practice.

When comparing missiles, its not merely a matter of what each system COULD do, it's much more a matter of what they WILL do when homing in on an opposing aircraft.

I have to agree with ACMIguy on this one. I've seen several quotes in the literature now, from US officials who have actually seen comparative test data, who rave about the capabilities of the Python. The AIM-9X is a great weapon. It's a lot cheaper than either the Python or the AIM-132, and its small enough to be carried internally by the F-22 and F-35. The Python, on the other hand, would require a major redesign of the missile launch mechanism to ever fit into the F-22. But I have no illusions about which is the better missile.

Likewise, the AIM-132 has some interesting capabilities - but it overlaps the mission performed by the AIM-120, as Ozzy_Blizzard has pointed out. To compete against the AIM-9X in US competition, BAe proposed the ASRAAM P3I, which would have added thrust vectoring. Without that addition, the AIM-132 is simply outmatched in the close-quarters dogfight that the AIM-9X and Python 4 and 5 excel in.

As Ozzy_Blizzard suggested, the two classes of missiles were built around "different aerodynamic doctrines".

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:

As for the integration being an "easy" software upgrade this is at odds with the RAAF's past experience with the Bug's AFAIK. The reason the 9x was procured with the super bugs was to avoid dealing with stand alone integration costs and risks. This is a serious consideration for the RAAF. IIRC one of the reason's the F/A 18F Block II was chosen instead of the F15E Block II (in addition to existing commonality, lower maintenance requirements and 30% cheaper acquisition cost) was the fact that it came with a complete weapons package. Harpoon would have had to integrated on the Eagle at the expense of the taxpayer, were super bug was ready to rock on the designated date with no extra work.

The F-15E will hang more weapons that a Super. Note that the Super is a spiral upgrade. USN only certifies weapons on it that they will actually use. Reason: Lack of money in the USN. The chart showing lots of weapons in front of a Super is interesting, however a lot of them aren't certified yet. Add to that with the funny toed out pylons there are clearance issue combinations with different load configs that are aren't allowed. Creativity is limited to what the current manuals have approved. Weapons certification has a long way to go. Most of it for lack of money and not lack of ability.

As for the F-15E. Laughing

It will carry all kinds of evil things. Example: It could hang and shoot HARM now in the non-HARM pod assist modes for USAF. Reason USAF doesn't do HARM on the F-15E is that there is only so much an F-15E unit can cram into the training schedule in a quarter and HARM was never a priority for that community. Interesting things like GBU-28 is on the list and ready to go if needed. Something Super will never see. The weight options on the jet give a lot of growth room for weapons. HARPOON and SLAM-ER have already been cleared for the K model. Then of course I hope you don't want to make a bomb load comparison, or range comparison. Laughing

Then of course the E can carry a lot with three bags and conformals and not worry about the left inboard drop tank blocking the view of the E/O pod ( hello Super ATFLIR Laughing

) Then there are a few other things. If it gets bad, an E can actually run away. Super? Fight in place or die. Then I hope you don't want to compare alert intercepts from brake release. Korea was demo'd with the fast packs ... off. The E/K is a complete animal with this for thrust v weight. Unlikely you will see this config in combat but for standing alert where fast packs aren't needed and range is short. ( Korea ) not such a bad option. Super does a few things better. Cost per operating hour. Although a ham sandwich is cheap to operate per hour too but I wouldn't want that in a combat force. And of course the Super's only real advantage: that it can fly off of a carrier.

Good point elp
"Reason USAF doesn't do HARM on the F-15E is that there is only so much an F-15E unit can cram into the training schedule in a quarter and HARM was never a priority for that community."

The E's came off the line ready for most anything, contractors for weapons systems will build to match A/C capabilities. After all they live by what they can sell and if you can't use the system without major modification then chances are your competitors will for less.
Besides the Harpoon is a Navy thing and the squids don't like others playing in their water.
But all this aircraft talk seems to get away from the AIM-132 question that this thread was about.

ELP & ACMIguy.....

I'm sure harpoon can be carried by F15E, as is seen on the K model. But the point is the integration would have to be funded by the government, and because Harpoon is our primary maritime strike weapon we would have no choice. Thats why we desided to buy AIM 9X with the super bug even though we have a perfectly good current gen WVRAAM in our inventory, to aviod the intergration costs. As an interum fighter both of those things would mean more cost, on top of the added 30%+ aquisition cost for the Strike Eagle Bk II. Whether or not intergration could be done, this was a major consideration for the governments choice of the SH, which is the point. Anyways this is the wrong thread for discussing F18F vs F15E for the RAAF, perhaps we could go to the right one to discuss it?

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:

ELP & ACMIguy.....

I'm sure harpoon can be carried by F15E, as is seen on the K model. But the point is the integration would have to be funded by the government, and because Harpoon is our primary maritime strike weapon we would have no choice. Thats why we desided to buy AIM 9X with the super bug even though we have a perfectly good current gen WVRAAM in our inventory, to aviod the intergration costs. As an interum fighter both of those things would mean more cost, on top of the added 30%+ aquisition cost for the Strike Eagle Bk II. Whether or not intergration could be done, this was a major consideration for the governments choice of the SH, which is the point. Anyways this is the wrong thread for discussing F18F vs F15E for the RAAF, perhaps we could go to the right one to discuss it?

Well, I'm not advocating F-15 for RAAF. However the press release from Defence on F-15E issues was more of a product of the south end of northbound cattle.

Quote:

But the point is the integration would have to be funded by the government, and because Harpoon is our primary maritime strike weapon we would have no choice.

SLAM-ER has already been safely cleared/fired for F-15K. So hardly a lot of work for Harpoon. Super is scheduled for a 2008 timeframe award for SLAM-ER/Harpoon. Maybe INO can update us on that.

Then you have to wonder what kind of airframe life you get out of expensive gold plated PGMs when you hang them on a Super compared to anything else:

....Due to an increased noise and vibration environment discovered under the wing of the E/F during developmental testing, a variety of stores and air-to-air missiles in particular required additional and more frequent inspections to help ensure acceptable reliability....

A very short video of a RAAF Hornet conducting an ASRAAM live fire is available, here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews ... Firing.mpg

77SQN fires into history
By FLTLT Lauretta Webster

Volume 49, No. 12, July 12, 2007

A world-first was accomplished by the Air Force after the first ‘in-service’ firings of ASRAAM cued by a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) took place.

The milestone was achieved by 77SQN in February and was the culmination of a massive team effort that began with the inception of Project Air 5400 (ASRAAM) and HUG Phase 2.2 (JHMCS), which gives the Air Force a proven high off-boresight air-to-air capability.

The JHMCS enables the F/A-18 to cue missiles at high off-boresight angles and the ASRAAM gives them the ability to use that cueing in close-in combat. The JHMCS/ASRAAM combination greatly increases the effectiveness and the lethalness of the F/A-18 in the visual combat arena.

CDRACG AIRCDRE Geoff Brown acknowledged the significance of the event.

“It’s an impressive development for the Air Force, and adds a considerable capability to our Hornet aircraft,” he said.

“A lot of effort has been put into making this capability a reality and I pass on my congratulations to all those involved. It’s a tremendous reflection of all the hard work.”

The ASRAAM shots were representative ‘in-service’ firings that were prepared by the squadron’s armament section and flown by 77SQN pilots.

One of the pilots, FLGOFF Beau Pitcher, said the experience was “fantastic”.

“It was great to be given the opportunity to fire a live ASRAAM against a manoeuvring target in a realistic fighting profile. The JHMCS/ASRAAM combination is an impressive capability to have,” he said.

The ASRAAMs were fired using combat-representative profiles at Kalkara drones from the Navy’s Target Unit at Jervis Bay in NSW.

Project Air 5400 procured the ASRAAM, with the missile being released for service in 2004.

The missile manufacturer, MBDA, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, has set-up a deep maintenance and software development facility at Edinburgh in South Australia to allow continued improvements to be made to missile software.

These successful firings were a result of the effective partnership that has evolved between the RAAF, DMO, MBDA and DSTO.

I'd still go with the Python 4-5 although it's not part of the comparison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF17SQ6UJ0g

Go to 0:48 seconds of that clip and you'll see why.