ASRAAM Block 6 standard is due to enter service on Typhoon in 2022 and F-35 Lightning II in 2024.

John Healey, MP for Wentworth and Dearne, aked via a written question:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the ASRAAM Sustainment programme has entered service on the (a) Typhoons and (b) F-35 IIs.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, responded:

“The ASRAAM sustainment programme continues to be delivered within Complex Weapons Portfolio contract price. On current plans, the resultant ASRAAM Block 6 standard is due to enter service on Typhoon in 2022 and F-35 Lightning II in 2024.”

ASRAAM is in service with the Royal Air Force as its ‘Within Visual Range’ anti-air missile. The weapon is also in operational service with the Royal Australian Air Force on its F/A-18 Hornet.

According to MBDA:

“In Within Visual Range (WVR) air combat, the ability to strike first is vital. A pilot engaging an enemy needs a missile that reacts more rapidly than ever before with the speed and agility to maximise the probability of a kill, regardless of evasive target manoeuvres or the deployment of countermeasures. ASRAAM has proven this capability.

ASRAAM accepts target information via the aircraft sensors, such as the radar or helmet mounted sight but can also act as an autonomous infrared search and track system. The RAAF has demonstrated successful ‘over the shoulder’ firing in Lock On After Launch (LOAL) mode against target drones that were behind the wing-line of the launch aircraft.”

The new block 6 ASRAAM was developed to meet UK requirements, and this incorporated new and updated sub-systems, including a new-generation seeker of increased pixel density, and a built-in cryogenic cooling system.

This new seeker is manufactured in Bolton, England, and is entirely U.S. international traffic in arms regulations (ITAR) subjected components free. Why does that matter? According to this source, a previous attempt to sell the missile to Saudi Arabia was scuttled because of objections from Washington. The missile’s seeker is made in American, thus requiring export approval from the United States.

MBDA has developed a new Block 6 variant of the ASRAAM dogfight missile that removes American-made components so that any export of the weapon will not be subjected to ITAR.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

75 COMMENTS

  1. RAAF only uses the ASRAAM on the original classic Hornets which will be retiring in the next 2 years. The RAAF Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35As use the AIM-X Block2.

    • Actually the last Squadron of RAAF Classic Hornets retire within the next two months, eg, by years end.

      Two Squadrons have already converted to F-35A, the third is currently in the process and the fourth, and last, starts conversion in the new year.

      Cheers,

      • A lot of competitors sacrificed range and speed for additional maneuverability, I don’t see how any manned jet is going to out maneuver an asraam turning at 50G though.

      • I don’t think Steve was saying that one missile was better than the other, just the simple fact that ASRAAM is fitted to the soon to retire Classic Hornet fleet and AIM-9X is fitted to the three newer RAAF fast jets.

        And there is a simple reason for that, the RAAF has kept the configuration of the Super Hornets and Growlers identical to the USN, and at this stage, the F-35A to the USAF configuration.

        If you look at most of the ADFs more recent aviation acquisitions it’s made more sense to keep identical configurations to that of the primary user, easier for support, sustainment, upgrades, etc.

      • 9x and the existing Asraam use the same seeker but Asraam has much longer range due to a bigger rocket motor, 9x is probably more manoeuvrable though as I believe it has some sort of thrust vectoring.
        I believe the Aussies chose Asraam over 9x as neither was integrated on the hornet at the time so they just went for the best option.
        Of course the supers and f35 come ready to go with 9x.
        It’s interesting that the Saudis use European weapons on their typhoons and tornados but US weapons on their f15’s. I guess the cost of integration is more than the savings of having common weapon stocks.

      • Yes very interesting. It sounds like the 9X is more about using old stock then anything new. Once the new ASRAAM is in service with the new seeker it will dominate the short to medium range fight. With Meteor the Typhoon will have an unmatched capability.

        I understand that ASRAAM can be cued by either radar or EO and can lock-on-after-launch so you can shoot it in the direction of a target and it will do the rest…

        An impressive weapone.

      • It’s a good read, perhaps giving away a bit too much information in regards to specific performances. Though it does give a layman’s guide to their relative performance to each other. I’m glad he states the advantages that a throttle-able engine will have in an engagement along with the disadvantages that a thrust vectoring system has for longer distance engagements.

        In a close in dogfight, a missile with a thrust vectoring system (TVS) will have the initial advantage. However, as soon as the fuel runs out, it has to rely on the aerodynamic surfaces for steering and the built up acceleration to maintain its engagement. The high lift surfaces such as strikes etc will have a much higher drag factor, plus dragging around the dead weight of the TVS, thus the missile will loose speed faster and it’s range will be much reduced.

        The ability to throttle an engine gives so many advantages over a conventional or even a pulse rocket engine. As it means it can conserve fuel for the terminal engagement or significantly extend its range by following an economic ballistic path. Just like the rocket powered missile it can do a 100% burn for maximum acceleration to engage closer targets.

        For my biased opinion! The combination of BVR Meteor and WVR ASRAAM make for a very formidable package, that an opponent will struggle to compete with (I’m not bringing radar stealth into the equation). Both have significant advantages over peer weapons. Thus giving the launch platform a greater chance of successfully engaging your opponent, whilst remaining out of range of their weapons. It only swings in favor of TVS controlled weapons when the aircraft merge together in a dogfight scenario. With Meteor and ASRAAM the idea is to not merge, giving the pilot a better chance of surviving an engagement.

        • I’m with you on the Meteor and ASRAAM combination. Great capability and overlap. Have to say I’ve gone back to this link a few times over the past few years and I’m drawn to his comment (speculation) that ultimately air dominance may come from long range loitering type weapons fired from whatever aircraft can carry the most (he mentions 747’s to convey his point), or even just launched from trucks (in a defensive mode I assume). Keep thinking… is the future something like Wedgetail with 30 next gen meteors and 10 ASRAAM fitted, direct energy weapons to deal with incoming while controlling several loyal wingmen pushed forward for strike .

          • The future will belong to the person who can maintain and operate the most loyal wingman style UAVs. By which I mean operating in a hostile kinetic and RF environment with enough airframes to maintain attritional losses.

            Until UAVs use directional data-links (as per F35) they will be susceptible to hacking and jamming. Russia has so far proved that they are very good at both hacking and jamming of radio data communications, eg hacking and jamming GPS, hacking RAF personnel’s mobile phones in Estonia etc. How would a loyal wingman UAV contend with this level of attack, as by their nature they have to currently use an omni-directional antenna to make sure they remain in communications with the “Mother” aircraft? If things did kick off with Russia, I would expect this level of disruption if not more!

            I always thought that a B2 Spirit armed with Meteor would be a pretty deadly combination.

            I’m still undecided regarding high powered lasers fitted to a fighter aircraft. These will not be as powerful as one fitted to a ship for example. It will totally depend upon how much surplus electrical energy above the aircraft’s normal avionic requirements (an operating radar uses a massive amount of electrical power) is available to power the laser. This will then determine the effective range of the laser.

            Directed microwave weapons are definitely on the cards, if not available already with the F35’s APG-81 radar. I know they have trialled it against surveillance and tracking radar. I wonder if they have tested it against an aircraft yet? Though it would have to get petty close to make sure there’s enough RF to induce EMI against the aircraft’s avionics etc?

        • Interesting that German typhoons will have a standard fit of 4 meteor, 2 AMRAAM and 2 iris t , perhaps an admission that the Iris t is a bit short legged and perhaps meteor isn’t as good at closer in engagements 8-15 km as amraam?
          What do you think of mica ? Available in both IR and radar versions and presumably somewhere between Asraam and amraam range wise. I think the french fly with 4 mica and 2 meteor on their Rafaels. Mica on its own was considered a bit lightweight but the combination looks good.

    • His aids where quick to correct him, which is worrying. Taiwan is a wealthy country if they where given the same military support as Israel China would soon get the message

    • Since corrected by the WH as the US Taiwan Relations Act does not include an explicit commitment to intervene militarily in the event of an invasion of or attack on Taiwan by the mainland.

  3. Good to hear that the missile is not subject to US ITAR restrictions. Not getting into a discussion on the pro’s and con’s of arms sales but just saying it’s good that we can sell our own British made ‘goods’ to anyone, without permission from a 3rd party.

    Anyone know what issues (legal or otherwise) the EU would have had, on UK arms sales, if we were still been a member?

    • EU has export controls, that limit sale of certain goods to certain countries. So the UK arms industry would need to follow those rules if we were still a member. Saying that they are countries I wouldn’t want us exporting to, so no issue there for me. Plus as a member we would have voted in them controls anyway, so it’s a mute point.

    • Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mass take-up of AIM-9X isn’t just due to the wide use of US aircraft, but also because of ITAR-related restrictions that are imposed on us.
      The EU rules are more similar to embargoes in my understanding; if there is a country that is committing human rights abuses etc. then they are put on a red list. But I believe that all countries have a say in who goes on there, and the French are big arms exporters too- so it pays more than one country to keep that red list reserved for the very worst offenders / threats to wider security.
      Like you, morality of arms sales is not something I want to get into, but I don’t think that the EU have prevented us from selling anything to anyone, at least not that someone else would have said no to anyway.

      • The US often pushes its partners to buy US. Often linking platform sales to their kit. It is made the path of leat resistance to buy a US platform and its US weapons. Uk examples of this include UK P8s and AH64Es.

    • Germany was/is one of the main hold ups on the sale of the additional 48 Typhoon to Saudi Arabia…its gone very quiet in recent years so might be dead. The German’s were making noises about opposing it however, due to the war in Yemen.

      • Was the german ability to veto because of their membership of the EU or because Germany was one of the 4 partners in the eurofighter consortium though? I suspect the latter but don’t know…

        • Very much the latter. That’s mainly because the French are very keen to sell their kit to anyone that’ll buy it, so EU export regs rarely (if ever) stop countries selling weapons to whoever they want. The more common issue is specific member states who made components for the weapons objecting, and that’s an issue you’ll get in any system using components from a variety of countries (which is basically every modern weapon that’s not a rifle). Two good examples would be when Germany stopped us selling Meteor to the Saudis (the French sided with us on this, mainly because of fears Germany could block sales of FCAS in the future), and when we stopped Gripens and FA-50s from being sold to Argentina.

    • A no undercutting rule existed whilst in the EU, in other words the Australian sub deal change of hands would not have happened and if it did the UK certainly wouldnt be involved in it.

  4. Carried on the outer wing pylons on the F-35B and only after Block IV software has been installed. Is that still the case as it would compromise its stealth characteristics?

    Block IV has been pushed back until 2026, has that changed which also includes the next generation of Spear?

    “ASRAAM Block 6 is currently scheduled for integration with the F-35B as part of the Block IV software release.

    F-35 Carriage
    The original intent was for four ASRAAM to be carried internally.
    This then changed to internal and external, some test fits were made on mock-ups and development aircraft.

    Following the 2010 F-35C change and the subsequent reversion to F-35B, this was amended to external only.

    Brimstone was also dropped from the threshold list.
    The current plan is to carry two ASRAAM on the outer wing low observable pylons, positions 1 and 11.

    ASRAAM Block 6 is also ITAR free, enabling export without US approval.

    As part of a wider technology refresh, it incorporates a number of new components and systems including the seeker and a built-in cryogenic cooling system.”

    https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/advanced-short-range-air-to-air-missile-asraam/

  5. The US is a disgrace how they us ITAR to block other countries export sales purely for commercial reasons. They have no problem sell the Saudis billions in F15s but dont even thinking about buying someone else’s missiles

  6. Block 6 makes sense for the RAF because it has benefitted from CAMM development. ASRAAM has recently been sold to India and will be licence assembled by India too.

  7. How does the new Block 6 ASRAAM stack up against the newest Chinese/Russian short range AAMs? I read elsewhere they are very deadly and are to be respected.

    • It will have a superior seeker and far superior range.
      Russian ones are shorter ranged and are fairly outdated.
      Chinese ones seem to be stolen IRIS-T’s and Python designs, likely to be inferior to both.
      Asraam Blk.6 should remain the best WVR missile in the world.

    • The Russian Vympel R-74 is more in the AIM-9X/Python-5/A-Darter/IRIS-T design concept – a smaller diameter rocket motor giving less speed and range (Mach 2.5 / 25Km range). IRIS-T is faster than the others at Mach 3. The Chinese PL9 and PL10 are heavily influenced by the Israeli Python and South African/Brazilian A-Darter repectively (indeed maybe developments of these missiles – again in the Mach 2.5 / 25Km range bracket). ASRAAM has a larger motor than these types and is in the Mach 3.5 / 40-50Km range (the RAF are coy about range). The French MICA IR version has longer range (60Km), but is bulkier and slower at Mach 2.5, using the same airframe as the BVR version. All these missiles are highly agile. As far as seekers go, the earlier ASRAAM Raytheon seeker is broadly the same as AIM-9X, the new seeker has higher pixel density. Oman and Qatar are likely to get Block VI for their Typhoons.

      • Hi James,

        Thank you for sharing your insights – much appreciated. Just a couple of questions if I may ask for your input:

        1) How effective is the RAF Typhoon’s DASS (I understand the RAF has the most comprehensive suite of all Typhoon operators) against the current crop of Russian and Chinese AAMs. I understand the RAF’s Typhoon also operates the BriteCloud decoy. Not sure if we are the only Typhoon operator that does.

        2) Do you think the Block 6 seeker upgrade will be ported over to Sea Ceptor? I understand they are essentially the same missile (ASRAAM and Sea Ceptor).

        Thank you James.

        • 1 Praetorian DASS is comprehensive but eye wateringly expensive. It comprises ESM-Radar Warning Receivers, a Laser Warning Receiver (only on RAF and Saudi Typhoons), wingtip ECM pods (capable of 360 degree jamming of multiple air and ground targets using classification data from the ESM) which are getting new antennas under P1E, three passive / active Missile Approach Warners in the wing roots and tail (360 coverage), SAAB developed Countermeasures Dispensers (carried externally underwing), which can carry flares, chaff, the Typhoon IR decoy and the new Britecloud Active Decoy. One or two Leonardo developed Towed Radar Decoys can also be deployed from the rear of the wingtip ECM pods.

          2 Sea Ceptor uses a RF seeker unlike ASRAAM, cued by other tracking radars carried by warships.

          Britecloud is going to be adopted by UK, Sweden and Italy (Gripen and Typhoon/Tornado) I believe so far but also offered to all Typhoon and Gripen users..

          • Interestingly Sea Venom uses an IR seeker, so that may be coevolutionary with Brimstone/Spear 3 and ASRAAM IR seekers.

          • Hi James again. Thank you for sharing your knowledge – I appreciate it when people on this forum share their comprehensive knowledge to help us all learn.

            With regard to Praetorian DASS, how effective would it be against the latest S300/400 systems? I get the impression NATO countries and even the Israelis are very, very cautious with it – some would even say fearful. I also read it’s very presence in Syria was enough to prevent us and the Israelis carrying out strikes against Assad – not all strikes to be sure but it was an effective deterrent.

            Even the Iranians have it to protect their nuclear sites which I ‘assume’ has played some part in dissuading the Israelis from striking – although with their F-35I, this may be less so.

            Thank you James

          • S300/400 is something of a moveable feast (literally). Its basically an updated and mobile version of the intergrated air defence system used by the RAF in 1940.

            Each system can have up to eight battalions of SAMs (6 long range and 2 short range), with 72 launchers for a full fat 8 battalion system (350+ ready missiles). Not all systems or operators use this many launchers.

            On their own each battalion of 9 launchers can only engage one target at a time but when used in conjunction with the 91/92N family of long range radars the S3/400 system can detect and track up to 100 targets simultaneously out to 600km (detection) and 350km (tracking) for targets at altitude and cue up to two missiles at each target.

            The C3 vehicles can also pass data between battalions and take targeting data from AEW aircraft. A variety of missiles and gun systems can be integrated, with ranges from 40km out to 400km (less against low flying cruise missiles and stealth aircraft – more like up to 40km).

            Like any such system the weak links are the radars and C3 vehicles. Given that these are truck mounted they are less easy to pinpoint than legacy soviet systems, and S400 is much more resistent to jamming and has better AESA radars than S300. Careful postioning of radars is needed to improve performance against low radar signiture targets, and this also is a weak point.

            Dealing with systems like S400 is the job of a DASS. I don’t know how good Typhoon is at addressing S400, but I assume that its ESM, warning receivers, ECM and decoys are meant to make its job a lot harder.

            Mini-cruise missiles like Spear 3 (which can attack moving targets) and Spear 3 EA and Alvina swarming drones launched in numbers from 180km out are intended to swarm such a system with multiple targets and decoys and hit the radar and C3 systems.

          • Interesting. I came away with the opposite impression based on what I’ve read.

            https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/unanswered-israeli-air-strikes-against-syria-raise-s-400-questions/

            If I remember right, at one point in time there was just a single battery deployed and even a system as supposedly sophisticated as the S400 is advertised to be, it stands little chance against a coordinated attack from NATO, especially the way that system was deployed. Remember all the videos of the IAF flying seemingly unbothered and killing several modern pantsir systems. The s400 was already deployed then as far as I’m aware.

        • Praetorian is up there with the best. In a lot of respects it is better than the Rafale’s Spectra. As each element can function independently from the rest, but still combine the information easily for the pilot. Spectra has an issue that when it’s jamming it blanks out it’s RWR.

