Taildog / SRAAM / ASRAAM family

MissileMan said:
From the personal hardware archive; test rejected ASRAAM Project Top Hat seeker FPA.
Click to expand...

What was the reason for rejection?

On another note with the RAVEN air defence frankenSAM project using old AIM-132s (All of the pre-Block 6 stuff) so that they can be replaced in the RAF's inventory by Block-6 ITAR-free ASRAAMs how many missiles would that be being sent to Ukraine?
 
NMaude said:
On another note with the RAVEN air defence frankenSAM project using old AIM-132s (All of the pre-Block 6 stuff) so that they can be replaced in the RAF's inventory by Block-6 ITAR-free ASRAAMs how many missiles would that be being sent to Ukraine?
Click to expand...

Yes that is the case. RAF and MoD realised that re-lifing the Block V and lower would cost almost as much as building new, with the advantage of producing an ITAR free missile for export to boot. The fact that the production line was very hot with RN and Army orders for CAMM was also a key factor...its been a decision that was spectacularly prescient...

What wasn't prescient though.....was the RAF deciding to have an extravagant missile practice camp whilst the rapid development of Raven was underway....and firing off 55+ Asraam for larks.....sure they need to do live missile firings....but in hindsight it looks utterly ludicrous...I think I said so at the time...

Over 400 missiles are said to have been fired to date. The fact that we're sending a further 5 vehicles in addition to the 8 already sent (1 of which has definitely been lost) should indicate that weapons stocks are not a concern. You won't get a number for the RAF stocks of Asraam anywhere....but....it was ordered in the late 90's when the RAF/MoD were very generous with their spend on guided weapons, particularly for domestic production (see the rather prodigious Storm Shadow, Starstreak and Brimstone stockpile sizes....) so I expect there to be a very large number still in stock. The fact that they could send 400 (and fire 55 for fun) without really cutting into the war reserve should be a clue....I suspect that if necessary the Australian stockpile of 200+ Asraam could also be made available now that Legacy Hornet has been retired (although technically they could mount Asraam on their F-35A).
 
timmymagic said:
Over 400 missiles are said to have been fired to date. The fact that we're sending a further 5 vehicles in addition to the 8 already sent (1 of which has definitely been lost) should indicate that weapons stocks are not a concern. You won't get a number for the RAF stocks of Asraam anywhere....but....it was ordered in the late 90's when the RAF/MoD were very generous with their spend on guided weapons, particularly for domestic production (see the rather prodigious Storm Shadow, Starstreak and Brimstone stockpile sizes....) so I expect there to be a very large number still in stock. The fact that they could send 400 (and fire 55 for fun) without really cutting into the war reserve should be a clue....I suspect that if necessary the Australian stockpile of 200+ Asraam could also be made available now that Legacy Hornet has been retired (although technically they could mount Asraam on their F-35A).
Click to expand...

So the RAF stockpile is likely in the low thousands for the pre-Block-6 AIM-132s?
 
It would make sense, since the planning for ASRAAM was during the Cold War and post-Falklands War.
The Gulf War, and Yugoslavia would have encouraged the planned order to remain and be implemented.
Also RAF was much larger back then with more platforms operational.
 
NMaude said:
So the RAF stockpile is likely in the low thousands for the pre-Block-6 AIM-132s?
Click to expand...

Can't say for sure...but its likely. RAF will have purchased sufficient to equip all likely aircraft, which at the time would have been 232 planned Typhoon, Tornado, Harrier and others...and multiple reloads.

During Cold War there were c27 A2A missiles available per fighter (mix of Sidewinder, Red Top, Firestreak, Sparrow and Sky Flash). Obviously the larger number would have been on the short ranged missiles...Not sure it would be as high as that post Cold War though....but...RAF were fairly generous at the time...
 
