ASMP (Air-Sol Moyenne Portée) Air-To-Surface Missile

[Archibald]

The title says all : aoparently their was some studies to change the ASMP ramjet-powered-mach 3-nuclear- cruise missile into an anti- AWACS    
Of course the Armée de l'Air didn't bite the idea    

By the way, a Mirage 2000 with a ventral drop tank and two of these missiles underwings
OR
a Rafale with four or six AALP (Air Air Longue Portée!) would look good.
The ASMP is easy to find, on Italeri 2000N...  

[Maverick]

Archi, was the proposal to use the ASMP with a nuke or just a conventional warhead?

[jcf]

Archi, was the proposal to use the ASMP with a nuke or just a conventional warhead?

If it was accurate enough 'twouldn't need a warhead.    

Jon

[Archibald]

Archi, was the proposal to use the ASMP with a nuke or just a conventional warhead?

I think we can assume reasonnably that the warhead would have been conventionnal.
Mmmm an interesting whatif would be an Iraqi Mirage 4000 with a load  of these AAMs, to replace their MiG-25 and kill Iranians Tomcats and E-3s.
Saddam wanted 2000N and non-nuclear ASMP in the late 80's, such aircraft being called the Mirage 2000S. Don't know more about the project, but it open interesting whatifs...

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Strapping more than one ASMP/AALP to the Rafale or Mirage 2000 would really bite into range on the aircraft.  Granted the air to air refueling option does put the range back but it also create a window of vulnerability for the strike package since they would have to basically stop and gas up prior to execution of the mission.  If there was a larger aircraft that was able to carry several of these large missiles without inconvenience and sacrificing range for the payload and requiring a minimum of refueling on the way in to the target, well there might be something to this but again this is WHIF so what the heck, strap as many on as you can get a way with.  

The nuclear AAM option would really create some issues with where it could be used effectively without endangering the civilian population below.  This same problem was eventually realized with the nuclear versions of the Nike Hercules, Bomarc, Genie, and the Nuclear AIM-26 Falcon and AIM-47 Super Falcon missiles.

If you are able to use the weapon in an area that has no chance of creating collateral damage to your own people, well then by all means use the nucear option but in real life those areas where such a weapon can be employed are now very small in numbers.  One of the main reasons for the retirement of the nuclear option for missile systems that were are not considered strategic weapons in the sense of using them in your own air space or back yard.  There was also the added cost of maintaining the weapons and the continual maintenance cycle involved with keeping a weapon ready for use.  The improved lethality of conventional missile weapons also helped in removing the nuclear option from the SAM and AAM weapons.  

Perhaps an ASMP with a Beluga type cluster munition dispenser for a warhead?  Granted it woud be a very expensive cluster bomb but just the same, it would provide a much larger "foot print" for the warhead if it consisted of submunitions instead of just one large warhead.  Mating an ARM seeker to a cluster munition warhead on the ASMP would give you a lethal combination for attacking a SAM site or the EW radar installation for air defense systems.  

The ASMP fitted with an 1000 pound armor-piercing warhead and the electronics from the Exocet would create an anti-ship weapon that would indeed be hard to beat.  

I could see the ARM version of the ASMP being used as the AALP but I don't think the cost of creating a dedicated AALP from the ASMP would be that economical unless you are going to develop an aircraf that can carry a half-dozen of these weapons and have the range and endurance to make an effective threat to the opposition.  

[Maverick]

Given that the AWACS would most likely be flying over its own (ie enemy) territory, I can't see the problem with a nuke warhead.  It's not your own populace below at the end of the day.

[Archibald]

The ASMP fitted with an 1000 pound armor-piercing warhead and the electronics from the Exocet would create an anti-ship weapon that would indeed be hard to beat.

Mind you, their was plans for this, called the ANS, Anti-Navire Supersonique.
The program consisted in using a common core for both the second generation ASMP (ASMP-A, to enter service next year on the Rafale F3) and Exocet replacement.
Alas, this was dropped in 1999 and replaced by a longer-ranged Exocet    

The Rafale would be able to carry at least two ASMP underwings, and you could add to this a centerline drop tank and two MICA on the wingtips for self defense.
Draggier weapons loads have already been tested for years now
(for example 6*LGB+ drop tanks+two MICA)  

[elmayerle]

Given that the AWACS would most likely be flying over its own (ie enemy) territory, I can't see the problem with a nuke warhead.  It's not your own populace below at the end of the day.

Yeah, but fallout and other radioactive debris has a tendency to drift where you don't want them.  A good conventional warhead eliminates that worry.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Strapping more than one ASMP/AALP to the Rafale or Mirage 2000 would really bite into range on the aircraft.

Well, the Rafale is planed to have a 1800 km radius with external tanks and 6 bombs (or 2 cruise missiles) at low altitude.

I'm quite sure that at high altitude with 2 or even 3 AALP (that are far better aerodynamically), it still will have a very good range.
I mean, it could not be worst than with Exocet, Storm Shadow etc..., right?

The Rafale would be able to carry at least two ASMP underwings, and you could add to this a centerline drop tank and two MICA on the wingtips for self defense.
Draggier weapons loads have already been tested for years now

Actually, in theory the Rafale could carry 2 ASMP underwings with 3 belly tanks (2 underwings and one centerline), alongside with 6 MICA missiles, and one or two ECM pod under the air inlet.

But that's only a what-if configuration!

In real life, the standard nuclear deterent mission will only include one ASMP missile, with two 2000 litres belly tanks under the wings and 4 MICA missiles for self protection.
The second possible configuration include 4 belly tanks under the wings (two 2000 litres and two 1250 litres), 4 MICAs and 1 ASMP.

There still is place for two additional MICA under the wings and the two front fuselage lateral pylons could carry ECM pods, but the Armée de l'Air and the Marine don't ask for these abilities (that make the plane too heavy for a minimal advantage)

[Hobbes]

I don't think the ASMP has lower drag than a 2000 lb bomb. The ASMP is longer, which is favorable, but it also has two engine intakes, and intakes tend to create lots of drag.  

[BillSlim]

Just a thought, but if it's an anti-AWACS weapon, how about an EMP warhead?



O.K.

A non-starter I'm afraid, military electronics are shielded against the effects of HEMP.

On the nuclear armed AAM, at the sort of altitude they were designed to be used the only real danger to people on the ground would be a severe sun burn, and an air burst does not generate much in the way of fallout.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

I don't think the ASMP has lower drag than a 2000 lb bomb. The ASMP is longer, which is favorable, but it also has two engine intakes, and intakes tend to create lots of drag.

I thought that the intakes of the ASMP were "covered" by some aerodynamical cones, something like that. But I could be wrong, maybe I made a confusion with this Russian anti-ship/anti-radar missile...
I have to check this.

(But well, even if it is not the case, as it's what-if and as we're talking about a on-existing missile, we just have to imagine that the AALP has a better aerodynamic than the ASMP )

[elmayerle]

I don't think the ASMP has lower drag than a 2000 lb bomb. The ASMP is longer, which is favorable, but it also has two engine intakes, and intakes tend to create lots of drag.

I'll beg to differ.  'Most all non-Russian air-launched. air-breathing missiles that I know of have a way of covering the inlet 'til just before launch.  Most use jettisonable covers, though the ALCM uses a rotating inlet.  Too, I think I've seen some IRR-powered (Integral Rocket Ramjet) missiles with spring-loaded blow-in doors on the inlet that won't open 'til the missile's going fast enough for the ramjet to work.