Register here

Author Topic: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs  (Read 33482 times)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« on: December 28, 2005, 04:35:10 pm »
AIM-95 Agile started out in 1968 as a project of the Naval Weapons Centre, China Lake to explore new technologies for short range, manouvreable AAMs. The US Navy requirement asked for greater agility, shorter minimum range, and greater off-boresight capability. Under the "QuickTurn" program, in 1970 a China Lake test TVC (thrust vectoring control) system demonstrated 55g turns and 118 deg AOA (angle of attack) capability. The USAF AIM-82 project was shelved due to the progress of the Agile program.

In 1973 Hughes were given responsibility for guidance, and Thiokol the propulsion system. The principal guidance system was to be IR, but an EO seeker was also tested and an passive radar seeker was planned. Millions of simulated firings were made, and missiles and seekers were tested, but the program was cancelled in 1975 on cost grounds.

Sources


« Last Edit: March 29, 2006, 10:40:05 pm by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2006, 10:41:35 pm »
Here is the only possible picture of AIM-82 I've found

Source: Aerofax F-15 and Warbirdtech F=15, both by Dennis R Jenkins

[image later removed - Overscan]
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 07:30:47 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1139
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2006, 10:47:04 pm »
Here's the AIM-95 entry in my favorite online missile database:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-95.html

And the AIM-82 entry:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-82.html

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2006, 11:05:27 pm »
The webmaster, Andreas Partsch, visits this forum from time to time.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Andreas Parsch

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2006, 01:57:38 am »
The webmaster, Andreas Partsch, visits this forum from time to time.

Indeed ;).

I assume that in your picture the small missiles carried in tandem in front of the Sparrows are supposed to be AIM-82s. Is this just a "notional design", or does it show a specific design submitted by one of the AIM-82 study contractors?

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2006, 04:50:04 am »
I'm not sure. The image is obviously the winning F-15 proposal with ventral fins, etc, which places it in the right timeframe, and is an image I've seen before, but I didn't spot the IR missiles myself- Dennis R Jenkins specifically calls it AIM-82 in his WarbirdTech F-15 book. I don't know on what authority, and he certainly doesn't say whose AIM-82 proposal it might represent. It must be quite a small missile, though I haven't yet tried scaling it from the AIM-7; its a little like an R-60 (AA-8 APHID) without the fixed fins in front of the canards.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2006, 02:23:54 am »
I'm not sure. The image is obviously the winning F-15 proposal with ventral fins, etc, which places it in the right timeframe, and is an image I've seen before, but I didn't spot the IR missiles myself- Dennis R Jenkins specifically calls it AIM-82 in his WarbirdTech F-15 book. I don't know on what authority, and he certainly doesn't say whose AIM-82 proposal it might represent. It must be quite a small missile, though I haven't yet tried scaling it from the AIM-7; its a little like an R-60 (AA-8 APHID) without the fixed fins in front of the canards.

I also recall reading a book back in the 80s on the F-15 in which this same photo was used and they also captioned that it was an AIM-82.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2006, 03:31:56 pm »
Another picture of Agile.

According to Friedman, Agile was cancelled in 1975 as  it was "judged overexpensive and technically immature".

Source:
  • Norman Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1989
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2006, 03:39:55 pm »
AIM-82 was studied from 1969. Definition contracts were awarded to Hughes, Ford and General Dynamics (Pomona) in July 1970. It was cancelled in September 1970, as improved Sidewinders were thought to give similar results, and the Agile program became officially a joint services project.

The USAF studied another missile called CLAW (Close Range Attack Weapon), a "low cost weapon about quarter of the weight of Agile".

The Agile seems to have been substantially heavier than the Sidewinder.

Source:
  • Norman Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1989
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2007, 04:35:38 pm »
Quote
Agile/QuickTurn (QT) The 8-inch-diameter QT system was a highly maneuverable, short-range air-to air missile that had a fast-response, 15-degree omni axis capability gimbal ring/ball-in-socket nozzle TVC system, which was supplied by Thiokol Corp., Wasatch Division.
NWC provided the control system and integrated the rocket motor TVC system into the complete missile assembly.

