From the stuff pulled from the Archives so far you’d be surprised how far off public knowledge on a given subject can be.
3 Likes
Pretty sure the UK MoD is particularly prone to this. They are very cryptic.
Also when you say ‘visit the archives’ do you and Flame literally visit the national archives?
Like how does it work, i’d want to put in some of my own inquests.
Yes you can book out a document (or many) and go visit, you will be given said document to read and copy (with your own equipment).
1 Like
Thanks, perhaps next time I am down South i’ll book something out.
I presume knowing what to book out is a guessing game?
TSR2 would be our equivalent and I’d prefer it infinitely, but a C&P is far more likely for us at the moment.
3 Likes
Yes you only really have the title and sometimes a brief description. Often in rather dull sounding documents we’ve found some pretty damn useful stuff.
5 Likes
Can you see if you can find out what the camera does on the marksman AA turret? XD it’s bugging me lol
I think that it’s part of the IFF system. The radar locks on to the target and because the camera is right next to it someone in the turret can look at the feed and tell if it’s allied or enemy.
1 Like
IFF is more on the radar signal, not the visual side
1 Like
There was one on the turret demonstrated on M48 as well
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/2X/3/3b2df7c206c1497ec471e0ff0ee8e2d2261ae0de.png
Also, the vehicle at Duxford 03EB10 that you posted the images of, seems like it has had a different camera fitted at some point.
This one looks sort of similar to what was on the Centurion and Challenger demonstrators
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/2X/c/c0af9b3ea640ed50bb0fff7e8e7fbd494c7216bd.jpeg
Still not sure exactly what it is however
1 Like
Thought here would be the best place to ask, does anyone know if ASRAAM P3I was ever built as it might be a nice flexibility option for the British Eurofighter as opposed to the standard ASRAAM?
I didn’t know if it was an early form of optical tracker. One day we might know lol
I found a brochure on a modelling forum with some interesting pictures of it being made and also the mention of an 18° sight?
The ASRAAM P3I (pre-planned product improvement) was a candidate to win the the US FOX2 market to replace the AIM-9M. Unfortunatly for the british, it lost to the AIM-9X made by Hughes due to politics, cost and probably other factors.
The main difference between the ASRAAM used by the RAF and the ASRAAM P3I is that the P3I has TVC (thrust vectoring control) so it can manage to turn quicker off the rail and so it has a tighter turn radius.
The offset would be reduced range (probably around 40km max range instead of the 50km)
From what i could find, the missile only existed in paper as a proposition but never was produced.
I didn’t even found a prototype for it.
They probably just presented their proof of concept and the US just told them that they weren’t interested
1 Like
Yep thanks for the context.
That’s what confuses me, because they knew enough to evaluate it, and found that it met all their criteria obviously they selected the AIM-9X but that’s because they could re-use the booster from the 9M which was economically desirable and not because P3I was insufficient.
An ASRAAM P3I would be significant for the British Typhoons as it would be superior to block 1 AIM-9X as it would use the same seeker, but due to being an ASRAAM, have longer range and LOAL in addition to TVC and the already 50 g of the ASRAAM’s tail with lifting body.
I suppose it wouldn’t really be needed unless they absolutely butcher the ASRAAM but if they do then it might be something nice to fall back on.
Well while looking for sources, i’ve found this:
http://sistemasdearmas.com.br/aam/aim9x1.html
Which state that the ASRAAM was tested in the US.
I think it’s about the “normal” ASRAAM but it COULD be the P3I Asraam since he talk about it just before.
(Since he mention 50G and lack of maneuvrability, i think those test were the “normal” ASRAAM and the P3I was a proposed upgrade to match to all the criteria for the replacement of the 9M)
Yes they integrated it onto F-16 using a new rail which attached to those the sidewinders use, but unfortunately after they started getting export orders the US blocked their integration onto US-made aircraft IIRC.
The actual P3I seems to only exist in that it was proposed and designed and subsequently evaluated having met all target pointers, but then stopped after the US selected the US Sidewinder upgrade.
1 Like
So it was a repeat of what happened with the AIM-95.
The issue of the RWR on the F-4J UK being wrong
"ASRAAM
In addition to these offerings, Hughes offered an improved variant of the British Aerospace (BAe) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM).
Tests with ASRAAM focused on the missile’s risk areas: effectiveness of the FPA sensor, image signal processor, warhead effectiveness, rocket engine tests and agility.
The missile would use a TVC to engage targets at wide off-boresight angles, particularly at short range. The sensor would not change and the field of view increased from +/- 90 degrees to +/-105 degrees.
The ASRAAM P3I would incorporate a 165mm warhead, replacing the original DASA explosive/fragmentation sub-caliber warhead, with a Thorn laser proximity fuze. The original British specifications were for a missile with a “system kill” capability, that is, incapacitating the target, which was satisfied with the 8.2kg warhead.
The American requirements were for “structure kill”, which resulted in a 12kg warhead, slightly larger than that of the Sidewinder. DASA tested a new warhead that contained a greater weight of explosive, producing the same number of fragments, but each one larger than that of the previous warhead.
The comparative testing program would end in September 1996. It involved eight tests with the warhead, tests with the aircraft-mounted sensor, four firings, a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) simulation, and the firing of four surface-to-air telemetered missiles.
Three ASRAAMs were launched from the station under the wing of an F-16 at Eglin, and one at China Lake. The first shot made a curve to the right of 30g’s and rising slightly. The second duplicated this maneuver pulling 50g’s.
The third one flew right, left and right and then soared straight up. The fourth was fired from a sled, at a 30-degree angle of attack, at low speed, followed by a dive to simulate a short engagement at a large off-boresight angle. The missile broke up after 4 seconds, despite completing the maneuver it was going to demonstrate.
ASRAAM moved its fins to sense local dynamic pressure as it left the launcher. The fourth shot measured these values incorrectly, resulting in a rapid pitching rotation, which caused structural failure. BAe believed it was a small problem that could be easily remedied.
BAe believed that the missile met, or nearly met, all 22 operational parameters such as agility, lethality, field of view and resistance to countermeasures. One change that would be necessary would be to arrange the fins so that they could be taken into the F/A-22.
A high-thrust engine with a diameter of 165mm, compared to the Sidewinder’s 127mm, would meet the kinematic requirements. TVC would be necessary to increase agility.
The more powerful engine would result in greater final acceleration to optimize the F-Pole, the position between the launcher and the target when it is hit. Initial tests included a frontal engagement from 10km away.
The tests cost the British government US$31.5 million. In a real launch against a QF-106, the missile lost tracking in the final phase, but it was considered a simple problem to solve.
The Pentagon was concerned about the costs and risks of ASRAAM. ASRAAM is designed for high speed, high agility, increased range and improved acquisition. The configuration had low drag and an engine with a low visual signature.
Testing with ASRAAM showed that it would not meet the AIM-9X’s requirements for high launch angles, IR countermeasures, lethality and interoperability."
From what I read, the P3Is were being tested.