Planned 235 Typhoon
140 Tornado kept in service
60 - 40 GR.5 Harrier
60-ish Jaguar
A number of Hawk trainers likely factored in as well.
During this period Nimrod update included future use of ASRAAM. MRA.4 debacle.
 
zen said:
Officially NATO warstocks requirement was two weeks intensive combat.
Click to expand...
Which suggests something like 2 missions a day for 14 days, let's add 2 more missions in there somewhere so we're at 30 missions total, just to make rounder numbers. And each mission we're assuming expending all weapons.

Which means intended warstocks could be as high as 30,000 ASRAAMs.



zen said:
Rumour is more like a few days worth
Click to expand...
It's certainly seeming like that based on the US's buying patterns!
 
Scott Kenny said:
So, ~500 aircraft armed with ASRAAM, and we can assume 2x ASRAAM each for basic load. That means a minimum of 1000 missiles, just to arm all the planes.

How many reloads do we want to assume is HMGov's typical planning? 5? 10?
Click to expand...

Programme cost including development and manufacture to the UK (and remember there was some spend from partners prior to their exit) was £823m in 2002. Prices for Asraam per missile were reported at the time as <£200,000 per missile...which probably implies it was close to that figure..If you figure half of the £823m went into production missiles you end up with c2,000-2,500 missiles dependent on where you set the dial on price....which at the time would have been reasonable (and in fact was cut down from the original purchase quantities in 1992 due to end of Cold War). I think thats not a bad figure to work from if you factor in the threat at the time, increased pk of missiles etc. That would also tie in with the UK sending more Raven to Ukraine which would imply the use of 400 missiles to date + all the missiles expended in tests/training (and a small number in actual operations) has left a significant number remaining that should be spare over time....and that the rate of firing is not scaring anyone vis a vis new production Block VI and remaining missiles in stockpile + perceived threat...
 
timmymagic said:
Programme cost including development and manufacture to the UK (and remember there was some spend from partners prior to their exit) was £823m in 2002. Prices for Asraam per missile were reported at the time as <£200,000 per missile...which probably implies it was close to that figure..If you figure half of the £823m went into production missiles you end up with c2,000-2,500 missiles dependent on where you set the dial on price....which at the time would have been reasonable (and in fact was cut down from the original purchase quantities in 1992 due to end of Cold War). I think thats not a bad figure to work from if you factor in the threat at the time, increased pk of missiles etc. That would also tie in with the UK sending more Raven to Ukraine which would imply the use of 400 missiles to date + all the missiles expended in tests/training (and a small number in actual operations) has left a significant number remaining that should be spare over time....and that the rate of firing is not scaring anyone vis a vis new production Block VI and remaining missiles in stockpile + perceived threat...
Click to expand...

Just to add....2,000-2,500 also sounds relatively reasonable in comparison with UK purchases of other complex weapons in a similar time frame, such as Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Starstreak, Spearfish, Hellfire, Javelin, NLAW etc. which were all very generous in terms of quantities (albeit far less than the stockpiles of the Cold War era weapons they replaced) in comparison to other European NATO countries purchases of their equivalent weapons such as IRIS-T, PARS 3, F21, SCALP etc etc. In terms of weapons per system or per threat only the US would exceed those ratios by any margin....the only exception to this might be the UK's Amraam stockpile....we know the RAF inherited c120 Amraam B from the FAA with retirement of Sea Harrier FA.2...but I've never seen a serious number of Amraam C-5 numbers for RAF, which I assume was quite large...no idea on Meteor purchase either...apart from the fact I suspect its far larger than any of the other operators whose purchases have been far more modest...
 
Gut instinct says a sensible governments would, once ITAR free ASRAAM enters production. Setup a constant production rate, and replace earlier stocks of ASRAAM, while trying to coax others to buy into the system.
CAMM has dialed up elements of the product and lowered the costs.

As for Raven.....this is likely a very old concept from the early days of ASRAAM. Effectively a successor concept to SHIELD (which was to use Taildog/ SRAAM).
 
timmymagic said:
You won't get a number for the RAF stocks of Asraam anywhere....but....it was ordered in the late 90's when the RAF/MoD were very generous with their spend on guided weapons, particularly for domestic production
Click to expand...
I have actually come across a couple of documents discussing that the National Archives. Can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I have a feeling it was in the region of 2,500.
 
NMaude said:
What was the reason for rejection?

On another note with the RAVEN air defence frankenSAM project using old AIM-132s (All of the pre-Block 6 stuff) so that they can be replaced in the RAF's inventory by Block-6 ITAR-free ASRAAMs how many missiles would that be being sent to Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Most likely a BIST failure, there's probe contact marks on the signal pads. Pattern generator must have tripped a fail during wafer level check, prior to integration in an IDCA for imaging test
 
JagF25 said:
First time posting here, here are some images of what appear to be Typhoon missiles (+ ASRAAMS) next to an Italian Navy Harrier II.

These are from the 1995 Paris Airshow

Hopefully this hasn't already been posted :)
Click to expand...

Great images. Seen the artists impression of Typhoon before, but not in as good quality. Cheers.

Also an ALARM 'hanging' on a Harrier is new on me....
 
timmymagic said:
What wasn't prescient though.....was the RAF deciding to have an extravagant missile practice camp whilst the rapid development of Raven was underway....and firing off 55+ Asraam for larks.....sure they need to do live missile firings....but in hindsight it looks utterly ludicrous...I think I said so at the time...
Click to expand...
I wondered at the time if they were ensuring everyone was up to speed in case things turned really hot.
 
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bae-dynamics-typhoon-anti-armour-missile.2576/
sr1238-jpg.48767


I still have photo I posted, could scan at higher res.
 
timmymagic said:
So to summarise what we know so far...

CAMM-MR or Future Common Missile

  • Vertical launch
  • Cold launch
  • No quad packing, will probably take up the volume of 4 CAMM cannisters. (Personally I'm not sure about this as it would mean 2 per launcher only, which is a little low, I suspect they'd aim for 4 per launcher, the flatrack is fairly adaptable dimensionally, quad packing is a huge advantage)
  • Will obviously be longer than CAMM, but still fit lengthwise on the Land Ceptor launcher. (There is at least 0.5m at the front of the rack to play with and at least 1m at the rear).
  • Active Radar seeker at a minimum. (I do wonder if they'll look at dual mode as well)
  • >100km range
  • >65,000ft height capability
  • Using same data link for compatability
  • Sensor agnostic as per other CAMM variants
  • Same launcher system. (On land at least, no direct mention of naval to date, however, the only potential imagery of the missile was in front of the Polish A140 Frigate and specific mention was made of the Polish Air Force, Navy and Army running a shared stockpile approach like the RN and British Army)
  • If it is proceeded with will arrive after 2030
  • May use a 2 stage approach with booster and tip over mechanism being expended after use. (I think this would be sensible, but would add cost)
  • EDIT: - Cost - For the Polish to be interested it must be significantly cheaper than the other Patriot system long range missiles that they are buying.

It all sounds good, and has really good implications for the UK as well....my only question is for that sort of performance why not just go for a ground launched Meteor? A boosted Meteor has been proposed before, would easily fulfil the performance criteria, probably exceeding it dramatically and you could get 6 on the launcher with few problems...how it all interfaces with the rest of the MBDA also is unclear. For example if you're building a much larger missile in diameter do you continue to use the same seeker from MBDA Italia? Or go for more performance? Will the existing CAMM seeker still be viable in terms of its performance and obsolescence management from 2030 onwards in a new missile?
Click to expand...
Are we expecting BMD from the CAMM-MR? >20km altitude/>100km range puts it in the same bracket as the Aster-30 Block 0 and Block 1, both of which are proven against SRBMs.

Given comparative missiles such as the IRIS-T SLM and SLX both have or are expected to have BMD capability, do we think the CAMM-MR will?

It'll also form a second tier defence behind PAC-3MSE, so perhaps that also supports a BMD capability.
 
Reuben James said:
Are we expecting BMD from the CAMM-MR? >20km altitude/>100km range puts it in the same bracket as the Aster-30 Block 0 and Block 1, both of which are proven against SRBMs.
Click to expand...
Not sure, though I don't think it will be the primary concern when designing the missile. I'd say the CAMM-MR is going to be closer in capabilities to the SM-2MR than to the Aster 30 (be it with a bit smaller warhead, but that's just my guess), as its low cost nature would likely mean no attitude control thrusters, so no hit-to-kill capability.
And from what we already know about it, its maximum possible dimensions are indeed quite similar to the SM-2MR - up to ±340 mm in diameter for the dual pack and just a touch over 5 meters to fit onto either of the potential ground launchers (the iLauncher is more likely I think, but the M903 could be an option as well, at least for Poland).
So the range of "over 100 km" likely means around 150 in my opinion, I don't know what that means for anti-ballistic performance though.
 
Last edited:
olek_z17 said:
Not sure, though I don't think it will be the primary concern when designing the missile. I'd say the CAMM-MR is going to be closer in capabilities to the SM-2MR than to the Aster 30 (be it with a bit smaller warhead, but that's just my guess), as its low cost nature would likely mean no attitude control thrusters, so no hit-to-kill capability.
And from what we already know about it, its maximum possible dimensions are indeed quite similar to the SM-2MR - up to ±340 mm in diameter for the dual pack and just a touch over 5 meters to fit onto either of the potential ground launchers (the iLauncher is more likely I think, but the M903 could be an option as well, at least for Poland).
So the range of "over 100 km" likely means around 150 in my opinion, I don't know what that means for anti-ballistic performance though.
Click to expand...
Given that MBDA currently market Aster as having a range of >100km, anything from 100-120km seems reasonable for the CAMM-MR.

My thinking was that if CAMM-MR could go after the less agile, slower, short range BMs like Scud/Houthis stuff, it'd leave the less numerous Aster-30 B1NTs for more challenging intercepts. In that sense, CAMM-MR wouldn't need crazy manoeuvrability to intercept these more basic BMs, just altitude and range.
 
Reuben James said:
My thinking was that if CAMM-MR could go after the less agile, slower, short range BMs like Scud/Houthis stuff, it'd leave the less numerous Aster-30 B1NTs for more challenging intercepts. In that sense, CAMM-MR wouldn't need crazy manoeuvrability to intercept these more basic BMs, just altitude and range.
Click to expand...
That would be a good marketing position. Long range, reasonably cheap weapon to deal with low end threats.
 
Reuben James said:
My thinking was that if CAMM-MR could go after the less agile, slower, short range BMs like Scud/Houthis stuff, it'd leave the less numerous Aster-30 B1NTs for more challenging intercepts. In that sense, CAMM-MR wouldn't need crazy manoeuvrability to intercept these more basic BMs, just altitude and range.
Click to expand...
Ah, that's what you meant. If range and altitude alone will be enough for this (I have no idea if it does, haven't seen any reports of SM-2 performance in the Red Sea or anything like that), then yeah, it probably will be able to.

And as for the range itself, yeah, considering that MBDA tends to understate their missiles' performance, it will probably be listed as "exceeding 100 km", and I doubt there will be any more information on the Polish side considering the attitude towards transparency here.
Idk if it was mentioned in this thread, but there is a 308 mm diameter solid fuel motor in development in Poland. It's meant for a three stage sub-orbital rocket but designed mainly by military research institutes and they claim it can be used in military applications, so maybe we'll see a variant of it used in the CAMM-MR.

https://witu.home.pl/www/ulotki2022/silnik_rakietowy.pdf
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom