AIM-152 AAAM (Advanced Air-To-Air Missile)

[Spey_Phantom]

in the 90's the US was developing a replacement for the AIM-54 phoenix.
what would the possibilities be, maybe integration on the superbug, typhoon, F-15

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-152.html

[dy031101]

in the 90's the US was developing a replacement for the AIM-54 phoenix.
what would the possibilities be, maybe integration on the superbug, typhoon, F-15

The F/A-18F is a natural- it is the replacement for F-14 after all......

I can see the GD/Westinghouse design for all the aircraft that you've mentioned- their design requirement isn't much larger (and not any longer in length) than AMRAAM- and how possible do you think that an active-radar guided version would become available by the time F/A-18F and Typhoon came around?

I suppose that F-15 could have had the radar pods mounted on the outboard underwing pylons in the meantime......




As for the Hughes/Raytheon design...... it's a bit large (again, not in length but in diametre and the size of the fins)...... but then it came with active radar guidance "OOB".

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I like the alternative to that AIM-52 hybrid Sparrow shape you posted.  Not quite as glamorous as yours but form, fit, and function are all covered.  

An alternative for a similar weapon for a 1/48th scale WHIF would be to use the 1/72nd scale AGM-78 STARM that are provided in the Hasegawa weapons set as a modern air to air missile.  I like the overall shape of the AGM-78 but it is far too large in same scale to portray an air to air missile, hence the scale-o-rama idea using a 1/72nd scale weapon on a 1/48th scale aircraft model.  The aircraft in question would be the F-15, F-14, F-22, and maybe the F-35.  Maybe some retrofits into the F-106 and the F-4.  Need to stock up on more 1/72nd scale AGM-78 shapes.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

If the AIM-4H had been placed into production it might have been considered potent enough to be used on more aircraft then in production or future aircrat then under consideration. 

Perhaps arming the early models of the F-15 and the F-16.  While the AIM-9 was a Navy developed weapon, the USAF could have continued to support the AIM-4 as their own weapon of choice and perhaps it could have been used by many other countries that acquired American aircraft. 

I suspect that if a pod the size of the Scorpion's was put on the F-104's wingtip, the -104 wouldn't be supersonic, assuming it could get off the ground?
But a quartet of AIM-4s on a -104 mmmmmmmmmm!

The AIM-4 does not really need a pod for carriage prior to launch.  That option would only benefit the carrier aircraft by reducing some of the drag inherent with the weapons being mounted on a pylon. 

An F-104 armed with AIM-4?  That would take some creativity.

[dy031101]

I like the alternative to that AIM-52 hybrid Sparrow shape you posted.

That would be the GD/Westinghouse design, smaller but requiring the launcher aircraft to carry podded guidance radars to overcome the limitation of being semi-actively guided.

Does anyone know exactly how large the radar pods were to be?

Maybe (if they weren't to be too large) F/A-18F might do it like E/A-18G would ALQ-218 pods- although that'd mean two less AIM-9X to carry- while Typhoon might just have their wingtip pods enlarged.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I like the alternative to that AIM-52 hybrid Sparrow shape you posted.

That would be the GD/Westinghouse design, smaller but requiring the launcher aircraft to carry podded guidance radars to overcome the limitation of being semi-actively guided.

Does anyone know exactly how large the radar pods were to be?

Maybe (if they weren't to be too large) F/A-18F might do it like E/A-18G would ALQ-218 pods- although that'd mean two less AIM-9X to carry- while Typhoon might just have their wingtip pods enlarged.

In my reality, there would be no need for those space taking radar pods, the missile would be fully integrated with the original fire control radar.  Solves that problem real quick!  

[dy031101]

In my reality, there would be no need for those space taking radar pods, the missile would be fully integrated with the original fire control radar.  Solves that problem real quick!

The idea of having additional podded radars as part of GD/Westinghouse proposal is that once the (semi-actively guided) missile is fired, the pods would take over the task of guiding it, thus having the launch aircraft free to undertake any further combat manuvers.

Initial target aquisition was still done by the aircraft's own fire control radar.

