Alternative AAM history: AIM-4H enters service.

Dilandu said:
This would overcomplicate things a lot. Just use a simple radar, AN/VPS-2 style (the ranging-only radar on Vulcan gun), slaved to the optical sight. It would solve the main problem of early Chaparral models - inability to engage targets head-on. Any kind of search/track capability could be added on later models.
Click to expand...
Even that simple radar will take a lot of electrical power. My thought was literally stripping the radar out of a Crusader.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, it's really not. Packaging, weight&balance, running the wiring, electrical power...
Click to expand...

I was referring to the bore-sighting errors generated by the new radome but you're right about repackaging the radar itself not being trivial.
 
Granted, the bore-sighting problems are easier to solve today (via reprogramming) than they used to be. But not in the time frame under question.
 
AIM-9C wouldn't replace an AIM-4 based SARH option. AIM-9C didn't have tuneable filters like what Hughes was working on. That is probably why it was effective as a cheap anti-radiation missile, because it literally was kept too simple.
 
MadRat said:
AIM-9C wouldn't replace an AIM-4 based SARH option. AIM-9C didn't have tuneable filters like what Hughes was working on. That is probably why it was effective as a cheap anti-radiation missile, because it literally was kept too simple.
Click to expand...
Speaking of, I wonder if there are any AIM-9C seekers left to make another batch of AGM-122 Sidearms? Or were they all used up in the 1990s?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Speaking of, I wonder if there are any AIM-9C seekers left to make another batch of AGM-122 Sidearms? Or were they all used up in the 1990s?
Click to expand...
As far as I know they were all used up (There were only IIRC 885 AIM-9C GCUs left for conversion), there should've been new build AGM-122B Sidearms to replace the AGM-122As but it would appear shortsighted bean-counters nixed that (Fucktards).
 
NMaude said:
As far as I know they were all used up (There were only IIRC 885 AIM-9C GCUs left for conversion),
Click to expand...
[expletives deleted]


NMaude said:
there should've been new build AGM-122B Sidearms to replace the AGM-122As but it would appear shortsighted bean-counters nixed that (Fucktards).
Click to expand...
Yes, there should have.
 
There's no reason why someone at the DoD couldn't get Raytheon to dust of the plans to build AGM-122Bs.
 
Creating an AIM-9C seeker again might make sense as a Zuni wing attachment, like the original idea for modular APKWS only upscaled. Seems like you could more easily rebuild older light SAMs like Roland into a modern equivalent.
 
MadRat said:
Creating an AIM-9C seeker again might make sense as a Zuni wing attachment, like the original idea for modular APKWS only upscaled.
Click to expand...

That could be easily done if the funds were available.

MadRat said:
Seems like you could more easily rebuild older light SAMs like Roland into a modern equivalent.
Click to expand...

The US only had Roland SAMs briefly in service before they were retired IIRC.
 
NMaude said:
There's no reason why someone at the DoD couldn't get Raytheon to dust of the plans to build AGM-122Bs.
Click to expand...


Isn't RIM-116 RAM basically SIDEARM (vs. anti-ship missiles) with added IR?

There seems no reason why you couldn't re-tune the seeker to go after surface radar sets and tube-launch it from a helicopter (or even a tracked vehicle, since the motor was designed for surface launch anyway). The thing was designed to be able to kill incoming ASMs, seems like a surface radar should be no problem for it.
 
pathology_doc said:
Isn't RIM-116 RAM basically SIDEARM (vs. anti-ship missiles) with added IR?
Click to expand...

Not really, the RIM-116 uses the AIM-9's airframe/warhead as a basis for its' airframe while using a modified FIM-92 IR-seeker design for terminal-homing and an added RF-seeker for midcourse guidance (It locks onto and homes in on an AShM's terminal active-radar seeker). I'm not sure that a modified RIM-116 would make a good lightweight ARM.​
 
NMaude said:
an added RF-seeker for midcourse guidance (It locks onto and homes in on an AShM's terminal active-radar seeker).
Click to expand...
So if it's based on the AIM-9 airframe and it homes in on enemy radars, what's the difference between that and SIDEARM?

All I'm trying to say is that you don't have to wave a magic wand to reopen the AIM-9C line; you already have the basis of what you need in production.
 
pathology_doc said:
So if it's based on the AIM-9 airframe and it homes in on enemy radars, what's the difference between that and SIDEARM?
Click to expand...

The main problem I see with using a modified RIM-116 is the presence of the IR terminal seeker, it takes up space that could otherwise be used for a proper broadband PRH seeker like the one from AGM-122A.

pathology_doc said:
All I'm trying to say is that you don't have to wave a magic wand to reopen the AIM-9C line; you already have the basis of what you need in production.
Click to expand...

What would be better IMO is if you're going to use an existing production line then use a modified AIM-9X.
 
Older Sidewinders from AIM-9C era uses technology that is obsolete and labor intensive. The way they curved the circuit board was ingenius at the time but the technology has evolved.
 
MadRat said:
Older Sidewinders from AIM-9C era uses technology that is obsolete and labor intensive.
Click to expand...

True, that is why I suggested using an AIM-9X airframe fitted with a 5" diameter PRH seeker to make a Sidearm II.

MadRat said:
The way they curved the circuit board was ingenius at the time but the technology has evolved.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate preferably with technical details, please.
 
NMaude said:
The main problem I see with using a modified RIM-116 is the presence of the IR terminal seeker, it takes up space that could otherwise be used for a proper broadband PRH seeker like the one from AGM-122A.
Click to expand...
Sure, but how long is it going to take to develop that seeker?

In broad: you're trying to make a "SIDEARM 2" that will be in service for years, but it might not be ready for months. I'm trying to make one that can be in service by next Tuesday.
 
NMaude said:
Can you elaborate preferably with technical details, please.
Click to expand...
About 50 years ago my shop teacher had a Sidewinder logic circuit board and a circular wire-like subframe it mounted inside. Each part was very delicate until secured in the frame. It took about 20 minutes to attach all the pieces, that is if you remembered what went where. It wasn't like it came with a manual. The circuit board was like a coiled up foil, not a flat PCB. Mounting angles in relationship to the subframe was very tight to keep it compact. He didn't have the outer body but did have a gimbal like piece that he said the sensor ultimately mounted upon and two motors attached. He also had a part of the fin section with a small magneto looking generator built in. Pretty cool stuff. He said he worked at a company making car parts then transferred to another division making those parts. He also called them blem parts that were rejected for flaws and could never function in a completed missile. He also stated he knew what was wrong with them but could never tell anyone because its a secret. Our dumb shop teacher wasn't dumb at all. Eye opening class that day.
 
pathology_doc said:
AIM-54 (with AWG-9) is Hughes finally getting it right, something like 20 years after it first started working on AAMs, although -47 might have been just as good if any of its platforms had actually been adopted.
Click to expand...
That seems to be a bit of a mischaracterization. Considering the live fire test results of the AIM-47/ASG-18 from a YF-12A, I'd say Hughes knocked it out of the park with that one. Problem is the USAF didn't buy the aircraft it was meant for. (Either the XF-108 or F-12B.) They kept noodling though, and by the time the F-111B came on the scene it had evolved into the AWG-9/AIM-54.
 
Sferrin said:
That seems to be a bit of a mischaracterization. Considering the live fire test results of the AIM-47/ASG-18 from a YF-12A, I'd say Hughes knocked it out of the park with that one. Problem is the USAF didn't buy the aircraft it was meant for. (Either the XF-108 or F-12B.) They kept noodling though, and by the time the F-111B came on the scene it had evolved into the AWG-9/AIM-54.
Click to expand...
My sentence that you quoted ended with: "...although -47 might have been just as good if any of its platforms had actually been adopted", so I did actually address that.

My comment was in relation to Hughes getting it right in terms of getting a missile into service that did what it was supposed to do, the latter part of which Falcon had major issues with. Which of its predecessors' ashes Phoenix rose from (possibly all of them) is open to debate. :p
 
pathology_doc said:
My sentence that you quoted ended with: "...although -47 might have been just as good if any of its platforms had actually been adopted", so I did actually address that.
Click to expand...
Whoops. That's what I get for multitasking. ;)
 
SSgtC said:
Especially when I can't make my coffee, because i haven't had my coffee...
Click to expand...
You know they make timed coffee makers, even fancy ones with grinders and bean storage built in, so that you can prep your coffee while you have coffee and it will turn on to make the coffee before you have had your coffee, right?
 
Scott Kenny said:
You know they make timed coffee makers, even fancy ones with grinders and bean storage built in, so that you can prep your coffee while you have coffee and it will turn on to make the coffee before you have had your coffee, right?
Click to expand...
I still have to put cream and sugar in, and some mornings, that's a struggle
 
The best coffee is unadulterated.

From a sensor point of view, if they can make it where it is built at a good price and can add it on to existing solutions they can probably figure out how to apply it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom