Forum: F-22A Raptor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Why doesn't the Air Force develop a new variant of the AIM-9X to be able to fit 2 missiles in each bay?

If 2 current 9Xs don't fit in each bay- some sources say they could fit, some say they couldn't -, why not reduce/modify the size of the fins, like was done on the AIM-120C? That would also increase the range because of a reduction of drag.

Changing the motor to increase range could probably be feasable too to increase range even more.

With these 2 modifications, the 9X would have a very potent BVR capability, and the F-22 could carry a total of 4 missiles.

If the wing/fin modification decreases manoeuvrability a bit it's not so bad because the F-22 can point to a target very rapidly thanks to its TV. The F-22 supermanoeuvrability plus an HMCS would make it extremely effective WVR.

Other advantages would be:
- low cost ( each 9X costs around $200000 vs $350000 for an AMRAAM). That would give the F-22 4 cheap BVR shots.
- in most cases the target would not be able to detect the F-22 before it launches. That would increase the probability of kill at max range.

Also since the F-22 flies faster and higher than the target, that would also increase maximum range. Max range could be in excess of 40km easily, well beyond visual range, and well before the F-22 is detected.

That variant of the 9X could be based on the 9X block II, which already have LOAL capability, among other improvements.

The point is, the 9X block II will already have some BVR capabilities, so why not modify it to make it a real BVR weapon, and at the same time be able to fit 2 missiles per bay? That would also be a cheap way to increase the F-22 lethality, which is particularly important since few of them will be built.

F-16.net Sponsor

AIM-9X is around $300,000 (FY08) and AIM-120 is just over $1,000,000 (FY08). I don't see them putting another missile in the bay and I don't see them fielding AIM-9X in the Raptor anytime soon.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

The F-22 is supposed to be designed to carry the AIM-9X, however so far the money hasn't been allotted to get the AIM-9X into the F-22. So far there isn't enough AIM-9Xs for all the service. So right now the AIM-9X is getting priority to some of the older aircraft to give older aircraft more capability as a stopgap measure. Kind of like a capability life extension. Some people refer to the F-22 as castrated by Congress. Because due to budget cutting, some of its capabilities have been lost to lower costs. Penny wise and pound foolish IMAO.

Perhaps the F-22 will eventually be fitted with the ballistic missile interceptor version.

First Air-to-Air Missile Defense System Successful in Interception of Boosting Missile
http://mae.pennnet.com/News/Display_New ... sID=155305

AIM-9X ballistic missile interceptor F-22

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

checksixx wrote:

AIM-9X is around $300,000 (FY08) and AIM-120 is just over $1,000,000 (FY08). I don't see them putting another missile in the bay and I don't see them fielding AIM-9X in the Raptor anytime soon.

From what I read, the AIM-9X costs between $200000 and $300000.

The $1M figure for the AIM-120D applies to the LRIP missiles. Full rate production cost will be around $450000 ( with all associated hardwares ). That's what I read in a document of the GAO- unfortunately I can't find it -.

It's too bad the F-22 doesn't carry AIM-9Xs, because if it did it would certainly enjoy the same kind of superiority WVR that it now has BVR. Against the majority of aircraft the F-22 could achieve a very good kill ratio, so the pilot would be more inclined to get WVR and more target could be killed - and at a lower cost -.

With 2 AIM-9Ms the pilot has to get closer, manoeuver longer, the lower pk would force in many cases to shoot 2 missiles per target. Except for a 1 vs 1 engagement and even at that, the pilot would be better off not to get WVR. The AIM-9M would be used more in emergency situations or to finish off a target.

With the AIM-9Xs, only one missile can be shot per target because of the higher pk. If the F-22 were to carry 4 AIM-9Xs ( or an AIM-9X derivative ), it could shoot down up to 4 times as many targets with sidewinders. Even better those AIM-9Xs could be shot in BVR while the aircraft is still undetected.

Only problem with the 9x from what I can see would be manouvering with the doors open and the seeker hanging out. If the pilot had to do a hard manouver, might reek havoc on the doors, missile, and weapons rack. There has to be some sort of g-limit with the system deployed. 2 missiles would even further complicate the issue.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I don't think the problem would be to fit 2 missiles physically inside the bay. The problem like you say would be more to be able to extract them and sustain hard maneuvers.. Hard to tell if it's feasable or not..

Well, if the Raptor is WVR, that means each can see each other. So that leads me to believe that there will inevitabley be some hard manouvering even though there is helmet tracking from JHMCS. And, from what I have read, the Raptor is at a disadvantage in WVR due to its size compared to other late generation fighters. Thrust vectoring and raw thrust would obviously help, but it would undoubtedly put a system such as this under some serious g-load while deployed for firing. I'm sure this must have been taken into consideration during design. And honestly, considering Link 16, ALR-94 and whatever else Raptor has up its sleeve, one Raptor could be up front of several others, sending all the info the other Raptors need to shoot down all others with BVR weapons. As they say, war should never be a fair fight. the point is to end it as soon as possible. Surprised

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Right but if the sidewinder has good BVR capabilities, the raptor could engage the targets itself. That would be helpfull in cases where the F-22s would have to face a very large attack force, in which case you want to kill as many targets as possible.

Also in most cases the raptor would engage targets WVR if it has good chances of success. That would be the case if the target has no HMCS - and also no BVR missile. Most aircraft out there carry no BVR missiles and are not equipped with HMCS, especially when they are in a/g configuration, so the F-22 would have a huge advantage on them - TV, AIM-9X, HMCS, thrust, effect of surprise..

Except against a few aircraft out there the F-22 could have a very good kill ratio WVR. By the way it seems that right now the raptors win the majority of the time WVR, if not all the time, even against aircraft equipped with HMCS.

Viperalltheway wrote:

From what I read, the AIM-9X costs between $200000 and $300000.

The $1M figure for the AIM-120D applies to the LRIP missiles. Full rate production cost will be around $450000 ( with all associated hardwares ). That's what I read in a document of the GAO- unfortunately I can't find it -.

My figure comes directly from the budget of whats actually being spent...which of course, I can provide a link to.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/ ... index.html

Viperalltheway wrote:

It's too bad the F-22 doesn't carry AIM-9Xs, because if it did it would certainly enjoy the same kind of superiority WVR that it now has BVR.

With the AIM-9Xs, only one missile can be shot per target because of the higher pk. If the F-22 were to carry 4 AIM-9Xs ( or an AIM-9X derivative ), it could shoot down up to 4 times as many targets with sidewinders. Even better those AIM-9Xs could be shot in BVR while the aircraft is still undetected.

It enjoys both WVR and BVR advantage. AIM-9X would do little at this point for the F-22. FYI...if the jet carried 4 AIM-9's instead of 2, it would be twice as many targets...not four times as many.

Viperalltheway wrote:

Why doesn't the Air Force develop a new variant of the AIM-9X to be able to fit 2 missiles in each bay?

If 2 current 9Xs don't fit in each bay- some sources say they could fit, some say they couldn't -, why not reduce/modify the size of the fins, like was done on the AIM-120C? That would also increase the range because of a reduction of drag.

Changing the motor to increase range could probably be feasable too to increase range even more.

With these 2 modifications, the 9X would have a very potent BVR capability, and the F-22 could carry a total of 4 missiles.

If the wing/fin modification decreases manoeuvrability a bit it's not so bad because the F-22 can point to a target very rapidly thanks to its TV. The F-22 supermanoeuvrability plus an HMCS would make it extremely effective WVR.

Other advantages would be:
- low cost ( each 9X costs around $200000 vs $350000 for an AMRAAM). That would give the F-22 4 cheap BVR shots.
- in most cases the target would not be able to detect the F-22 before it launches. That would increase the probability of kill at max range.

Also since the F-22 flies faster and higher than the target, that would also increase maximum range. Max range could be in excess of 40km easily, well beyond visual range, and well before the F-22 is detected.

That variant of the 9X could be based on the 9X block II, which already have LOAL capability, among other improvements.

The point is, the 9X block II will already have some BVR capabilities, so why not modify it to make it a real BVR weapon, and at the same time be able to fit 2 missiles per bay? That would also be a cheap way to increase the F-22 lethality, which is particularly important since few of them will be built.

Most often people tend to take a counter-argument approach to anything they read.. in this case you express some rational thoughts on this topic and I couldn't agree more.

It's really a$$-backwards if you ask me. To build a $60+ billion dollar prize fighter, but forget to arm it. For something so costly and capable, special weapon systems should almost be developed just to arm that very platform!

Whats an extra $3-4 billion R&D cost for enhanced survivability and lethality? It's arguably the easiest money spent to enhance such qualities - qualities in which the entire platform should be built around in the first place Question

While a longer range IR missile shot will be nearly undetectable to most fighters if the target is being tracked passively (IRST or offboard sensors), how effective would that be against a state of the art, passive "staring" type of missile launch warning system? Even launched from a higher altitude and speed, the missile plume would be detectable, giving some kind of warning to the target. If a 9X or even R-27 IR variant is being fired in LOAL mode, without a midcourse guidance update, all the target has to do is change course enough to get away from the missile's field of view before it can lock on. I guess the same thing would apply to a slammer launch, but if all goes according to Raptor tactics, it's being launched some 30-40 miles away, most likely outside the effective range of a passive warning system, at least until it goes active, but by that time, it's likely too late to escape.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Hi Geogen,

I doubt a missile like this would be very expensive to develop. It would be based on the AIM-9X block II and would just require a new motor and new control surfaces.

I agree that it's more the weapons that should be designed for the F-22 rather than the contrary. The SDB is designed to fit inside the bays and that's a very good idea. It could be the same for other weapons. I'm sure for instance that they could develop a 2000lbs bombs that could fit inside the main bays.

Also, if the F-22 had 4 such missiles in its side bays, it would not need AMRAAMs for its self-protection for attack missions, especially once air dominance has been achieved. That would leave 50% more space in the main weapon bays for more a/g ordnance, like 2 more SDBs more per bay for a total of 6, or maybe 2 x 1000lbs JDAMs per bay instead of 1.

And any aircraft would benefit from such a missile, because it has to be said that legacy aircraft are becoming obsolete as fighters. Any increase in lethality, especially BVR would be more than welcome.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Lightndattic wrote:

While a longer range IR missile shot will be nearly undetectable to most fighters if the target is being tracked passively (IRST or offboard sensors), how effective would that be against a state of the art, passive "staring" type of missile launch warning system? Even launched from a higher altitude and speed, the missile plume would be detectable, giving some kind of warning to the target. If a 9X or even R-27 IR variant is being fired in LOAL mode, without a midcourse guidance update, all the target has to do is change course enough to get away from the missile's field of view before it can lock on. I guess the same thing would apply to a slammer launch, but if all goes according to Raptor tactics, it's being launched some 30-40 miles away, most likely outside the effective range of a passive warning system, at least until it goes active, but by that time, it's likely too late to escape.

It depends on what kind of range could be achieved. The AIM-120D with its new motor has a range of probably over 60 miles. Range has been increased by 50% compared to the AIM-120C-7. If the same kind of motor was used on the 9X, and if the missile had smaller control surfaces resulting in less drag - or even no control surfaces - , range could well be up to 30 miles, especially if launched from high speed and high altitude. Terminal speed would also be much greater, giving the target less chances of escape.

Regarding mid-course guidance, this can easily be done by GPS if it's not already a feature of the block II. With multi-target capability, the F-22 could engage 4 aircraft at the same time, without having to get WVR.

Sounds too rational and potent to be true, Viperalltheway. I'm sure the USAF will be content with just a half load :/

Also, you discuss better motors, etc.. well, the obvious question for noobs like me would be if the new NCDE AIM-9x/120 motors (for missile v missile intercept) could simply be used as much better range, faster to kill, AIM against a/c?

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Why not a new missile for the F-22's side bays?