|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
History of AIM-9X
HJ
1/16/2005 1:41:35 AM
|
To answer your question on AIM-9X vs. AA-11, US puts its missiles through rigorous Operational Testing to wring out the "kinks". Some were indeed found with AIM-9X and they have been fixed. The AIM-9X operational requirement is based on countering and prevailing over the AA-11 and it does so handily with combination of JHMCS.
Now, let's get the history straight:
US didn't back out of AIM-132 ASRAAM. Following the much-heralded AIMVAL/ACEVAL testing at Nellis in 1976, it was clear that a new MRM and SRM were needed. The MRM solution became AMRAAM, but USN-USAF disagreement and competing SRM designs led to DoD/Congress directing another Sidewinder evolutionary improvement that became AIM-9M, an interim solution at best. With the USN-USAF impasse still unsolved, the US entered into an International Family of (Air-to-Air) Weapons MOU in 1980 with US taking responsibility for MRM development (AMRAAM) and a European coalition developing ASRAAM (UK and Germany). This is NOT the ASRAAM being built by BAE today, but based on same requirement, which became the crux of the issue shortly after ASRAAM development began.
The initial ASRAAM development had entered the program definition phase in 1984, but by 1987 there was discord between the two partners over key requirements issues. AA-11 had entered service by 1985 and by all accounts, was a generational leap ahead in off boresight and close-in kinematic maneuvering through TVC. Under the MOU, the UK had worked the airframe and the Germans had responsibility for the seeker. Germany wanted to emphasize attributes that would counter AA-11 maneuverability while the UK was satisfied with head-on velocity and range superiority. Further development was halted (there were also rumors of German technical and funding issues as well). With no ?ASRAAM? program underway at that point, the US (as well as Canada, Norway and Australia) then considered the MOU abrogated (as there was nothing to pull out of at that time) and began looking for other solutions.
When ASRAAM came to screeching halt, USN and USAF were still not cooperating and began separate programs; USN began developing AIM-9R (a China Lake design along with the BOA airframe improvement effort) while USAF had several seeker and airframe mod efforts going as well (AIM-9M+/Boxoffice). In aftermath of Desert Storm, JCS level direction (JROC) interceded in the interest of jointness and gave USN lead in developing a counter to AA-11 and improved IRCM (UK still had no seeker for their ASRAAM effort and it was presumed stillborn). Several alternatives were considered and AIM-9X (a mod to existing Sidewinder design) ultimately won. It was only after development of AIM-9X began that the UK was able to find a new seeker for the aborted ASRAAM development (a US Hughes design), BUT they DID NOT revise the original requirement as did the US and Germany (now with AA-11 in their possession as a result of reunification). The Germans had decided to go it alone with Canada and embarked on IRIS-T with as "their" ASRAAM. Only UK held onto the ASRAAM name resulting this confusion over the continuity of the ASRAAM program and whether anyone truly ?pulled out?.
Note: The US considered an ASRAAM P3I variant that was compliant with AIM-9X requirements and also tested ASRAAM in the US under a Foreign Cooperative Test (FCT).
Just trying to get history straight. Another note: France was also a signatory to FOW MOU and they decided to go their own way with MICA RF & IR when ASRAAM false-started.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
