A collage of CAD of current MR-BVR-AAMs. Their edges had to be cleaned in MS-paint in PNG format for good superimposition.
Top to bottom:
PL-15
Astr Mk1
Astr Mk3 SFDR
R-77-1
Meteor
AIM-120-D AMRAAM
Top to bottom:
PL-15
Astr Mk1
Astr Mk3 SFDR
R-77-1
Meteor
AIM-120-D AMRAAM
Astra mk1 vs Akash-NG
Akash-NG has superior design. If an Air-to-air missile were to be designed on the basis of akash-ng it would be far more easier to pack it in an internal bay of an aircraft. Is their any particular reason[other than reduced workload] to persist with Astra mk1 design in its next iteration i.e. astra mk2???
You are correct about Akash NG design being more suited for IWB. But Astra Mk2 uses the same airframe as Mk1 as the new design will need a long test phase to validate the missile.
They have time till AMCA prototype's AAM launch test point arrives.
When Astr-3 SFDR, a totally new tech can be tested then testing short fin version shouldn't take much time, the mid-body fin is a fixed one.
Thanks to bigger mid-body wings/strakes Astra MK1 also produces more lift, thus can turn harder off the rails. Since MK2 has dual-pulse, it also needs to have high endgame agility/maneuverabity/G-performance. These are the reasons why the earlier Akash-NG like design for MK2 was rejected apart from the reason that you've given(shorter development period for a different design).
The Mk2 should have folding fins at the very least. Lets hope for a confirmation at Aero India '25.
All along the tendency has been first to realise the platform in case of 5th Gen FAs in full operational efficiency as conceived & then realise the armaments. Been true of the F-35 , is true of the Su-57 & from the looks of it of the J-20s too.
Don't think minaturising existing systems without compromising on the performance is a huge thing which is the reason they're not top on the priority list .
Other factors like sensor fusion , networking also helps. A 4.5th Gen or quasi 5th Gen bomb truck in the vicinity can be cued to unleash hell on the adversary if required.
> Meteor & Astr-3 SFDR don't have mid-body fins. Astr-1 is 154Kg but Astr-3 is 220Kg & Meteor is 190Kg, then also no fins/lift to compensate for weight.
> AFAIK, the fins of AAMs/SAMs (which are radially symmetrical) are not lifting aerofoils like that of aircrafts. Target can be in any quadrant fromboresight, so missiles need to roll freely & don't have fixed pitch & yaw axis. They fly low to high supersonic, so they cut through air so fast that fixed fins are just needed to keep them stabilised rather than produce active lift. The rear fin set can trim the air flow if a loss of lift is detected by INS.
> People say that every Kg reduction matters for an aircraft. So every few 10s of grams reduction should matter for short/medium range missiles. The AIM-120D AMRAAM is an example of short fins clipped further for IWB, same thing speculated for their upcoming AIM-260 JATM, LREW, etc.
> Dogfight CCMs need tighter turns off the rails immediately. If we look at AIM-132 ASRAAM used by us also & the NG-CCM based on it, then they have just the rear moving fins & no TVC nozzle. AIM-9X fins also have been clipped.
So why not remove mid-fins or strakes from BVR-AAMs? Perhaps bcoz CCMs flight profile is more often adjusted in short range compared to BVR-AAM's mid-course flight profile needing stability.
May be there is some urgency to produce the Astr AAM with improved internal stuff, the fixed fin can be tested any time easily.
Actually the ramjet ducts of both Meteor & Astra MK3 generate huge lift and thus such SFDR missiles are extremely agile(with max 40G+ overload) even against conventionally finned/straked AAMs. Them being not maneuverable/agile is just a fallacy.
Who said they are not agile?
When in other AAMs the mid-body fins, strakes are for stability & not for lift in supersonic speeds faster than bullet then no other structure is required to do that.
The rear fins are enough for high G turns.
The ramjet ducts in those AAMs are similar to aircraft intakes of F-15, Tornado, MiF-25/31, etc. They even have boundary layer separator gap.
These intakes are angled & ducts run parallel to body for some length & then reduce inwards, that's aids in reducing sonic drag, not a lift producing aerodynamic shape.
Its not the agility you are dealing with , its also the kinetic performance for a specific duration, or to be precise for enough duration where at the end of its course the missile still retains its kinetic performance for a definite kill probability. Unlike the ccm or now mid range bvr like R-77 , a long range bvr can not retain the high kinetic thrust from the burnout to the endgame even if the period is short after it travelled a long distance. So a higher lift generating aerodynamic design would be natural choice where you have a single pulse rocket motor as propulsion. A ducted ramjet where you can throttle and manage the burn any time ie online thrust variation will be very useful obviously, but in absence of that a design like this is very useful to retain excellent kinetic impulse and acceleration which will improve a kill probability much more.
Anyone remember who first posted this pic on twitter or other forum?
Edit; found it under neutrons
Edit; found it under neutrons
Last edited:
The newest in the K family is showing some positive signs of exciting activity , and the oldest one they are buying a decent batch of it possibly to give to the new inducted boomer baby for its birthday present.