military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (02/07/91)
From: "P. Hawthorne" <uunet.UU.NET!reed!orpheus> I read that AMRAAM was at a severe disadvantage when it's European sister was delayed indefinitely. It's a crying shame too. If the one in the simulators are like the ones on the drawing boards, it'd be a Godsend. AMRAAM is to Sidewinder what a rifle is to a dagger. When I heard it was in development, I was not surprised at all. I hope it makes it. orpheus@reed
adam@ste.dyn.bae.co.uk (Adam Curtin) (02/13/91)
From: Adam Curtin <adam@ste.dyn.bae.co.uk> [ Note to the moderator: In this article I quote without permission from Aerospace America. I understand that limited quoting is allowed under "fair use" laws. I quote perhaps 20% of the article. Please trim this if it you consider it excessive. ] >I read that AMRAAM was at a severe disadvantage when it's European sister >was delayed indefinitely. It's a crying shame too. If the one in the >simulators are like the ones on the drawing boards, it'd be a Godsend. Do your targets in the simulators carry ARMs? >AMRAAM is to Sidewinder what a rifle is to a dagger. When I heard it >was in development, I was not surprised at all. I hope it makes it. That's a point of view which many technophiles share. However, the reality of radar warfare is somewhat different. An article by Jeffrey L Ethell in the Jan 1990 edition of Aerospace America reports the pitfalls and dubious decisions in development of AMRAAM, concentrating on a study by Air Force Col. James Burton of the AMRAAM project office. Burton ... "...studied all 407 known missile kills made in the air since 1958 (except for the 1967 Middle East war and Pakistan's 1971 clash with India), focussing hard on the 2,014 missile firings made during the Vietnam War and the 1973 and 1982 Middle East skirmishes." "...Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at. The ancient Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%." "In Southeast Asia, Sparrow had such a poor reputation that pilots routinely ripple-fired their Sparrows, firing off two or more in a row rather than taking a chance on a single shot. Even though few fighters came to Vietnam equipped with guns, they had a better kill rating than Sparrow-equipped fighters." "To the horror of those he briefed, Burton told them he found only four BVR kills in all the wars he covered. What is more, each of the four (two by Israel, two by F-4s in Vietnam) was carefully staged outside the confusion of combat to prove BVR's combat worthiness ... According to Burton, the only reason Israel went after its two BVR kills was strong pressure from the US to establish BVR doctrine." In air combat tests, one of those responsible for developing AMRAAM in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Charles E Myers, ... "...suggested giving AMRAAM's proposed BVR parameters to Blue Force and ARMs to Red Force ... the idea was struck down by the AMRAAM office. Clearly, the new rules might have pointed up radar's inherent weakness: A simple, inexpensive missile like ARM can home in on a radar and kill in an instant." "In 1984, Burton managed to have the idea tested in McDonnell Douglas' differential maneuvering simulators. The results were devastating. Over and over, ARM-equipped fighters shot down AMRAAM aircraft and missiles. The results wereturned over to the AMRAAM office, which invalidated them and threw out the exercise." The problem is the use of radar - ARM homes in perfectly on an illuminating radar, whether in the missile as in AMRAAM or Pheonix, or in the aircraft as with semi-active missiles such as Sparrow or Sky Flash. "In 1969, the DOD tried to test an air-to-air ARM developed from the Sparrow airframe under the project name Brazo. At modest cost, three test firings destroyed three target drones. [Defense Dept. analyst Thomas Amlie says] the program was cancelled when it could be interpreted as eliminating large radar fighters such as the F-14 and F-15, since the tests proved you could not use a radar fighter in combat when up against ARMs." Ethell concludes ... "... a growing number of soldiers and analysts are asking tough questions about the future of radar warfare. ``We cannot go around radiating signals,'' says Amlie. ``The French sell a missile to the entire Third World that will hit an Aegis every time. We are building a peacetime military that will never be effective in combat.''" Perhaps it is fortunate that we are currently pitted against an ineffective and primitive air force, where the majority of allied losses appear to have been caused by AAA. -- /home/research/adam/.signature: No such file or directory
orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne) (02/14/91)
From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne) orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne) writes: . I read that AMRAAM was at a severe disadvantage when it's European sister . was delayed indefinitely. It's a crying shame too. If the one in the . simulators are like the ones on the drawing boards, it'd be a Godsend. adam@ste.dyn.bae.co.uk (Adam Curtin) writes: . Do your targets in the simulators carry ARMs? Nope. It's unfortunate, at least in the simulator I have, that the majority of attention is focused on the systems of the aircraft you occupy rather than those that you are going to contend with. They probably bear little resemblance, after all. Not a big surprise, I hasten to admit. If they did, they would be very impressive indeed. In the simulator, the long range of the AMRAAM permits one to win an engagement early, evade it entirely, or at least gain a speed advantage beforehand. If you decide to evade the engagement, the best time is while the target tries to evade the missile. Plus, it usually hits anyway. Also, by the time the target is within Sidewinder range, it is a trick to get a lock at high speeds and close range. It leaves the impression that Sidewinder is clumsy, at least against fast targets. Major disclaimer here, these observations come from a simulator. Not even a military flight simulator, more of an educated guess, really. From your post, I gather that the increased range of AMRAAM is balanced by a high radar profile that can be exploited by radar homing missiles, and that missile warfare has a dubious proven record at best. Each of these are points well taken, and further substantiated by the effectiveness of HARM. As you might have said yourself, radar works both ways. While I agree that depending on missiles is a dangerous proposition, I think it is worth developing any alternative to guns for modern fighters. I find it ironic that the chief point in favor of AMRAAM, the increase in range provided by radar, is also the chief point of vulnerability. I am alarmed to see that unfavorable test results are thrown out when they ought to be seized upon as key data for research on countering the threat posed by similar technology in hostile hands. orpheus@reed ''Try not to alarm the participants with the image of bright young men with their mathematical models and elaborate diagrams...''
sdragoo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P Dragoo) (04/09/91)
From: sdragoo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P Dragoo) Can someone explain to me why the DoD thought that designing AMRAAM was such a great idea? I understand the need for a fully active radar-guided AAM, but please! Putting it in a missile smaller than Sparrow is ridiculous. If they weren't able to do it in an 8inch diameter missile, how are they gonna do it in a 7inch diameter missile? Better to try to update a Sparrow, or better yet, build one a little larger--say, 10inches in diameter. Even better, update the Phoenix so that you don't need the AWG-9 system, and make it cheaper. Oh--gee, I forgot. This is the US military we're talking about here. They don't care if it really works, as long as it's something new and expensive. Personally, I think a longer range IR seeker would do the job. Think about it. With the wonders they're doing now with the 5inchers in Sidewinders, think of what they could do with an 8incher in a Sparrow-type. Well, netters? What do you think? [ I'd suggest Edward Luttwak's _The Pentagon and the Art of War_ for an insight into why things like AMRAAM happen, although I don't recall if he discusses it directly. -- CDR]
gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (04/10/91)
From: gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <1991Apr10.024102.20311@amd.com> sdragoo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P Dragoo) writes: >Can someone explain to me why the DoD thought that designing AMRAAM was such >a great idea? I understand the need for a fully active radar-guided AAM, >but please! Putting it in a missile smaller than Sparrow is ridiculous. If >they weren't able to do it in an 8inch diameter missile, how are they gonna do >it in a 7inch diameter missile? Better to try to update a Sparrow, or There were a whole bunch of good reasons. The number one reason was that the Sparrow was late 1950's technology. Since then, we've gotten just a bit better at building small radar systems. In fact, the 7" diameter AMRAAM seeker is _better_ than the Sparrow even if fired in semi-active only mode (a la Sparrow). Going to the smaller missile increased range (same power motor, roughtly, but about 25% lighter missile). Just look at computer technology's advances since then...or even police radar guns ( 8-) or civilian maritime radar. You can get a sub-$1000 radar set today that weighs less than 100 lbs and is as good as million-dollar 1-ton fifties radar sets. Advancing technology lets you get equal or better performance out of a smaller package. >Personally, I think a longer range IR seeker would do the job. Think about it. >With the wonders they're doing now with the 5inchers in Sidewinders, think of >what they could do with an 8incher in a Sparrow-type. IR is attenuated pretty badly with range. Besides, you'd have to go to a telescope of some sort, which would cut down the field of view of the seeker and then cause more misses in the terminal phase of flight... IR is great inside of 12 miles (with current best systems). Outside that, use radar. Besides which, it's a _whole lot easier_ to decrease the IR signature of an aircraft than the radar signature... And if all your missiles are IR only homing, then the baddies don't have to fool with Radar-Absorbent-Material etc. in their next generation fighters... [Speaking of decreasing signatures... :-) --CDR] -- George William Herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu gwh@gnu.ai.mit.edu
scott@bigbang.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (04/10/91)
From: scott@bigbang.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) sdragoo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P Dragoo) writes: > Can someone explain to me why the DoD thought that designing AMRAAM was such > a great idea? > Putting it in a missile smaller than Sparrow is ridiculous. Sparrows weigh in at 500lbs a piece. Pilots can actually feel that weight on the airplane when they are maneuvering ... especially if the Sparrow is on the outer wing hardpoints where it contributes significantly to rotational intertia (degrades roll-rate) and increases drag. The cross-sectional area is especially significant when the aircraft is flying at trans-sonic speed. > If they weren't able to do it in an 8inch diameter missile, how are they > gonna do it in a 7inch diameter missile? You must certainly be aware of the fact that significant technological gains have been made since the original development of the Sparrow (something like 20 to 25 years ago)?! Why would it not be more feasible now to decrease the size of a missile using more modern technology? I realize that the military is somewhat behind current private sector technology, but still ... > Better to try to update a Sparrow, Update the Sparrow? It's already been updated. It still only has an effective range of 10nm or so. Basically, to fulfill the Amraam requirements, it needs a new seeker and a new engine. The original Sparrow is heavy, smokey, sluggish, short-ranged, inaccurate, susceptible to countermeasures, and is totally incapable of tracking targets on it's own. Really, it's a good weapon, don't get me wrong ;^) It's just that the Amraam is supposed to be a LOT better. To meet the