          Praetorian is built by Eurodass, which is made up by the four partner Nations. As part of a further upgrade they have agreed on further evolution of Praetorian. This is being led by Leonardo. This will look at future proofing the Typhoon’s DASS to meet current and predicted threats. It will likely include a wide band RF jammer based on Britecloud DRFM technology, but there is also talk of it including a directed infrared countermeasure (DIRCM). To be frank DIRCM will be the only way to defend an aircraft against imaging infrared based missiles, flares will no longer provide the necessary protection.

          SeaCeptor will not get the imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker as used in ASRAAM. My reasoning for this is that the active radar provides all weather guidance. Whereas, the IIR seeker is affected by the weather. It’s range is much reduced when it’s lashing down for example. This isn’t such a problem for an air launched missile, as the aircraft’s relative speed and maneuvering will mitigate the weather conditions to a large extent. Whilst a slow moving ship will struggle to get away from the weather, thus needs a missile that can function 100% no matter the weather conditions.

      • As a correction, the Python-5 and A-Darter are shorter ranged (20km) but quick around Mach 4 (similar to ASRAAM) and agile. The Chinese PL9 and 10 are liely to be similar, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, R-73 are a little longer ranged (25km) and around Mach 3. The most similar to ASRAAM is the Japanese AAM-5, which has 35km range at Mach 3+. ASRAAM is rumoured to be good out to 50km and make Mach 3.5-4.

    • China has introduced a new variant of the PL-15, which will be used on their J-20 and J-16 fighters.

      Mach 4 capable, but the seeker will not be quite in the same league as Meteor which will be updated in the 2024/6 timeframe with a Mitsubishi AESA seeker if all goes to PLAN!

      Russia and China are currently developing BVRAAM with AESA seekers so the race is on in this area too!

      The picture shows an A J-20 carrying four PL-15 missiles and two PL-10 missiles.

    • Read the debate / article I posted further up. Interesting discussion on the relative merits and disadvantages of alternative WVR design philosophies.

    • It will also be interesting to see how the F-35B will be configured due to its limitations for intercept missions and dogfighting capabilities, so I’m guessing potential adversaries will be aware of this and could very well take advantage of it?

      “This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the U.S. services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct,’ which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix.”

      Availability of the aircraft is another factor to consider for the Navy.

      “The issue is compounded for the Navy, which must operate forward for months at a time because any significant issues with coatings or the structure of aircraft would require a depot-level repair. And so a damaged aircraft would remain damaged until its host ship returns to homeport, reducing the combat effectiveness of the air wing.

      “We might have to be operating at sea for eight months, so if you damage something on week one, guess what? It’s damaged for the rest of the deployment,” the aviator said. “And it affects your ability to evade detection by the enemy — you just degraded that asset permanently until you can get it somewhere where it can be fixed, at great expense and time.”

      https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/

  8. ITAR and ECR are a US way of ensuring you only buy American. The things covered by the rules are very wide ranging… The obvious stuff like high tech electronics, oil industry and underwater tech but also things like life jackets and horses!

    There where issues with the single 30 fitted to a middle east countries Mine Hunters. The same mount fitted to RN vessels. The very small gyro used for mount stabilisation was from the US and until it was replaced with a French unit the gun mounts couldn’t be sold.

    The thing with ITAR is it affects whole systems. Have one bit of ITAR on a vessel or aircraft and the whole thing is covered by the rules. BAe discovered this to their cost when they had a massive fine for ITAR breaches. Nowadays they are all over it.

    • The other side of the ITAR coin is you don’t use US bits if you can help it.

      So it is kind of driving down US parts usage.

      • Initially it benefitted US industry, but then US manufacturers started to really use it to their advantage and pushed the legislation far further than it was supposed to go. A sensible bit of legislation is now having the opposite effect as competitor’s and allies are developing their own gear and cutting the US out of the equation.

        • Yes indeed and they wonder why so much electronic input and cooperation is now headed to the east than across the pond. America First for others means America Last and is inevitably hitting them hard but there is always going to be some interest group there to stop a more enlightened approach and then of course there is the endless legal challenges….

  9. Is there any development of a twin launchers for the ASRAAM on the F-35B or can the outer launch rail only take one? And can the inner pylon’s take a Meteor on the F-35B so potentially in “beast mode” up to 8 meteors? Can the Typhoon take up to 6-8 Meteors?
    I think I read somewhere that the P8s going to be fitted out for ASRAAMs too but I could be imagining that.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here