Comparison by Spurts
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
Interesting implication that the ASRAAM hits Mach4+
"Spurts"
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Interesting implication that the ASRAAM hits Mach4+
True. Maybe the cooling is so good that aerodynamic heating of dome material is not a problem even at those speeds?
- Elite 4K
- Posts: 4474
- Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22
eloise wrote:
Mainly SAM fire control or search radar. There are AARGM-ER available but you can't carry as many AARGM-ER as Meteor and with a ramjet engine, Meteor can sustain high supersonic speed for longer period of time.
What basis are you using to suggest that Meteor is faster (or faster longer) than AARGM-ER? You do realize that AARGM-ER, not only out ranges Meteor by several hundred kilometers, but is a high supersonic weapon as well. It also packs a much bigger punch. SPEAR3 or some variation would be a better option, than using your AAMs, as ARMs.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3772
- Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12
hornetfinn wrote:sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Interesting implication that the ASRAAM hits Mach4+
True. Maybe the cooling is so good that aerodynamic heating of dome material is not a problem even at those speeds?
Python 4 + Python V used manufactured emerald glass as seeker dome to attain much higher velocities than seeker on the Sidewinders. Maybe they did that for AIM-132.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
madrat wrote:hornetfinn wrote:sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Interesting implication that the ASRAAM hits Mach4+
True. Maybe the cooling is so good that aerodynamic heating of dome material is not a problem even at those speeds?
Python 4 + Python V used manufactured emerald glass as seeker dome to attain much higher velocities than seeker on the Sidewinders. Maybe they did that for AIM-132.
They're upgrading AIM-9X dome material from Sapphire to Nano Composite Optical Ceramic.
From memory, it's supposed to be Lot 20 (FY2020) and up.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
marauder2048 wrote:madrat wrote:hornetfinn wrote:True. Maybe the cooling is so good that aerodynamic heating of dome material is not a problem even at those speeds?
Python 4 + Python V used manufactured emerald glass as seeker dome to attain much higher velocities than seeker on the Sidewinders. Maybe they did that for AIM-132.
They're upgrading AIM-9X dome material from Sapphire to Nano Composite Optical Ceramic.
From memory, it's supposed to be Lot 20 (FY2020) and up.
Very interesting, thank you. Here is interesting presentation about Nano-Composite Optical Ceramics:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527006.pdf
Looks like NCOC material combines the best qualities of previous materials used in IR domes but with better thermal shock resistance than any one of the other materials. Sapphire has been the best material previously, but this seems to significantly outperform it in all metrics.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
More detailed info about Nano-Composite Optical Ceramics properties:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ocomposite
Sounds pretty good results to me.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ocomposite
The strength of the nanocomposite at 21°C is twice as great as strengths achieved for its constituents
M:Y has ~80% infrared transmittance at 4–6 lm wavelengths, with five times less absorption than spinel and ten times less absorption than c-plane sapphire at 4.85 lm.
Sounds pretty good results to me.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5331
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
eloise wrote:Su-35 test launch R-37M a few days ago:
This missile is far more interesting than the new K-77 IMO, if not anywhere near as practical. 400KM range, flies at mach 6, 60kg warhead..... are the brochure figures. Wonder what the real world stats are?
I used to think the R-33 was big, but this monster actually dwarfs it. Has to cost a pretty penny, I wonder how many platforms they'll end up equipping with it. Supposedly Mig-31, SU-35, SU-30SM's and the Mig-35.
wrightwing wrote:What basis are you using to suggest that Meteor is faster (or faster longer) than AARGM-ER? You do realize that AARGM-ER, not only out ranges Meteor by several hundred kilometers, but is a high supersonic weapon as well. It also packs a much bigger punch. SPEAR3 or some variation would be a better option, than using your AAMs, as ARMs.
I think AARGM_ER has higher top speed and probably better acceleration. But Meteor can sustain high supersonic for longer period of time thanks to its ability to throttle back in cruise condition. Spurt has done some simulation and clearly Meteor is quite unrivaled at long range.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
All non-"Wiki" type info I found on the Meteor tells me that the ">100km" is vastly conservative. I don't see a purpose of an A-G Meteor vs the AARGM-ER for SEAD.
"Spurts"
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
eloise wrote:I think AARGM_ER has higher top speed and probably better acceleration. But Meteor can sustain high supersonic for longer period of time thanks to its ability to throttle back in cruise condition. Spurt has done some simulation and clearly Meteor is quite unrivaled at long range.
It really can't throttle-back since the gas generator is always burning and due to deposits from the gas generator
and the valve heating up it become less effective in regulating the burn rate.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
marauder2048 wrote:It really can't throttle-back since the gas generator is always burning and due to deposits from the gas generator
and the valve heating up it become less effective in regulating the burn rate.
Can you provide a source? Everything I have seen about the throttling implies a 10:1 throttle ability and that the air-breathing gives it 3X the effective ISP of normal rocket motors.
"Spurts"
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:marauder2048 wrote:It really can't throttle-back since the gas generator is always burning and due to deposits from the gas generator
and the valve heating up it become less effective in regulating the burn rate.
Can you provide a source? Everything I have seen about the throttling implies a 10:1 throttle ability and that the air-breathing gives it 3X the effective ISP of normal rocket motors.
Pat Hewitt's dissertation (*drool*) on GQM-163:
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/28928
You do see some wild maximum turn-down claims out there but I don't believe those to
be representative of steady-state capability.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests