Comparison by Spurts

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 11:10

Additional data for Meteor and Asraam
ASRAAM.PNG

Meteor NEZ.PNG
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3583
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 15:36

I find it strange that ASRAAM is said to be about the same weight as AIM-9X and IRIS-T while being identical in length but quite a bit wider. All three should have pretty similar tech level and construction.

Anyway, I doubt ASRAAM is that much faster than other latest WVR missiles although it likely is one of the fastest and longest ranged one. MICA-IR likely has very similar performance levels or even better than ASRAAM.
Online

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3074
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Nov 2020, 17:47

They compare AIM-9X without midcourse correction and not the most relevant comparison.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Nov 2020, 00:31

garrya wrote:- The max turn down ratio is 12:1


Except they say "could be."


madrat wrote:They compare AIM-9X without midcourse correction and not the most relevant comparison.


But we've got MBDA marketing literature on ASRAAM now so that's cool.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Nov 2020, 10:41

marauder2048 wrote:Except they say "could be."

They said:
Experience gained with manufacturing and testing of the M1 std motor lead to evolutionary design improvement for the M2 std motor with regard to manufacturability, assembly and functionality, eg:
....
Characteristic of both the booster and the gas generator propellant could be further improved and the manufacturing process was refined and industrialized
- Gas generator turn down ratio could be extended beyond 12:1

Validation of the M2 development standard motor in ground test was finished by 2006. Boost and sustain operation and performance has been proven in numerous test

In short, the improvement of M2 motor over M1 standard was validated and proven in numerous test. Furthermore, they said the turn down ratio could be extended beyond 12:1 so taking the 12:1 value is already conservative.
Image

Furthermore, imho the very low minimum cruising speed of Mach 1.9 for flight condition indicate that the turn down ratio must be rather high
Image
Image

Moreover, the expansion of the valve reduce the flow area. Hence it actually reduce the fuel flow rate.
Image
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Nov 2020, 11:14

madrat wrote:They compare AIM-9X without midcourse correction and not the most relevant comparison.

AFAIK, ASRAAM doesn't have midcourse correction so they are comparing them purely on kinematic aspect.
hornetfinn wrote:I find it strange that ASRAAM is said to be about the same weight as AIM-9X and IRIS-T while being identical in length but quite a bit wider. All three should have pretty similar tech level and construction.

Anyway, I doubt ASRAAM is that much faster than other latest WVR missiles although it likely is one of the fastest and longest ranged one. MICA-IR likely has very similar performance levels or even better than ASRAAM.

Imho, that could be due to the TVC, both IRIS-T and AIM-9X have TVC system to improve agility, but that system cost space and weight while ASRAAM uses that space and weight for fuel. The lack of fin on ASRAAM reduce drag too
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3583
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Nov 2020, 13:04

garrya wrote:
madrat wrote:They compare AIM-9X without midcourse correction and not the most relevant comparison.

AFAIK, ASRAAM doesn't have midcourse correction so they are comparing them purely on kinematic aspect.


I think ASRAAM, IRIS-T and AIM-9X Block 2 all have midcourse correction through data link as they all have LOAL capability. Of course limited LOAL capability could be done even without data link.

garrya wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I find it strange that ASRAAM is said to be about the same weight as AIM-9X and IRIS-T while being identical in length but quite a bit wider. All three should have pretty similar tech level and construction.

Anyway, I doubt ASRAAM is that much faster than other latest WVR missiles although it likely is one of the fastest and longest ranged one. MICA-IR likely has very similar performance levels or even better than ASRAAM.

Imho, that could be due to the TVC, both IRIS-T and AIM-9X have TVC system to improve agility, but that system cost space and weight while ASRAAM uses that space and weight for fuel. The lack of fin on ASRAAM reduce drag too


That would definitely make sense as lack of TVC and fins are the only big difference between ASRAAM and the other two. But still for example IRIS-T is said to have 25 km range and Mach 3 speed. For ASRAAM it's >25km and Mach 3+. I can see ASRAAM having quite a bit better range than the other two but I doubt it's that much faster due to aerodynamical heating without protective nosecone. Maybe they compare it to say AIM-9M in that first chart?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3840
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post17 Nov 2020, 16:46

hornetfinn wrote:


That would definitely make sense as lack of TVC and fins are the only big difference between ASRAAM and the other two. But still for example IRIS-T is said to have 25 km range and Mach 3 speed. For ASRAAM it's >25km and Mach 3+. I can see ASRAAM having quite a bit better range than the other two but I doubt it's that much faster due to aerodynamical heating without protective nosecone. Maybe they compare it to say AIM-9M in that first chart?

It'd have to be the AIM-9M that they were comparing to. The AIM-9X Block 2+ is easily a >25km missile, too.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post17 Nov 2020, 18:45

hornetfinn wrote:That would definitely make sense as lack of TVC and fins are the only big difference between ASRAAM and the other two. But still for example IRIS-T is said to have 25 km range and Mach 3 speed. For ASRAAM it's >25km and Mach 3+. I can see ASRAAM having quite a bit better range than the other two but I doubt it's that much faster due to aerodynamical heating without protective nosecone. Maybe they compare it to say AIM-9M in that first chart?

wrightwing wrote:It'd have to be the AIM-9M that they were comparing to. The AIM-9X Block 2+ is easily a >25km missile, too.

AIM-9X has longer range than AIM-9M because it has less drag. But the two missiles share the same MK36 rocket motor
MK36 motor weight 99 lbs loaded and 39 lbs empty, so the propellant weight is 60 lbs (30 kg)
AIM-9X is 85.3 kg
ASRAAM is 88 kg
AIM-9X sub systen.PNG
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5143
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 04:47

Hey guys, I need your help with some research. I am finding conflicting evidence of the use of AARGM-ER on the Super Hornet. I am seeing that it was designed for external carry, and was flight tested on SHornets, but that it is only planned for use on the F-35. Can anyone find info on a PLAN to use them on the SHornet? I'm conflicted over what to use for the SHornet between AARGM and AARGM-ER based on planned procurement.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 07:04

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Hey guys, I need your help with some research. I am finding conflicting evidence of the use of AARGM-ER on the Super Hornet. I am seeing that it was designed for external carry, and was flight tested on SHornets, but that it is only planned for use on the F-35.


Where did you get that impression? The threshold aircraft was and is the Growler.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5143
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 13:37

marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Hey guys, I need your help with some research. I am finding conflicting evidence of the use of AARGM-ER on the Super Hornet. I am seeing that it was designed for external carry, and was flight tested on SHornets, but that it is only planned for use on the F-35.


Where did you get that impression? The threshold aircraft was and is the Growler.

Sorry for the confusion. In the context of my comparison I am only looking at the F/A-18E Blk III Super Hornet, as such Growler isn't a factor. I found an article this morning that cleared it up, stating that the weapon will IOC on F/A-18E-G with followup integration on F-35A/C internal carry a few years later.

The source I saw about AGM-88G only being for F-35, when I go back and look at it with fresh eyes, was from a USMC briefing. The briefing only discusses F-35B/C and AARGM-ER, which of course it would since the USMC doesn't fly F/A-18E-G or F-35A. So that was a context clue I missed the first time around.

Thanks for taking the time to reply marauder.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5143
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 18:49

AFAIK Rocket powered missiles simply go. They burn at a fixed rate for a fixed time and the speed they achieve is dependent on the launch conditions and engagement geometry.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 20:12

garrya wrote:Moreover, the expansion of the valve reduce the flow area. Hence it actually reduce the fuel flow rate.


Except it's an inverse relationship between throat area and fuel flow rates.
The reduction in area due to valve expansion/deposits will mean that *any* valve position will be
increasing fuel flow rates relative to an ideal valve.

Which is why they only say could for the TDR. And a rig that can test for Mach 1.9 may only indicate
a desire to reduce ramjet takeover speed by increasing the oxidizer content on the gas generator.

That's quite desirable for a short range shot.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Dec 2020, 20:44

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Sorry for the confusion. In the context of my comparison I am only looking at the F/A-18E Blk III Super Hornet, as such Growler isn't a factor.


I'm curious at to why. The Blk III Vanilla is not likely to carry AARGM-ER much.
It was really designed around internal carriage on the F-35 and being accommodated
next to NGJ on the Growler.
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests