F-16.net

Hello,

Do you think is possible?

Consider that the last version has clipped wings and fins to reduce control surfaces and therefore maneuverability (even if with t/w big fins are no longer so important)?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Thrust-vectoring should compensate for large control surfaces. Don't forget that the -9x is designed for 90-degree off-boresight shots.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1031 Status: Offline

No, not possible. Only one rail. The 9x isn't even flying on Raptor's right now.

-Check

Active member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

Neno wrote:

Hello boy,
do you think is possible?
Consider that the last version has clipped wings and fins..

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Each of the side bays can accommodate one 17.5 inch wide AIM-9M, and despite the geometry of the bay, you probably could pack two staggered AIM-9X (17.375 inch total width with zero clearance) in there somehow (like removing the launcher! Wink

), but you won't be able to use them. See for yourself in the attached picture. The side bays are clearly designed for only a single missile. Even if you envision using custom ejectors and LOAL instead of the LAU-141/A trapeze and rail launcher, there is in all likelihood not enough room for all of that equipment.

Neno wrote:

..why to reduce control surfaces and therefore maneuverability (even if with t/w big fins are no longer so important)????????

I would guess that drag is also reduced, which increases the speed and range of the missile, and therefore provides a greater benefit overall than excessive maneuvering capability.

Elite Joined: Oct 21, 2005 Posts: 757 Status: Offline

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people that still believes the Raptor's side bays can hold more than one AIM-9M/X!

Elite Joined: May 29, 2006 Posts: 640 Status: Offline

Neno wrote:

Hello boy,
do you think is possible?
Consider that the last version has clipped wings and fins.. ..why to reduce control surfaces and therefore maneuverability (even if with t/w big fins are no longer so important)????????

There is a way, actually. You can have one 9X on the launcher, and then you can chop the other to bits and throw the pieces in. You can still fire only one, though.

Active member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people that still believes the Raptor's side bays can hold more than one AIM-9M/X!

Well, because the Sidewinder has traditionally had a rather wide finspan relative to its fuselage diameter, it's tempting to speculate as to whether a reduced finspan would allow two to fit in a bay that is perceived to be oversized. The problems with this concept, which may not be obvious to everyone at first glance, are that being able to fit two missiles is different from being able to use them, and that the actual shape of any given bay is usually quite optimized for the intended payload, rather than an oversized rectangular box.

That said, new or modified weapons could be devised to overcome certain limitations, within reason. Clipping the AMRAAM's fins is a conservative example of what could be done if there is sufficient need or desire to increase internal payload, and the GBU-39/BRU-61 is a good example of a new weapon system designed ostensibly for this purpose, so personally, I try to avoid getting caught up in hidebound thinking even while striving to be realistic. In the similar thread about fitting six AMRAAMs in the F-35's bays, I should have made it clear that modified weapons (perhaps with folding fins?) would probably be needed to make it work--that's another example of a weapon bay that seems larger than it really is.

idesof wrote:

There is a way, actually. You can have one 9X on the launcher, and then you can chop the other to bits and throw the pieces in.

You could then have the transporter assemble the pieces onto the rail when another missile is needed. Unfortunately, this capability is third in priority behind the warp drive and deflector screens....

idesof wrote:

You can still fire only one, though.

For the time being, you could use the F-22's stealth and supermaneuverability to get into position to dump the pieces into your adversary's intakes. Instead of "Fox 2" the call would be "FOD 2." They should do this on the next "Hot Shots" movie. Razz

RobertCook wrote:

Neno wrote:

Hello boy,
do you think is possible?
Consider that the last version has clipped wings and fins..

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Each of the side bays can accommodate one 17.5 inch wide AIM-9M, and despite the geometry of the bay, you probably could pack two staggered AIM-9X (17.375 inch total width with zero clearance) in there somehow (like removing the launcher! Wink

), but you won't be able to use them. See for yourself in the attached picture. The side bays are clearly designed for only a single missile. Even if you envision using custom ejectors and LOAL instead of the LAU-141/A trapeze and rail launcher, there is in all likelihood not enough room for all of that equipment.

Neno wrote:

..why to reduce control surfaces and therefore maneuverability (even if with t/w big fins are no longer so important)????????

I would guess that drag is also reduced, which increases the speed and range of the missile, and therefore provides a greater benefit overall than excessive maneuvering capability.

Did someone knows when the Raptor will be flying with the aim9x?

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

Around 2008.

toan wrote:

Around 2008.

Can you elaborate on that...?

idesof wrote:

There is a way, actually. You can have one 9X on the launcher, and then you can chop the other to bits and throw the pieces in. You can still fire only one, though.

www.willitblend.com

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1031 Status: Offline

I think toan is referring to the AIM-9X integration for the F-22A. Please correct me if I'm wrong toan...Check

Veteran Joined: Oct 29, 2006 Posts: 271 Status: Offline

mil_hobbyist wrote:

Thrust-vectoring should compensate for large control surfaces. Don't forget that the -9x is designed for 90-degree off-boresight shots.

But the missile motor only bruns for about 4 seconds, furthermore the missile will be much slower and have much less range in off boresight shots.

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

Pilotasso wrote:

mil_hobbyist wrote:

Thrust-vectoring should compensate for large control surfaces. Don't forget that the -9x is designed for 90-degree off-boresight shots.

But the missile motor only bruns for about 4 seconds, furthermore the missile will be much slower and have much less range in off boresight shots.

You don't know how long the rocket motor burns for exactly. Besides, 4 seconds is quite a lot of time for a rocket motor to burn if you're shooting at a short range target. And the missile is not slow by any means for a short range dogfighting missile. What missile would you prefer over the AIM-9X? An Archer?

Veteran Joined: Oct 29, 2006 Posts: 271 Status: Offline

There are some videos out there showing it flying all the way to the target drone. Wink

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/18/

Uploaded this myself.

Missile snapping off 90ºs to one side will be flying much slower than the brochure mach 2.5. Thrust vectored off boresight shots have drasticaly reduced range, 2-3 miles as oposed to 8 miles max in brochure.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

More than one AIM-9X on Raptor's side bay