Conservative MP James Cartlidge recently asked the Ministry of Defence about its efforts in promoting and participating in NATO-led multinational procurement initiatives.
Responding, Defence Minister Maria Eagle highlighted the UK’s active role in advancing collaborative procurement efforts, particularly in missile and munitions systems.
Eagle stated:
“Since the UK launched the NATO Multinational Procurement Initiatives on missiles and munitions alongside a total of 14 European NATO allies, we have promoted UK-led cooperative procurement opportunities on the Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) and the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM).
We continue to work with partners and allies to promote and participate in MPIs across a range of capabilities. We are engaged with relevant NATO initiatives to ensure coherence.”
What is ASRAAM?
The Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), also known as AIM-132 in the United States, is a high-speed, infrared-homing missile manufactured by MBDA UK for close-range aerial combat. Replacing the AIM-9 Sidewinder in the Royal Air Force (RAF), ASRAAM enables pilots to fire and disengage swiftly, with its Mach 3 speed and range of over 25 kilometres allowing it to strike before an opposing aircraft can respond.
Designed for exceptional manoeuvrability, ASRAAM boasts a 50g capability achieved through body lift and tail control, making it a formidable asset in dogfight scenarios. Initiated as a joint British-German project in the 1980s, Germany withdrew in 1989, prompting the UK to independently complete ASRAAM, which entered RAF service in 1998. The missile has since been adopted by the Indian Air Force, Qatar Air Force, and Royal Air Force of Oman, and was previously utilised by the Royal Australian Air Force.
ASRAAM also serves as the foundation for the Common Anti-Aircraft Modular Missile (CAMM), used by the British Army and Royal Navy, among other allied forces, in a surface-launch capacity. Additionally, a surface-launched ASRAAM variant has been improvised for use by Ukraine’s Armed Forces. Built as a “fire-and-forget” missile, ASRAAM features superior speed and agility, targeting threats at extended ranges akin to early AMRAAM models. Its larger 16.51 cm rocket motor provides greater thrust than its counterparts, extending its range to up to 50 kilometres.
Central to its performance is a 128×128 resolution imaging infrared focal plane array (FPA) seeker, offering long-range acquisition, high countermeasure resistance, and a wide off-boresight lock capability. The missile’s LOAL (Lock-on After Launch) feature enhances flexibility, particularly for aircraft with internal weapon bays, though it is now externally mounted on the F-35 Lightning II.
What is LMM?
The Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) is a versatile, precision-guided missile suited for deployment across various platforms on land, sea, and air. Designed to engage a broad spectrum of targets, from armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and fast inshore attack craft (FIAC) to unmanned aerial systems (UASs), the LMM employs a laser beam riding guidance system. This system enables accurate targeting with minimal collateral damage, particularly advantageous in urban settings. Operating at speeds of Mach 1.5 with a range exceeding 6 km, the LMM features a triple-effect warhead and a proximity fuse, enhancing its effectiveness across different combat scenarios.
With the ability to integrate onto systems like RAPIDRanger, the LMM provides close-range air defence capabilities suitable for both surface and aerial threats. Its adaptability across standalone, portable, and integrated systems makes it a reliable option for a range of mission requirements.
In maritime environments, where high-mobility FIAC threats present a challenge due to their low signature and complex backgrounds, the LMM’s guidance system enables precise engagement at extended ranges, offering a tactical response to swarm tactics that could pose risks to naval vessels.
Presumably it will remain the ‘Advanced….Missile’ until the day the last one is retired.
It was ‘Advanced….’ during is original conception and development 30+ years ago. I am guessing that its continued evolution keeps it ‘Advanced…’.
The information missing in the MoD Defence Ministers reply is how many missiles have been built as a result of the MPIs?
With the new Block VI seeker it can in fact reasonably claim to be the most advanced WVR missile in service..
MICA NG says no ☺
That would be the MICA NG that hasn’t actually entered service or production yet….
And a missile that still hasn’t undertaken an over the shoulder engagement designated by the launching aircraft….which Asraam was the first to do over 20 years ago….
LOL you do not know what you are talking about.
Mica did over the shoulder demonstration back on July 11th 2007, this is 2 years before an Australian F18 with Asraam did a over the shoulder test in 2009! Ironic since Australia no longer uses Asraam, meanwhile many more countries use Mica.
Mica was already superior to Asraam on so many levels:
– Mica exists in 2 versions, infrared seeker and active radar.
– Mica is faster at mach 4 vs Mach 3 for Asraam
– Mica has much longer range than Asraam (60km (Mica IR) and 80km (Mica EM) vs 25km for Asraam)
And the gap with Asraam is getting even bigger with Mica NG
– Mica NG has 30% more range than previous Mica because of use of smaller electronics, leaving more room for propellant.
– Mica NG has new higher resolution optics for IR seeker and AESA radar for radar guided version
– Mica NG is not virtual or a pipe dream. It already exists and was tested and certified back on June 7th 2022 by the french DGA (procurement agency)
– It has started production and scheduled to enter service in 2026. 567 Mica NG have been ordered.
and what is your view on Mica vs IRIS T ? (out of curiosity)
Guess you like Mica then ?
I’m too tired to get in to this now but Mica is trying to do the job of two missiles; thus excelling in neither. It lacks the range of one and maneuverability of tother.
lol it has thrust vectoring and handles ~50g, is that what you mean by lacking maneuvrability?
Handles 50g at minimum range, falls to c.30G at maximum according to Wikipedia.
ASRAAM is designed to do 50G all of the way out and is reputedly much longer ranged than the official numbers.
Also ASRAAM does indeed have a radar variant borrowing the seeker from CAMM, unlike what you said above.
Not sure the Radar Seeker is in Airforce use. But willing to be corrected.
Not sure any missile can ‘pull’ 50G at range. Available G loading, from aerodynamic control surfaces, is typically a function of the speed, missiles are typically slower at longer range, limiting the G they can achieve and remain stable.
I would not believe any performance figure obtained from Wikipedia. A bit like accepting the car manufacturers economy figures.
ASRAAM is very aerodynamically clean so it ought to retain speed much longer to range, probably has the edge in manoeuvrability after the motor burns out (so thrust vectoring stops being effective) and as distance to target increases
Its whole concept is as a “pre-dogfight” weapon to avoid the jet coming into range of conventional SRAAMs.
MICA is a hybrid weapon, MBDA don’t give any range stats at all but it is pitched as being BVR capable whereas ASRAAM is pitched as “The best WVR missile available”.
‘Aerodynamically clean’ is good. Remember for 99.99% of ts life on the aircraft it is a parasite creating drag. Unless carried internally.
I don’t know about that. The most important thing with Mica is that it is available in large numbers, produce in high quantities and not too expensive. It was efficient for India Vs Pakistan, Mirage achieving first lock vs F16’s AMRAAM (may be not the latest version of that missile though). The fact that IR version has a longer range than some other infrared missiles helps to create a few surprises at medium range since it is discrete. But it is pointless to say a weapon system is better. One is designed to do something, does it right then fine. We are allies anyway. We are happy to buy Meteor mainly done by UK and happy to sell them to mutual friends. Once Meteor is shot and assuming the target is still « nose hot », he will enter the wez of the Mica. And we’ll be happy to oblige. Mica EM is in mid range business. In the airwar of Ukraine, their is more than a niche for short range missile, given the quantity of interception to be performed.
Now comes the time where we should go back to the drawing board with all participants of the meteor to prepare a second version of this sky master to counter for R37 and all very long range Chinese stuff that are appearing on the battlefield.
Mica did an over the shoulder test….but could not do it using launcher aircraft designation….they still haven’t done it….
Asraam did over the shoulder shots earlier in UK testing…and all from a single aircraft
Asraam has a range of 60km….the RAAF published this…
MICA is a result of the French being too cheap to develop and field a modern WVR and BVR….and trying to field 1 missile to do it all….and they’re still in that mindset with a truly tiny purchase of only 160 Meteor…which isn’t enough to actually equip their fighters with 1 loadout of 2 missiles…
Serious air forces have WVR, BVR and LR AAM’s…
Oh, saying we are cheap is kind of a compliment 😄. The cheaper you can fix an issue, the better it is. And when we can’t do it all alone, we are very happy to cooperate with UK like on Meteor, A400, Aster, and CTA 40mm gun. I am not sure we can afford to develop a WVR missile as did UK or USA. It make sense to have one, but… You know… Money… Mica IR will have to do it for the time being. Though I hope that soon we will be able to do more with your country! Let’s see!
Why are we still selling ASRAAM to the Indians? Thy don’t deserve it for supporting putin☠
Because if we didn’t then they would buy Russian missiles instead and that would help Putin even more.
because India still has a few Jaguars in service
It’s not the latest block going to India.
It is….because Block V and lower were equipped with the Hughes seeker (actually a UK design passed to the US as part of workshare arrangements in the early days) and is covered by ITAR as a result…
Oh that sounds familiar they really do have us over a barrel don’t they. Was that when the US was supposedly going to adopt the missile?
Yes. The original seeker was developed by BAE Dynamics….IP was passed to Hughes to stay within workshare limits on the original programme….US and Germany ditched…US waltzed off with the IP and design, UK ended up using the seeker in Asraam Block I to V. US then used in AIM-9X…
And to rub salt into the wounds they may have blocked exports of Asraam due to the US content via ITAR…despite the fact that they were exporting US gear including AIM-9X to those countries….see Saudi Arabia for an example…they blocked Paveway IV whilst supplying the functionally similar EGBU-12…
Asraam Block VI with a UK developed and built seeker removes all of that in one fell swoop…
I’ve seen reported today that Portugal has selected Starstreak 2 and LMM for their next generation army air defences using the new Rapid Ranger launcher, the same system we are procuring in limited numbers for replace donated Stormer HVMs. So far the figure I’ve seen for the Portuguese purchase is just 3 launcher vehicles initially however, they have internet to expand all air defences as part of a huge new investment in air defences (with the goal of procuring medium range systems for the first time as well). A small export success for us, maybe shows potential for more Starstreak & LMM purchases by new operators this decade – or could help push Portugal towards CAMM procurement for their new medium range requirement in the coming years instead of NASAMS.
What wasn’t mentioned is that the AIM-132 ASRAAM was originally a joint US-UK and Germany venture. However, Germany pulled out as they wanted a purely shorter ranged dogfighting missile, which led to Iris-T. A bit like them wanting a smaller Rafale sized Eurofighter.
The ASRAAM’s seeker was designed and built in the U.K., but then produced under license by the US. Which meant it then came under ITAR restrictions. Thereby only allowing it to be sold to countries that the US Government approved. As a second kick in the balls. The US pulled out of the project, going for a new evolution of Sidewinder, but now using a copy of ASRAAM’s seeker. In essence ASRAAM was trying to compete with one hand tied behind its back, as the US could veto any sales.
The Block 6 ASRAAM was developed to remove this sales restriction. Where the seeker was brand new and the missile did not contain any US components that would evoke ITAR.
Nevertheless, the new seeker has a much higher resolution and pixel count than the previous seeker. Thereby making it even less susceptible to IR based jammers or multi-spectrum flares. It also has a better resilience to being blinded by DIRCM/LIRCM.
The other main benefit of LOAL, is that it enables over the shoulder shots. Thereby giving the pilot significantly more options when in a “within visual range” (WVR) engagement.
The missile’s terminal speed and maximum engagement range are highly classified. But as an indication, CAMM uses exactly the same rocket motor. But with the addition of tail mounted reaction jets. Where it is published it can engage targets at 25km. Bearing in mind this is from a standing start, whereas ASRAAM gets the additional benefit of the aircraft’s speed to enhance its speed/range.
Just a heads up because I thought you might be interested:
Hybrid Air Vehicles are now displaying maritime patrol or AEW roles for Airlander 10 in the video under “Communications and Surveillance”.
They mention sonobuoy dropping and also have CGI of carrying a RHIB on the rails beneath the envelope, which is an interesting idea I hadn’t considered before. Still no reference to weapons carriage, though.
There’s also a hint at carrier operation with an image titled “Sustain forces on land and at sea” and pallets labelled “F35 engine”.
I like the Airlander as a surveillance solution, but is this really a pitch for a FSSS alternative? Airlander 10 can only carry 10 tons payload. That’s like a single Chinook or a 20m workboat delivering your carrier’s supplies. That’s fine for an onboard delivery method, in fact it’s double what the US Greyhound carries, but it’s no good for the mass supply of food and amunition to a carrier strike group containing a couple of thousand people.
The proposed Airlander 50 should be a minimum for large scale logistics
I don’t think it’s a full scale logistics solution but for stuff like the carriers where the F35s have very niche and expensive parts, flying them out might be the only solution
I for one can’t see the advantage over a Chinook except range and bulky item carriage (e.g. entire helicopters) and even then it only helps if the Airlander could be refuelled at sea, which seems unlikely. (edit: Just realised that low numbers of chinooks and alternative taskings make it v.unlikely that one would be available at short notice. However, buying these would be no different from buying extra Chinook specifically for carrier resupply.)
Earlier this summer I exchanged emails with HAV’s marketing team who seemed to deny that you could land on the QEs, but hadn’t considered the effect of wind over the deck on landing distance. I also suggested the MPA role to them.
In lower sea states it can land on the water next to a carrier or a Tide, or it can do vertrep. Refuelling from a Tide while in flight shouldn’t be impossible, but I doubt it would be trivial. However, ignoring wind over deck, it seems to need up to a 300m runway (a field or a lake will do). The Airlander 50 might be able to do VTOL, but the 10 is STOL only, bumping along the ground until it gets enough lift. As far as I recall, it can’t even guarantee the direction it lands in, which would be a real problem for conventional carrier ops. I think they need to work on precision landing.
MPA, yes, possible, but with P8s and Protectors, is that an area of need? I was wondering about a backup AEW. It could even carry a MESA antenna (not that it would be a good thing to do).
Neither P8 or Protector can do 5 days endurance. Protector gets closest but is massively limited in capability. No idea on the cost difference between the two.
From HAV:
So what is the other 600 metres dimension for? Surely it doesn’t just career around the airfield until someone grabs hold of it?
AEW would seem to be the most attractive role wrt actual ship based operation. HAV allude to “Integrated Air and Missile Defence and Airborne Early Warning” in the new video but images seem to show large E/O turrets with no visible radar at all.
Hi SB,
From what you have described about how the Airlander operates it needs to be able to land head to wind regardless of wind direction. So a conventional set of runways arranged in a triangular shape, as was the case during WW2 and is still visible on RAF stations today, would not be suitable as this arrangement virtually guarantees some component of cross wind. Also you will get gusts hitting you from different directions at the most inopportune moments, as happened to me for my PPL General Flight Test (it was out of my aircraft limits briefly so quite exciting). This would require space for the AirLander to turn back into wind and or have the space to move sideways… It also needs to be able to line up on any point of the compass as it begins its take off run or landing approach so in effect discrete runways are not enough – it needs a big landing pad…
Air Traffic Control and conventional airport control practices would not work for this baby…
Hope this helps answer your question.
Cheers CR
Hi CR,
If you look at the Cardington hangar and HAV’s airfield outside Bedford on Google Earth, it is exactly that; a flat field with no taxiways or tarmac in sight. That’s so that the thing can always take off into the wind.
The moment Airlander touches the ground it ought to be fixed in position using the large suction pads beneath the envelope, which also provide flotation when landing on water. The issue, then, is sideways movement of the airship if it is hit by a gust in final approach or as it accelerates. I imagine the approach and climb out are very steep, particularly if windy, so nearby obstacles are less of an issue, but this may also be a factor in the 600m number.
I can’t imagine a conventional airport being able to accommodate this so I think if you were flying into an existing site you’d have to shut down fixed-wing and probably helicopters as well (that applies to aircraft carriers too). A specialist Airlander airfield might be able to accommodate multiple airships, but you can’t do both types at the same time.
I’m just going to have a look at the dimensions of the Bedford site, will reply to this one below 👇
FYI – The RAAF are on record as saying the range of Asraam in 60km…
You could have added that the Germans and US pulled out for a variety of reasons, some industrial, but in part because they got a look at the AA-11 Archer and decided that they needed far more manoeuverability in order to counter it. Hence thrust vectoring on IRIS-T and AIM-9X…
But….the UK had already actually developed a thrust vectoring AAM in the 1970’s called Taildog/SRAAM which was not procured with 9L being favoured. Taildog/SRAAM was designed for extreme agility primarily as a self defence weapon for attack aircraft. One of the learnings from this though was that chasing extreme manoeverability would only result in both sides shooting each other down….the solution was to kill the enemy before they got in range, hence why Asraam had far longer range, acceleration and speed, particularly sustained speed than other AAM’s (double the range of most). Thats not to say its not manoeuverable, but thrust vectored missiles with lots of control surfaces like 9X, Python 5, R-73/AA-11 or IRIS-T will have an advantage.
You can tell who’s concept of operations was ultimately correct fairly easily though….the US and Germany are now trying to extend the range of 9X and IRIS-T (FCAAM)…no-one is pushing for higher manoeuverability…
There is still a call for what is becoming known as a self-defence missile. This is a very short range missile that can take out other missiles aimed at the parent aircraft. The range is not expected to be more than 5km. Iris-T in trials has shown that it has this capability. So the air to air missile interception is doable, just need to shrink the missile size, so a number can be carried.
The thrust vectoring nozzles/vanes become dead weight after 5 seconds or so. As they’re only effective when the rocket motor is running. Which is more pertinent to a close in dogfight (knife fight). Basically to help turn the missile after it’s left the rail. ASRAAM I think is the right way to go. As you alluded to, he who shoots first has the advantage. As your opponent has to either do evasion or try to get closer and within their missile’s firing parameters.
The other issue with very high turn rate missiles like Iris-T, Python etc. Is that to do the turns when the motor has run out of fuel, requires lots of surface area to generate lift. However, as the missile is effectively a glider at this stage. The increased wing surface area creates lots of drag and robs the missile of energy. This is one of the reasons why Sidewinder has a greater range than Iris-T, as it has less surface area, even though they use the same size rocket motor.
ASRAAM has the advantage of a much bigger rocket motor, plus only has tail fins. Thereby make much more aerodynamically cleaner. Which then helps to significantly increase its terminal speed. But also reduce the amount of drag it generates, which becomes more important when the fuel has all burnt out. As this dictates the rate by which the missile slows down.
The other benefit of the AA-11 trials, was that they were also testing the East German Mig-29. When paired with the AA-11, it had an unprecedented advantage, as the pilot also used a rudimentary helmet mounted sight. Which allowed the AA-11 to have an over the shoulder capability. Nothing being fielded by NATO had that capability. Which meant in a dogfight the Mig would have the advantage. Which I’d imagine was a bit of a wake up call to those doing operational requirements.
FYI – IRIS-T has only theoretically shown that capability, in computer simulations…they’ve never actually live trialled the ability so its still very much theoretical. From what I can tell it seems mainly based on the use of an RF proximity fuze,although it would be interesting to see if the warhead has been optimised as well…
Personally I suspect its a claim that they make with the knowledge that no-one will actually ask them to prove..