After highly successful flight demonstrations, including controlled angles of attack greater than 90 degrees, the complete propulsion system was transitioned to Thiokol Corp. for the Agile portion of the program. Tactical planners questioned the need for development of a highly maneuverable, short-range, air-to-air missile; some technical problems arose during development of the advanced, high-off-boresight-capability seeker, and the program was canceled.

J. M. Robbins & R. W. Feist AIAA article 92-3612 The China Lake Propulsion Laboratories

Quote
The AIM-95A (Agile) is a short-range air-to-air missile with high-angle thrust vector control (TVC) and is currently in the engineering development phase. The system envelope is approximately 8 inches in diameter by 100 inches long. Thc propulsion/steering system is comprised of a solid-propellant boost-sustain rocket motor, an omniaxis gimbal nozzle with a 20-degree gimbal angle, and a “warm gas” generator to pressurize the nozzle actuating hydraulic system.

AGILE Gimbal Nozzle Mechanics Investigation AIAA article 73-1205

« Last Edit: February 02, 2007, 05:16:47 pm by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2007, 05:12:47 pm »
Agile is mentioned in the following Aviation Week issues if someone has access via a library etc.

Vol 92, p. 19, Mar. 2, 1970
Vol 99, p. 51, July 23, 1973


 
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2007, 05:17:57 pm »
From chinalakealumni.org

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2007, 05:18:34 pm »
Interesting size comparison
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline TinWing

  • What-if addict
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 862
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2007, 08:24:37 am »

Agile/QuickTurn (QT) The 8-inch-diameter QT system....

So now we know that Agile had a diameter of at least 8 inches (203mm)!  This is a great find, and the first dimension data I have ever seen for this program. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2007, 08:54:14 am »
I wonder how well it would do today with the seeker of an AIM-9X.  At 8" diameter it should have had a lot of impulse.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2007, 10:27:52 am »
Quote
The system envelope is approximately 8 inches in diameter by 100 inches long

Thats 203mm diameter, 2.54m length. Looks correct from the picture comparing to Sidewinder & Sparrow - shorter than Sidewinder but as fat as Sparrow.

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2007, 06:29:42 pm »
Flying Review, March 1969, mentions a close range missile called "Dog Fighter" similar to the UK Tail Dog project. $90m was sought in the 1969 budget but not approved. AIM-82?
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2007, 07:32:40 am »
Confirmed.

AIM-82 "Dog Fighter"
Highly manouverable missile (to substitute for 20mm cannon)
Feasibility study only
300m-3.2km range
IR or Optical homing
Similar to Navy "Quick Turn" program

Flying Review International Nov 1969

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2007, 01:45:23 pm »
Flying Review March 1968

Dog Fighter
TV and all aspect IR guidance considered
Preliminary design on project (RAD-225) performed by Raytheon on the basis of a "short range Sparrow"
Recent effort focussed on growth version of AIM-4D Falcon
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1152
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2007, 02:55:44 pm »
That Falcon growth version was the XAIM-4H.  It was to have been configured for fighter v fighter combat including dogfighting, and would have featured a proximity fuze, among other improvements.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2007, 01:34:41 am »
Quote
Thc AIM-95A (Agile) is a short-range air-to-air missile with high-angle thrust vector control (TVC) and is currently in the
engineering development phase. The system envelope is approximately 8 inches in diameter by 100 inches long. The propulsion/
steering system is comprised of a solid-propellant boost-sustain rocket motor, an omniaxis gimbal nozzle with a 20-degree gimbal
angle, and a “warm gas” generator to pressurize the nozzle actuating hydraulic system.

Source:

AGILE Gimbal Nozzle Mechanics Investigation AIAA article 73-1205
« Last Edit: April 15, 2008, 11:54:07 pm by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2008, 11:53:13 pm »
According to Davies & Thornborough AIM-82 Dogfighter contracts were issued to General Dynamics, Philco-Ford and Hughes to design and build a prototype. It was cancelled after 5 months of "extravagant claims" and "heated unarmed combat between manufacturers, politicians and cost analysts".

Source:

Peter E. Davies & Anthony Thornborough, McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle (Crowood, 2001)
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 03:25:37 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2012, 05:06:01 am »
Look at the FOV behind the two guys on the picture.  It's huge.   :o
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2013, 02:11:52 am »
According to Bill Gunstron LCLM was a Ford proposal within the ASRAAM program

Source:


Bill Gunston, The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of the World's Rockets and Missiles

Heh. IIRC Gunston also quoted the Vickers Red Dean as having about ten times the useful range it actually possessed, so I'm inclined to take anything on cancelled or paper projects from that source with a pinch of salt. That's not to say he isn't right, or wasn't writing reliably from what was known at the time, but much of what is known now seems to march well beyond the books of that era.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2013, 02:48:08 am »
Bill Gunston had no actual hard facts on Red Dean / Red Hebe when writing the book and was merely extrapolating from e.g. US missile designs. If you didn't know Red Dean was "engineering archaeology" even in the 50s you might wonder why its range was so pitiful.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3540
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2013, 02:55:52 am »
 At this time one of the biggest limitations on semi active radar homing missiles was the power of the illuminator. The illuminator’s effective range was dependent on reflecting enough radiation from the target right back to the launcher so the missile seeker could begin homing right from launch. Since the missiles only flight control system was provided by the seeker without a sniff of radiation it would just fly off out of control if launched. The development of missile auto pilots that could fly to an interception point without seeker guidance meant that range for the same seeker could be almost doubled as the illuminator’s radiation would only need to reflect back a much smaller distance from the target to enable the seeker to home in (not to mention more efficent flight paths thanks to the auto pilot). Which is why from a target illumination perspective beam riding makes a lot more sense as all things being equal it needs much less radar power. So you could have a rocket motor able to power the missile out to 100 miles but if the seeker can only pick up the illuminator reflecting back from the target at 20 miles that is you maximum range.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 392
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2013, 05:02:08 am »
And the downside of radar beam riding guidance is accuracy decreases steadily with range, and is still dependent on the transmitter antenna design and size to make a sufficiently narrow beam to have any useful accuracy at all. End result is unless you have a nuclear warhead any range advantage gained over a comparable semi active system is likely to be useless against more then a target drone, and maybe not even that. However it will make for a much cheaper and simpler missile, which was the main reason to use it on early AAM projects, as well as some later point defense SAMs.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2013, 05:21:49 am »
Did any use a combination of beam riding and SARH to get around the limitations of both? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 392
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2013, 06:27:36 am »
I've never heard of it, it would be an awful lot of trouble for very marginal gains. Among other things it would be difficult to project a beam suitable for both semi active and beam riding guidance at the same time, which means either two transmitters, or switching over modes in mid flight, which sounds to me like a good way to make the missile fail.


Meanwhile illuminator technology improved very rapidly and soon outpaced the performance the rocket motors could provide anyway. Beam riders were for the most part only emergency weapons, Sparrow 1 for example only had about 2,000 missiles produced. Outpacing rocket motor performance what made  mid course command guidance and autopilots attractive in much later 70s era SARH AAMs and SAMs, because they could allow the missile to preserve some of its energy by not following very last twitch the target aircraft made, until it mattered. Beam riding could never do this. Beam riding is the total opposite, it makes the missile waste massive amounts of energy as it swings from one edge of the beam to another constantly. That's why most beam riding air to air missiles missiles only had a rated range of 4-6nm or even worse such as the Soviet K-5 which only went about 3nm, though it was also rather small. These weapons all had the pure speed to go further, but it was massively wasted bouncing around. The rare longer ranged beam riders, such as Sea Slug, had large sustainer motors to keep them going, and took advantage of large naval or ground radars to generate narrower beams then was possible from a fighter set.








Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 780
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2013, 09:02:32 am »
Wonder if anyone thought about laser beam riding for AAM.  One could create a much tighter beam with same aperture using laser than using RF.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2013, 09:16:38 am »
A beam rider (like StarStreak) is different than laser spot tracker (like Hellfire).

A beam rider has to travel in a straight line but cannot be jammed while a spot tracker can fly in intercept profile but can be jammed with DIRCM.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 780
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2013, 09:22:57 am »
A beam rider (like StarStreak) is different than laser spot tracker (like Hellfire).

A beam rider has to travel in a straight line but cannot be jammed while a spot tracker can fly in intercept profile but can be jammed with DIRCM.

I actually mean laser beam riding, a missile traveling inside a very narrow, conical laser beam, and steering itself by detecting the edge of the beam.  Since the laser receivers points at the launch aircraft, it would be impossible for a target to jam.

I believe Russians use this mode of guidance for short range surface to air missile.

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 162
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2013, 09:37:36 am »
Did any use a combination of beam riding and SARH to get around the limitations of both?
Talos apparently did - of course, it had an entire cruiser to support its' trackers, and the missile wasn't much smaller than some fighters.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2013, 09:53:59 am »
Did any use a combination of beam riding and SARH to get around the limitations of both?
Talos apparently did - of course, it had an entire cruiser to support its' trackers, and the missile wasn't much smaller than some fighters.

Pretty sure with Talos it was either/or not both.  The nukes were beam riders with the conventional Talos being SARH.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2013, 10:17:52 am »
I actually mean laser beam riding, a missile traveling inside a very narrow, conical laser beam, and steering itself by detecting the edge of the beam.  Since the laser receivers points at the launch aircraft, it would be impossible for a target to jam.
This is how StarStreak works.

The problem of having a BR AAM is that to get the best range out of a AAM it needs to fly an intercept course.  This is not possible with a BR since the laser beam could not move quick enough to compensate for rapid movements of the target aircraft.

Besides, between GPS based updates, HOJ, and a solid datalink, an AAM should have little problem locking onto a target.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2245
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2013, 11:19:07 am »

Pretty sure with Talos it was either/or not both.  The nukes were beam riders with the conventional Talos being SARH.

I think it actually was both -- most descriptions of conventional Talos talk about the SARH terminal guidance coming on late in the engagement, with beam riding being used to put the missile close enough to the target for terminal guidance.  That's how Talos could do things like attack from above, if the operator steered it over the target before going to terminal homing.  For example:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/talos.htm


Edit: OK, even better description here:

http://www.okieboat.com/History%20guidance%20and%20homing.html

Very interesting reading.  The beam-riding phase used some very neat tricks to keep the missile from snaking around as much as it might.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 12:46:17 pm by TomS »

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 780
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2013, 12:40:45 pm »
I actually mean laser beam riding, a missile traveling inside a very narrow, conical laser beam, and steering itself by detecting the edge of the beam.  Since the laser receivers points at the launch aircraft, it would be impossible for a target to jam.
This is how StarStreak works.

The problem of having a BR AAM is that to get the best range out of a AAM it needs to fly an intercept course.  This is not possible with a BR since the laser beam could not move quick enough to compensate for rapid movements of the target aircraft.

Besides, between GPS based updates, HOJ, and a solid datalink, an AAM should have little problem locking onto a target.

If the laser beam is steered by some high pixel optical or IR sensor, then it should be able to respond very quickly to target movement.   Since the laser beam riding guidance is in effect a command guidance system with much of processing done onboard the launch aircraft instead of onboard the missile, it should be possible to point the beam not always directly at the target, but in a direction that would move the missile toward the target along an efficient intercept course.
 
With spherical coverage distribute aperture optical sensor of the type on the F-35, there ought to be the basis for a spherical coverage, optically searched and tracked, laser based beam-riding/command guidance based guidance system for short range missiles.
 
 
 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2013, 01:18:48 pm »
For beam guidance to work, the beam can only move as fast as the missile is capable of moving.  If you move the laser too quickly the missile will lose track of it.  This means that not only will the fighter have to track the enemy, but also his own missile.  He will also need to be able to project the laser all around the aircraft unless he is willing to fly straight at the enemy. 

Then there is the issue of only being able to fire one missile at a time (unless he has multiple laser projectors).

It's just not feasible or practical.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2013, 02:19:02 pm »

Pretty sure with Talos it was either/or not both.  The nukes were beam riders with the conventional Talos being SARH.

I think it actually was both -- most descriptions of conventional Talos talk about the SARH terminal guidance coming on late in the engagement, with beam riding being used to put the missile close enough to the target for terminal guidance.  That's how Talos could do things like attack from above, if the operator steered it over the target before going to terminal homing.  For example:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/talos.htm


Edit: OK, even better description here:

http://www.okieboat.com/History%20guidance%20and%20homing.html

Very interesting reading.  The beam-riding phase used some very neat tricks to keep the missile from snaking around as much as it might.

Yep, that's easily the best Talos source on the net. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2013, 02:04:33 am »
Bill Gunston had no actual hard facts on Red Dean / Red Hebe when writing the book and was merely extrapolating from e.g. US missile designs. If you didn't know Red Dean was "engineering archaeology" even in the 50s you might wonder why its range was so pitiful.

That explains things. I remember browsing Forbat's book some time before buying it (and before getting my hands on BSP4) and thinking what? A thousand-pound missile with only a four mile range? That scathing review quoted in BSP4 - "Still in the piston era" - says it all. As perhaps does a picture of Folland's early effort on the wingtips of a Meteor.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 392
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2013, 09:23:44 am »
That’s interesting, I'd thought Talos used a primitive command guidance for its mid course mode. It sure does illustrate the problems of this in any case, with a completely separate fighter sized beam riding radar being required, and a massive ramjet to ensure it looses no speed throughout the flight.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2013, 08:29:48 am »
Inasmuch as there is sometimes very little that separates command from beam riding, it did.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2014, 09:48:25 am »
From Chinalakealumni.org

F-4J Phantom II BuNo 153812, Agile missiles, China Lake, 05 October 1971.

Official U.S. Navy photo.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2014, 03:03:05 am »


The USAF studied another missile called CLAW (Close Range Attack Weapon), a "low cost weapon about quarter of the weight of Agile".



http://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/topic/17730-aimvalaceval/

The CLAW (Concept of a Lightweight Agile Weapon), derived from the AIM-82 project for the F-15, which was abandoned in favor of AIM-95, was represented by the "Concept SS-2A."

Originally, the project called for groups of 4 missiles hanging from the rails of the AIM-9 (up to 16). As soon as the target came within range and angle limits shown in the VTAS HMS, automatic launching of these missiles would occur.  The off-boresight capability was 50° and the range was 3.2 km.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 785
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2014, 03:56:50 am »
I'm not sure I like this "automatic launching" business, unless that's qualified with "designated and enabled by the pilot, with the computer only making the final decision based on target entry to reliable kill parameters".

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2014, 04:46:38 am »
Its a google translation - a native speaker might be able to better comment.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1638
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2014, 11:28:01 am »
For beam guidance to work, the beam can only move as fast as the missile is capable of moving.  If you move the laser too quickly the missile will lose track of it.  This means that not only will the fighter have to track the enemy, but also his own missile.  He will also need to be able to project the laser all around the aircraft unless he is willing to fly straight at the enemy. 

Then there is the issue of only being able to fire one missile at a time (unless he has multiple laser projectors).

It's just not feasible or practical.

Really excellent points. Although I do wonder if the move towards DIRCM, 360 degree optical tracking/rangefinding, and more powerful lasers for use as direct energy weapons at shorter ranges could eventually change this someday?

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2014, 10:34:38 pm »
Could the IR/EO system have worked reliably in those days?

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2015, 11:05:22 pm »
AIM-82 mockups on F-15 mockup.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9187
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2015, 12:15:15 am »
Nice find!
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2015, 04:27:43 pm »
March 14, 1973
Testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2015, 04:30:34 pm »
Continued testimony:

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2015, 10:01:20 pm »
Really interesting - thanks for the share.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6748
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2015, 01:09:07 am »
I patched the scans together into a PDF. Too big to post here, so I posted it here:

http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2090
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2015, 02:09:12 am »
Nice.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2015, 05:09:47 am »
Really interesting - thanks for the share.
You're welcome Paul.

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2015, 10:56:05 am »
Paul ,or anyone, have you been able to glean any new info or insight from the documents. I know a lot was deleted.
Soviet weapons development had courage and we had/have financial concerns. Probably a better system than AA-11/helmet sight and at least 5 yrs ahead.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #59 on: February 26, 2015, 11:03:35 am »
Its possible to fill in a lot of the blanks with interpretation after the event, its still pretty interesting as a general overview.

The cost estimate of only 1.2 times AIM-9L is interesting, and the fact the rocket engine was similar to AIM-7F in thrust and duration is also interesting. Given some additional aerodynamic surfaces for control after engine burnout, it could have had potential as a BVR IR missile.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2015, 11:39:27 am »
I will try to dig up more testimony. Maybe we on this site can actually put a history to this project as opposed to short articles here and there and rumors.

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2015, 09:24:59 pm »
Perhaps some attribution on the APR site?

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #62 on: August 31, 2015, 02:08:18 am »
From aviationarchives.blogspot.com

Quote
AIM-95 Agile Missile
Since we have been talking about the AIM-82 and AIM-95, here is some additional info from Ron Hinkel via Mark Nankivil on how the AIM-9L took over the AIM-82/95 role:

“AIM-9L Background #1 - Way Back
In following the recent postings about Sidewinders, and the Aim-9L in particular, it is time I share what I know on how that came about. What I know and think about this subject comes from my assignment as Air Weapons Officer at Naval Weapons Station, China Lake from the fall of 1973 to summer 1976. Air weapons included Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground. Naturally, Sidewinder projects fell under air-to-air, so I can tell you today that I was there when it was being decided as to what the off-boresight limit and other parameters were to be developed in that missile. IMHO, as good as the -9L was, we, the Navy, gave up too much all-aspect air-to-air weapons capability to accommodate the USAF's lack of success. I'll let you judge later.
Recall the environment of the times; early 70's. Navy performance with F-8s and F-4's getting some Mig kills. AF frustrations with guys in the saddle only to have their Sidewinders go stupid or miss when they should have hit. This was the era of Pirate and the others teaching Navy tactics to them and the start of Top Gun. Now comes a big thrust by USAF brass to stop the embarrassment. Their arguments were that they needed a better Sidewinder, bought so many more missiles than the Navy, and for that they should be given a larger say as to what the next version would be. So they threw money at the project and DoD accepted, even giving them project Management control. The PM at China Lake for the AIM-9L was a LTCOL USAF. I know because I got to shoot one of the development missiles that did not kill the target. The recorded data showed the missile launch to be right in the designed test parameters, but that a circuit failed some where in the weapon system. Obviously, that flaw was fixed as your reported good results in the fleet show.


AIM-9L Background #2 - The Off-Boresight Battle
ACEVAL/AIMVAL Did any of you participate in this 1974-75 Air Farce forced "flyoff to determine what off-boresight capability the next joint missle should have?" In my duty as Air Weapons Officer, I was the Navy operational tech rep to the initial planning and evaluation with NAVWEPSCEN China Lake as the technical folks. China Lake and I were pushing for the 45 degree capability already proven available to our satisfaction and originally planned for the -9L by the Navy. The AF whose mentality at the time, if you recall, was based upon an F-4 with a gun pod, of course, disputed this. That, of course, turned it into a real fighter that could stay with the Migs. What they really wanted was an AIM-9B with minimal off-boresight, but one that worked. So the flyoff went on and the result was a compromise. I think that the AIM-9L off-boresight was set at one half of the 45 degrees and a head on capability was also required. That also had some effect on lowering the off-boresight angle because it was perceived that you had to be closer to head on for the missile performance to catch the guy if he turned away at launch. That does make sense, but I say perceived in that I don't recall if there was any real engineering quality data gathered during these flights to support the operational portion of this decision. Help us if you know something different out there. Technically, you have to remember that all Sidewinders, including the -9L, were fin controlled. That reduced all Sidewinder turning ability two ways. The missile had to go forward for a while to pick up speed before it could turn and the size of the fins were limited because the missile had to fit on the aircraft.


AIM-9L Background #3 - The Problem of Off-Boresight Capability
The issue of off-boresight capability was not, IMHO, fully understood completely by even the good guy Navy operators in the ACEVAL/AIMVAL decision loop. Frustrated as we were at China Lake at the time that was somewhat understandable because the whole thing was a humongous political football. And, its awful hard to see how really close the technology is to what you want without having at least some of the system in your hands trying it operationally. Then, having to fight for it in a David and Goliath scenario. They were in a tough position. Eventually, Navy Washington showed us all the real decision. They wanted the Air Force's money, so we were all told to sit down and shut up which we did. It has become even more understandable from your comments about the uncertainty and flux in training, tactics, Top Gun, etc. going on in the fleet.
The problem with off-boresight capability is that it goes against the grain of our training, our weapons to date, and our inherent instinct to best the other guy. We need to show him we are superior to him by getting behind him in the perfect firing so that he can't get away and blasting him out of the sky. Funny, when you think about it. How gallant is slipping up behind some unawares guy just motoring back to base and letting him have it. Not necessarily superior because it was Smiling Jack and he had the performance aircraft to kick your ass, if he had seen you. Further, I don't recall hearing any WWII ace say something like, "I got 123 kills, really 140, but I don't count those where the guy obviously didn't see me."
Yes, those individual kills win battles, especially a lot of them. But wars are won by attrition. That is reducing the number of enemy aircraft faster than he does yours. If I recall correctly, top gun was created in order to improve the kill ratio of Navy F-8s and F-4s to third world Migs. It is particularly important when one side or both have a fixed or limited supply of assets to draw from. IMHO, in the case of an aircraft carrier, a lot faster. What off-boresight capability gives you is a lesser need both air space and aircraft performance wise to be in the position to achieve your kills and very much less exposure to your being in position to be killed.
AIM-9L Background #4 - The Off-Boresight Capability we could Have Had (Agile)
I turned up at China Lake Naval Weapons Center as the newly appointed Air Weapons Officer and Agile Project Pilot in October 1973. The AIM-95 Agile was an air-to-air missile being developed as an advanced replacement for the AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile. The Navy intended it for the F-14. The US Air Force was developing the AIM-82 missile to equip the F-15 Eagle at the same time. Since both missiles were more or less identical in their role, it was decided to abandon the AIM-82 in favor of the Agile.
The Agile was equipped with a sophisticated, high tech (at the time), Gallium-arsenide infrared band seeker by Hughes. The seeker head had a large off-boresight capability (0 to +/- 165 degrees practical) lock-on capability. The pilot targeted it by using a Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS). A solid-state missile rocket engine was used to provide the go power. Control was achieved by thrust vectoring giving it superior turning capability over the Sidewinder. This combination of greatly improved IR sensor, large off-boresight acquisition and thrust vectoring control would allow Agile to be fired at targets which were not directly ahead•thus making it far easier to achieve a firing position. Did it ever,
I must have flown 20 or 30 test flights with the Agile seeker on F-4s. It was amazing in its ability to detect targets and lock on and track the target aircraft to all angles. Hughes did a fantastic job. The helmet mounted sight to acquire targets worked beautifully. I could climb, dive, stay level, roll inverted, zoom climb or dive, keep my speed up approaching the target or slow to simulate 1 vs. 1 turning and that seeker would lock on as soon as I put the sight on it and pressed the button. What made it even more outstanding was its ability to discriminate the target with a high sun caused hot white cloud background? I easily acquired the target aircraft at off-boresight angles of 0 to about 170 degrees. Now don't restrict your visualization of this to the plane of the wings. You have the whole half cone above you, and you could look down; essentially, wherever you could look you could acquire and shoot a launch and leave Agile. The easier acquisitions occurred when you didn't have to stretch your neck to make them; like between 30 degrees off the nose to about 135 degrees. Tactics, oh yeah! How about this idea? You are about to enter a many on many situation in deuce formation. You both keep the speed up or accelerate, if necessary. You pull up through the fur ball shoot two on the way up. Pull over the top, and shoot two on the way down and run like hell. Eight kills without not much chance of your getting hit. I mean it was going to be that good, I think.
The official line is: The AIM-95A was developed to a point where flight tests were carried out including test firing at China Lake (Not true, to my knowledge) and inclusion in the ACEVAL/AIMVAL Joint Test & Evaluation conducted with both the F-14 and F-15 at Nellis AFB in 1975-78. AIMVAL analysis results indicating limited utility of higher high boresight capability and high cost resulted in opinion that it was no longer regarded as affordable and the project was cancelled in 1975. Instead both the Air Force and Navy developed an improved version of the Sidewinder for use. Although this was intended to be an interim solution, in fact the AIM-9 continues in service today.
The Soviet Union did embark on development of an advanced high boresight SRM with thrust vectoring and subsequently fielded the AA-11/R-73 Archer on the MiG-29 in 1985. NATO learned about their performance due to the German reunification and efforts began to match or exceed the R-73's performance with the IRIS-T, AIM-9X and MICA IR programs.
Author's Note:  "If these used thrust vectoring it was Agile again. If not, how could they compete?"
Ron Hinkel
2 August 2015”
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Bruno Anthony

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • I miss the Cold War
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2015, 02:51:35 pm »
The beauty of the Soviet defense research and acqui system. If it is viable we will fund it.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #64 on: January 06, 2016, 08:58:41 pm »
Information on AIM-82. Apparently TRW licenced the Taildog AAM design from Hawker Siddeley Aviation for submission.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19700302/10/1

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1400
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2016, 03:24:11 am »
March 14, 1973
Testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee

Very interesting and thanks Bruno Anthony!
This testimony only reiterates to me what a tragic mistake it was for both the USAF and USN (and I dare say NATO) that the both services once again went down the wasteful and costly path of competing against themselves, at the cost of both programs being cancelled, and regardless of the Aim-9L's improved capability, the USAF/USN and NATO could have preceded the Soviet AA-11/R-73 Archer capability, instead of initiating panic-reactionary programs like IRIS-T, AIM-9X and MICA IR.
Hats off to the Soviet's effort and resolute in developing and operationally fielding the AA-11/R-73 Archer   :-[   

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2016, 12:36:38 am »
Quote
Quick Turn System Sought For Navy Dogfight Missile

Los Angeles—Navy is conducting extensive studies of propulsive steering and control techniques that will enable its proposed Dogfight air—to-air missile to veer sharply in pursuit of maneuvering aerial targets. The Dogfight missile is expected to be introduced on a version of the Grumman F-14 air superiority fighter. Under the Quick Turn program, Navy is exploring various thrust vectoring techniques which would permit a short-range missile to execute at least a 15 deg. turn, the first 10 deg. of this in less than 0.3 sec. The missile is intended for use in close air combat where it might be required to turn through larger turn angles in shorter periods than any existing air defense weapon.

Results of the Quick Turn effort are likely to be shared by the Air Force, which has a requirement for a somewhat similar Dogfight or short-range missile (SRM) for its projected F-15 air superiority fighter. Like the infrared-guided Sidewinder or Falcon missiles they would supplant, the two Dogfight missiles would home in on the infrared energy emitted in the target's engine exhausts.

Several propulsion contractors. including Thiokol Chemical Corp., Lockheed Propulsion Co. and McDonnell Douglas, are examining propulsive steering concepts, including vectored thrust and jet interaction schemes, as part of the Quick Turn effort. Techniques of warm and hot gas control for roll stabilization of an airborne vehicle also are to be explored, possibly by Hercules, Inc., and Philco-Ford Corp.

These thrusting techniques are to be added to the propulsion package on a special flight-test vehicle which will be built as a test bed for Quick Turn. The Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, Calif., which is responsible for advanced control techniques for air-to-air missiles, is expected to seek an airframe contractor to design and build the vehicle soon. Support and subsystem work on the Navy Dogfight missile has been conducted by several Navy centers. The Naval Weapons Center’s Corona Laboratories are handling the fuzing task, while China Lake has responsibility for propulsion and the warhead. Booz—Allen Applied Research, Inc., has been operating as an analytical consultant for the Navy in connection with Dogfight. Hughes Aircraft Co. is developing a homing seeker for the weapon.

Meanwhile, the Air Force is expected to issue late this month proposal requests for its short-range missile (SRM), the ZAIM-82A, after postponing the start of these baseline systems design studies since last summer. Two or three parallel efforts are anticipated to define SRM for application on the F-15. The Air Force and Navy Dogfight weapon developments may move closer as pressure mounts within the Defense Dept. for the two services to make greater use of common technology for the two air-to-air weapons, which have essentially similar missions.

Aviation Week & Space Technology April 21, 1969
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline r16

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 338
Re: AIM-95 Agile and AIM-82 AAMs
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2016, 12:51:23 am »
so VTAS was available by 1969 and it was not deployed in Vietnam ?