Interesting though, the podded radar was to be able to guide the missile over a distance of more than 185km...... I don't think anyone would appreciate the idea of carrying a pair of pods as large as the carrier plane's own internal radar (jettisoning them at the first sight of trouble seems like a wasteful practice), which is why I want to know the projected size of the radar pods.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

All of those pesky radar pods take up valuable space that could be used for more missiles. 

While I find the General Dynamics-Westinghouse proposal to be more attractive due to the overall design.  It would probably have lost out to the Hughes-Raytheon Franken-missile design because of the larger missile airframe which would allow for some growth in the design which is not the case for the General Dynamics-Westinghouse contender since it has no room for growth in such a small airframe, even with miniaturization of electronics.

From what I have read regarding the General Dynamics-Westinghouse AAAM missile proposal it was to be carried and launched from a cannister that was part of a pallet that was attached to the aircraft.  Each missile pallet that would hold three or four missiles and would extend into the airstream only when they were to be launched.  While that does wonders for drag induced by carriage of the weapons on the aircraft it does nothing for the visual effect of having weapons visible on your model.  I think it would be much better to portray the missiles mounted on a launch rail or attached directly to the stores pylon in much the same fashion as current air to air missiles such as the AIM-7, AIM-54, or even the AIM-120 AMRAAM. 

So with that in mind, you can have a missile of greater performance and lethality carried in much the same fashion as existing weapons which will give you a few other options for your WHIF projects.   

Creating an AIM-152 missile in 1/48th scale?  What would you use as the staring point for creating this missile?  I can see parts of an AIM-7 Sparrow for the Hughes-Raytheon proposal but the General Dynamics-Westinhouse verision is open to suggestion.   

[dy031101]

All of those pesky radar pods take up valuable space that could be used for more missiles.

I'd figure that the pods would be carried on hardpoints that can't carry AAMs to begin with- but that'd be difficult except for F-15, whose outermost underwing pylons fit the criteria.

While I find the General Dynamics-Westinghouse proposal to be more attractive due to the overall design.  It would probably have lost out to the Hughes-Raytheon Franken-missile design because of the larger missile airframe which would allow for some growth in the design which is not the case for the General Dynamics-Westinghouse contender since it has no room for growth in such a small airframe, even with miniaturization of electronics.

Depends on the preception as to how large is too large.  

While that does wonders for drag induced by carriage of the weapons on the aircraft it does nothing for the visual effect of having weapons visible on your model.  I think it would be much better to portray missile mounted on a launch rail or attached directly to the stores pylon in much the same fashion as current air to air missiles such as the AIM-7, AIM-54, or even the AIM-120 AMRAAM..

Both in terms of hobby and actual practice, I can see Hughes-Raytheon design being carried under the wings.  In F-15's case though, a version of Strike Eagle's CFT can be adopted.  Conformal hardpoints on other aircraft that have them might need major modifications before being able to carry the missile- which might not be all that major in terms of hobby modelling of course.

From what I have read regarding the General Dynamics-Westinghouse AAAM missile proposal it was to be carried and launched from a cannister that was part of a pallet that was attached to the aircraft.  Each missile pallet that would hold three or four missiles and would extend into the airstream only when they were to be launched.

How are the GD-Westinghouse design's pallets carried?  If it's carried under pylons like other ordnances......

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Here is a link to the AIM-152 AAAM images at secretprojects.com The conceptual art shows the radar pod mounted on the shoulder pylon of the F-14 and the missile pallets on the underside of the aircraft.  Some of the best information I have seen on line so far regarding the General Dynamics-Westinghouse proposal.

The ouboard wing pylon on the F-15 is limited on what it can carry which is unfortunate since it just begs to have a missile or countermeasures pod mounted on it.

[dy031101]

While I find the General Dynamics-Westinghouse proposal to be more attractive due to the overall design.  It would probably have lost out to the Hughes-Raytheon Franken-missile design because of the larger missile airframe which would allow for some growth in the design which is not the case for the General Dynamics-Westinghouse contender since it has no room for growth in such a small airframe, even with miniaturization of electronics.

Found this: