AIM-152 AAAM Phoenix replacement projects

iwantmoresources said:
SARH only makes sense when you’re fighting bombers that don’t have fighter escorts that can fire back at you, and for everything else, it’s a liability.
Click to expand...
Also it should be obvious that an AMRAAM type guidance system would have been less of a hassle. Plus the restartable motor of the GDW with its two stages and TVC would probably have a similar probability of kill while being lighter and the launch aircraft being able to carry more of them compared to the Hughes Raytheon.
 
Active radar guidance is one of the reasons I think the Hughes design was better suited for the primary role (intercepting bombers and missile carriers) of the AAAM. Some of the features on the GD design were still highly promising, the dual-pulse solid rocket motor in particular should have been carried over to the AMRAAM program ages ago.

I know someone on this board had explained the rationale of missiles being carried and launched from a canister as the GD design was, but I am having trouble finding that post. I know many other missile prototypes were tested in canister-launched configurations, including the AIM-95.
 
Reading back through this thread, I'm not sure if SARH is a totally accurate description of the GD missile's guidance mode.

For example:

A General Dynamics official said his team's AAAM will use a pulsed radar that will cue the missile and tell it when the next pulse and data burst will be. The information is coded, and will be pulsed at many times per second in the terminal phase, on a different frequency each pulse to survive ECM. The missile is updated through the targeting pod, which can talk to the missile and track targets from the front or back, making it a "launch and maneuver" weapon, the company official said. In terminal phase, the radar radome is jettisoned to expose a hemispherical IR seeker.
Click to expand...

That sounds much more like the AEGIS midcourse guidance scheme, where the missile gets guidance cues from the external radar, which in this case is essentially doubling as an in-band datalink. Each pulse seems to function as both an monopulse illumination signal and a tracking data update. In this case, the quasi-SARH guidance may be significantly more ECM-proof, because it can change signal characteristics pulse to pulse, and is giving the missile a target location update even if the actual return form the target is swamped by jamming.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I know someone on this board had explained the rationale of missiles being carried and launched from a canister as the GD design was, but I am having trouble finding that post. I know many other missile prototypes were tested in canister-launched configurations, including the AIM-95.
Click to expand...
Better reliability, potentially reduced drag and RCS?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The Zaslon radar was able to support 4 R-33s against widely separated targets using semi-active homing at once. With 1970s Soviet technology passive phased array. Using a phased array was the key though, a mechanically scanned planar array would not be able to illuminate many targets at once. AWG-9 could get Phoenix to terminal seeker range, but it needed its own radar to complete the engagement.
Click to expand...
m.doc88.com

an／apg-79／79(v)有源电扫阵列火控雷达

m.doc88.com

I found this Chinese translation of a paper on APG-79. Makes an interesting claim that it was designed for both the Super Hornet AND the Tomcat.
 
TomS said:
That sounds much more like the AEGIS midcourse guidance scheme, where the missile gets guidance cues from the external radar, which in this case is essentially doubling as an in-band datalink. Each pulse seems to function as both an monopulse illumination signal and a tracking data update. In this case, the quasi-SARH guidance may be significantly more ECM-proof, because it can change signal characteristics pulse to pulse, and is giving the missile a target location update even if the actual return form the target is swamped by jamming.
Click to expand...
But does it really need the radar seeker then except for aerodynamics when you can just give the missile updates on the target via a rear facing receiver? Sorry if I'm being stupid.
 
I think you are exactly correct that the guidance system is modelled on the Aegis / Standard SM-2. Don't forget Standard was also a Convair (General Dynamics) Pomona product.

Combining rear and front antennas makes sense for various reasons. The front seeker can use monopulse to measure accurate single-pulse range and direction for starters. SARH "fixes" will be more accurate than INS + updates from a distant host aircraft. The host aircraft is moving, the target is moving, the missile is moving... some hard maths involved. SARH signal is much simpler and accurate - target is this way, moving in this direction.
 
iwantmoresources said:
But does it really need the radar seeker then except for aerodynamics when you can just give the missile updates on the target via a rear facing receiver? Sorry if I'm being stupid.
Click to expand...
It sounds like they were using both for redundancy. "Launcher says target is here, missile seeker agrees. Launcher says target is here, missile seeker is jammed. Launcher says target is here, missile seeker says it's over here, splitting the difference."

Remember, this was intended to be going after the Naval Aviation Tu16s and Tu22Ms, which would be packing some of the heaviest jammer capabilities outside of a dedicated craft like an EA6B. Able to pump out enough static to black out New York City.

Edited to correct aircraft types.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
It sounds like they were using both for redundancy. "Launcher says target is here, missile seeker agrees. Launcher says target is here, missile seeker is jammed. Launcher says target is here, missile seeker says it's over here, splitting the difference."

Remember, this was intended to be going after the Naval Aviation Tu160s, which would be packing some of the heaviest jammer capabilities outside of a dedicated craft like an EA6B. Able to pump out enough static to black out New York City.
Click to expand...
In that context, it does make sense. Thanks for explaining.

Edit: could an IR seeker in the terminal guidance phase circumvent said jamming entirely?
 
Last edited:
iwantmoresources said:
Edit: could an IR seeker in the terminal guidance phase circumvent said jamming entirely?
Click to expand...
Still would have to deal with flares and any decoys (equivalent to ADM-20 Quail) they might field, and IIRC they'd pop both chaff and flares at the same time.

Nothing is countermeasure proof. Just more or less resistant.
 
iwantmoresources said:
In that context, it does make sense. Thanks for explaining.

Edit: could an IR seeker in the terminal guidance phase circumvent said jamming entirely?
Click to expand...
I guess it should be expected the Tu-160/22M would drop flares and chaff like there is no tomorrow, but having additional seeker would still help to solve some of the issues
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember, this was intended to be going after the Naval Aviation Tu16s and Tu22Ms, which would be packing some of the heaviest jammer capabilities outside of a dedicated craft like an EA6B. Able to pump out enough static to black out New York City.
Click to expand...
Even then, there were dedicated ECM squadrons in Soviet Naval Aviation. A full divisional-strength attack on a carrier group would be very demanding.
SK2 said:
I guess it should be expected the Tu-160/22M would drop flares and chaff like there is no tomorrow, but having additional seeker would still help to solve some of the issues
Click to expand...
Dual seekers force the enemy to deploy much more sophisticated countermeasures. Modern guidance logic is quite capable of discerning that the target did not (a) suddenly stop and massively increase its RCS, or (b) decide to make a 1g dive, making simple chaff and flares ineffective. There's a reason towed decoys have become a thing!
 
F-14D said:
It would not fit into the F-22's bay, apparently, although word is it would fit into the F-23's
Click to expand...
How so? The GDW design had an 8 inch maximum diameter, and the fins were just 5.5 inches, so the maximum diameter with fins included equals 11 inches, compared to the AIM-120Cs 7 inch body plus 18 inch fins (26 in max diameter). The AMRAAM-C is also 3660 mm long, compared to the planned length of 3607 mm for the GDW AAAM. So I don’t see how it would not fit into the bay. Or were you talking about the Hughes/Raytheon design?

Sources


www.af.mil

AIM-120 AMRAAM

The AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) is a new generation air-to-air missile. It has an all-weather, beyond-visual-range capability and is scheduled to be operational beyond
www.af.mil


AAAM.png
 
Last edited:
iwantmoresources said:
How so? The GDW design had an 8 inch maximum diameter, and the fins were just 5.5 inches, so the maximum diameter with fins included equals 11 inches, compared to the AIM-120Cs 7 inch body plus 18 inch fins (26 in max diameter). The AMRAAM-C is also 3660 mm long, compared to the planned length of 3607 mm for the GDW AAAM. So I don’t see how it would not fit into the bay. Or were you talking about the Hughes/Raytheon design?

Sources


www.af.mil

AIM-120 AMRAAM

The AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) is a new generation air-to-air missile. It has an all-weather, beyond-visual-range capability and is scheduled to be operational beyond
www.af.mil


View attachment 727668
Click to expand...
Fins were folding.

AIM-152cc.jpg

 
IMO it was extremely shortsighted that the AAAM was cancelled and no official in the USN and DoD are deeply regretting that decision. However the project could be resurrected by being based on the AMRAAM.
 
NMaude said:
IMO it was extremely shortsighted that the AAAM was cancelled and no official in the USN and DoD are deeply regretting that decision. However the project could be resurrected by being based on the AMRAAM.
Click to expand...
It was, but the Soviet Union imploded so fast that I think everyone was kinda stunned.

If the USSR had stuck around as a larger entity for longer (late 1990s or early 2000s), I suspect that the AAAM would have been developed. Which may have lead to upgraded radars for F15s and maybe F22s to carry the beasts as well. I think the GDW design would likely have taken the competition, it's really hard to beat 12-15 long range missiles per Tomcat!
 
Scott Kenny said:
It was, but the Soviet Union imploded so fast that I think everyone was kinda stunned.

If the USSR had stuck around as a larger entity for longer (late 1990s or early 2000s), I suspect that the AAAM would have been developed. Which may have lead to upgraded radars for F15s and maybe F22s to carry the beasts as well. I think the GDW design would likely have taken the competition, it's really hard to beat 12-15 long range missiles per Tomcat!
Click to expand...
If the USSR had stuck around longer, the AAAM would probably have prototypes built and tested. The rapid collapse of the USSR in our timeline caused the whole “Peace Dividend” tornado, which swept up a lot of forward thinking defense projects (AAAM) or stalled existing ones like the B-2/ATF.

Anyway, in my opinion, the choice could be either one. The HR design offered proven propulsion methods (ramjet) and relative simplicity, while the GDW design offered significantly more advantageous form factor (as small as a sparrow without fins), and could be the base for a significant leapfrog in AAM technology with its thrust vectoring and dual pulse motor.

I personally prefer the GDW design, because the form factor could have made it compatible with a lot more platforms, especially those with internal bays and in larger numbers. The AMRAAM was a good missile when introduced, but it was not really a BVR capable missile in the A and B versions. It also relies on coasting to its target at longer range, whereas the GDW AAAM had that second stage that would start near the target for maximum energy and low escape chance. IR terminal homing also would not set off the targets RWR, so there was less warning compared to terminal radar homing. The front end of a GDW missile could also be a dogfight missile if the radar seeker was removed, or if desired, could function as a long range IR missile similar to the R-27T/ET.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom