• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

AIM-152 AAAM Phoenix replacement projects

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
251
http://www.ebay.com/itm/general-dynamics-photo-AAAM-air-to-air-missile-concept-weapon-USN-US-navy-jet-/331189766313?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d1c72c8a9
 

Attachments

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
34
A pity it was cancelled due to the ending of the Cold War, I always thought the AIM-152 would have been a good missile for the F-14, what was the maximum projected range of the AIM-152?
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
634
Reaction score
6
SpudmanWP said:
The GD AAAM project had SO many possibilities
1. Each of the F-22’s AMRAAM bays could hold at least 6-8 of them (12-16 total full-size missiles).
2. Each of the F-35’s bays would hold 3-4 on each of the internal A2G stations (not counting the door station) for a total of 8-10 internal full-size missiles.
2. With a shorter booster, the F-22’s Sidewinder bays could hold 2 each
3. It would make a perfect VL SHORAD/MRAD solution for both naval and ground forces
4. Use the 5” AAM front ends as last ditch AAM defense for bombers, ISR, tanker, AWACS etc defense. They can be ejected like sonobuoys.
5. Hybrid missiles like a PAC-2 Patriot body and 3-5 AAAM front ends (the 5”section). The Pac-3 could hold 2-3 AAM 5” front ends.
6. Mate multiple AAAM front ends to cruise missiles like JSM, JASSM, etc to create our own ISR/tanker, AWACS killer missile.
5" diamter for the GD AAAM without the booster? That doesn't sound or look right to me. The images don't provide much to compare it to but I'm guessing it is 7" or 8". Still an impressively small size for such a long-range missile.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
Colonial-Marine said:
SpudmanWP said:
The GD AAAM project had SO many possibilities
1. Each of the F-22’s AMRAAM bays could hold at least 6-8 of them (12-16 total full-size missiles).
2. Each of the F-35’s bays would hold 3-4 on each of the internal A2G stations (not counting the door station) for a total of 8-10 internal full-size missiles.
2. With a shorter booster, the F-22’s Sidewinder bays could hold 2 each
3. It would make a perfect VL SHORAD/MRAD solution for both naval and ground forces
4. Use the 5” AAM front ends as last ditch AAM defense for bombers, ISR, tanker, AWACS etc defense. They can be ejected like sonobuoys.
5. Hybrid missiles like a PAC-2 Patriot body and 3-5 AAAM front ends (the 5”section). The Pac-3 could hold 2-3 AAM 5” front ends.
6. Mate multiple AAAM front ends to cruise missiles like JSM, JASSM, etc to create our own ISR/tanker, AWACS killer missile.
5" diamter for the GD AAAM without the booster? That doesn't sound or look right to me. The images don't provide much to compare it to but I'm guessing it is 7" or 8". Still an impressively small size for such a long-range missile.
5.5"

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%201128.html
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
148
Yes, but is that for the booster or for the dart/second stage? The booster looks considerably wider, and adding the canister would make it wider still. Anyone seen a diameter for the complete round in canister?
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
TomS said:
Yes, but is that for the booster or for the dart/second stage? The booster looks considerably wider, and adding the canister would make it wider still. Anyone seen a diameter for the complete round in canister?
Your point about the canister/launch tube is particularly cogent. There's also the fact that the GD design was designed to launch powering out of the tube much like AIM-9, rather than ejected and then firing, like AIM-7 and AIM-120 (which actually can do both). This would be a problem with the design of F-22's internal bay. Might have worked in F-35, though

Not sure you could hold more in the F-22 than in the F-35, since the latter's bay is larger. It's been said by some that if the launcher module had been funded, F-35 could have carried at least 1/3 more AIM-120s than F-22. A moot point in any case.

'Course the Hughes design had some good features of its own.
 

Attachments

gtg947h

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
79
Reaction score
3
F-14D said:
Your point about the canister/launch tube is particularly cogent. There's also the fact that the GD design was designed to launch powering out of the tube much like AIM-9, rather than ejected and then firing, like AIM-7 and AIM-120 (which actually can do both). This would be a problem with the design of F-22's internal bay. Might have worked in F-35, though
I suspect the launcher tube cluster would have been extended out of the bay before firing, similar to how I understand they were planning to do from the F-14 "tunnel" stations (or the F-22's side bays, for that matter).
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
gtg947h said:
F-14D said:
Your point about the canister/launch tube is particularly cogent. There's also the fact that the GD design was designed to launch powering out of the tube much like AIM-9, rather than ejected and then firing, like AIM-7 and AIM-120 (which actually can do both). This would be a problem with the design of F-22's internal bay. Might have worked in F-35, though
I suspect the launcher tube cluster would have been extended out of the bay before firing, similar to how I understand they were planning to do from the F-14 "tunnel" stations (or the F-22's side bays, for that matter).
On the F-14, the tube would only angle down slightly, if at all, at launch to insure separation from the fuselage. Given that the GD missile tubes would be mounted on the Phoenix/bombs pallet, this is a minor thing. The drawing I've reproduced from elsewhere illustrates this. However in the Raptor, this would be a major undertaking, given the nature of the bay and the launch mechanism. There'd probably have to be a substantial reworking to do that.

It's doubly moot since and AF said they wouldn't use AIM-152 on any of their aircraft and the missile was canceled.
 

Attachments

RadicalDisconnect

Anthony Foulke
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
I'm not sure if USAF really was opposed to the AIM-152 due to its long-ranged role. I think the USAF had its own AIM-120 replacement program in the Have Dash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Dash
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,604
Reaction score
1,073
sferrin said:
Looking for something else in my collection I stumbled across this. Don't recall where I found it.
Here's a better copy

Source: Air Power 2000, Michael J Gething
 

Attachments

Oli

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi guys, I don't come here much (mainly because A) I forget and B) I get overwhelmed at how much of the stuff I don't know), but, about 6 years ago I did some (Solidworks) CAD drawings with a view to having some missiles done on a 3D printer.
Two of the missiles I did were the Hughes-Raytheon and General Dynamics Westinghouse AAM-152s.




CAD models here:
GDW
Hughes
You don't need Solidworks to look at them, just download a free app called eDrawings from here (minimal installation cost) and you can view the things as rotatable models.

Dunno if these help at all, but... if they do then you're welcome.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
23
Well done Oli.

Now if you don't mind there are another 8,400 topics here at SecretProjects that could do with a 3D CAD drawing! ;)
 

Oli

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Thanks for that Abraham! ;)
(I actually DO want to get a lot of stuff like this done, but, among other things, a serious lack of motivation prevents it).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
397
Hmmm. For some reason all I'm seeing are empty Solidworks assemblies. ???
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
251
http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19880404/#!&pid=18
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
251
http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19880208/#!&pid=22
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
251
http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19870309/#!&pid=236

One of the most stupid staged photography I've ever seen.
 

Attachments

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
22
GD's AAAM = opportunity lost.

Imagine how many you could pack in a F-22/35, VL replacement for SeaSparrow, Aim-9 replacement, self defense for Predator class drones, etc.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,013
Reaction score
199
There's not a huge amount on non-built aircraft, but there is an awful lot of info to let you put design work in the context of the requirements and functions they were supposed to meet. For example there are big sections on early Cold War CAP requirements and the complications of trying to meet fairly onerous targets about not letting a mirror-imaged bombing threat get within launch range. CAP on deck couldn't reach intercept distance in the time from first detection, airborne CAP didn't have the endurance, and the carriers couldn't cycle them fast enough to keep them airborne. That kind of thing. Aircraft highlight for me was the description of the Outer Air Battle and what the A-6Fs were supposed to be doing during it (extra AIM-152 shooters) which I'd not seen clearly defined before, including the minor detail that a CVBG would need to put other ops on hold for a day to prep for a regimental strength Backfire raid. Of course it helps that Friedman was working for SecNav on precisely that at the time.

As an aside, I picked up my ebook copy ridiculously cheap (couple of pounds) in a recent Amazon sale, along with several other Friedmans. So worth keeping an eye open.
 
Top