Amraam requirements, everything would need to be redesigned. Essentially, that means we need to start from scratch. You can't just take the existing Sparrow design and "tweak" it a little to give it a terminal active homing seeker or give it a 4-fold increase in it's effective range! > or better yet, build one a little larger--say, 10inches in diameter. Bigger, therefore better? ... No way! ... I already attempted to address the weight issue. > Even better, > update the Phoenix so that you don't need the AWG-9 system, and make it > cheaper. Outrageous, the Phoenix is so heavy a Tomcat can't even land with a full load of them. How do you propose to make it cheaper by doing more work on it so it can use a variety of weaker fire-control systems? You mean, start from a $1,000,000 missile and turn it into a similarly capable $100,000 missile?! (I know, ... Amraam is up there around $700 to $900k each, but it was SUPPOSED to be $100k) Also, remember that this missile has got to be a standard ... Ideally, it is supposed to be used on just about any platform with radar (NATO included). I think there are even plans for an unmanned AWACS drone that is supposed to be able to carry 10+ Amraams. Can you imagine it with a cheapo Phoenix derivative? > They don't care if it really works, as long as it's something new and > expensive. Of course, THEY don't care (we ALWAYS do). THEY don't give a damn about effectiveness ... all THEY want to do is throw away lots of money. > Personally, I think a longer range IR seeker would do the job. I would think that the Sidewinder is already pretty sensitive. However, someone has already speculated about a terminal active IR guidance system with command updates from the launching platform. I think this is the most promissing way of improving the effective range of IR missiles. Unfortunately, this would require a significant new fire-control upgrade on a lot of existing platforms. -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/10/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: sdragoo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P Dragoo) >Can someone explain to me why the DoD thought that designing AMRAAM was such >a great idea? I understand the need for a fully active radar-guided AAM, >but please! Putting it in a missile smaller than Sparrow is ridiculous... >... build one a little larger--say, 10inches in diameter... The reason for being Sparrow-compatible is that an awful lot of aircraft have been designed around Sparrow, starting with the Phantom and working up to modern examples like the F-18 and the Tornado F.3. If you want to be able to use your new Wundermissile with existing aircraft, there is much to be said for something that will fit in a Sparrow-sized "pocket". The reason for making the thing a bit smaller than Sparrow, on the other hand, was more political: it had to be able to fly on the F-16, which is a bit small for Sparrow. (Sparrows *have* been flown on the F-16, experimentally, but a slightly lighter missile is easier. Besides, the USAF wanted AMRAAM, so officially it Isn't Possible to fly Sparrows on the F-16...) >update the Phoenix so that you don't need the AWG-9 system, and make it >cheaper... Fly a Navy missile on a USAF aircraft? Surely you jest. :-) (We won't mention that both Sparrow and Sidewinder were originally from the Navy...!) In any case, the range of applications for a Sparrow-sized missile is a lot larger than that for Phoenix. Phoenix is too big and heavy to be carried in substantial numbers on most current fighters. Even the F-14 carries six of them only as an "overload" condition. (The much-maligned, defunct, F-111B was the only US interceptor to date that really could pack six of them without compromising performance.) -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
js43+@andrew.cmu.edu (James William Stepanek) (04/12/91)
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu> The reason for making the missile in the smaller diameter is to enable it to be mounted on more platforms. The AMRAAM can be mounted on the F-16 but the sparrow can't. I also would speculate that pumping extra range out of IR seekers would be rather difficult. I imagine that this has to do with the wavelength of the electro-magnetic radiation being used (this is not my field I am just guessing) so that maybe air absorbs IR wavelengths faster that Radio wavelengths and therefore pumping out more range using IR becomes a no win situation. James Stepanek
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (04/17/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1991Apr11.033504.4302@amd.com>, scott@bigbang.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes; > [...] , the Phoenix is so heavy a Tomcat can't even land with a full > load of them. That is incorrect. Weight is not the problem, but rather clearance of the missiles from the carrier deck. The landing gear of the Tomcat compress a considerable distance on landing. Phoenix missiles mounted on the fuse bottom stations would be crushed on landing, thus damaging the missiles, the aircraft, and the carrier deck. This problem is detailed in the F-14 NATOP manual. [If anyone wishes to refute, include references please, no "I once heard that..." --CDR] Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com