F-16.net

The argument for and against the AIM-9X always comes back to an argument for the best HOBS capability and long WVR kinematics. The AIM-9X focuses on the former, whereas missiles like the ASRAAM focuses on the latter. IMHO, the USAF's decision to focus on former and hence selecting the AIM-9X is the correct one. At anything longer than ~10 km, the agility of the fighter becomes largely a non-issue (even a Boeing 747 can turn well enough to put the target in the frontal 90 degree cone) and the agility of the missile becomes largely a non-issue (because ANY 30~60G missile that is fast enough going into terminal maneuvers it'll always out maneurver any 9G fighter). In such scenarios, there is no reason to use an ASRAAM type missile over an AMRAAM!

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Raptor_One wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

I think he's trying to say that he would rather not be put into the situation to use a short range missile

Yes, but that would once again be stating the obvious. My question to that statement is, "What's your point?" Stating something obvious doesn't mean you have a point. Smile

The point is, you dont want to give a damn if the F-22 could have 4 AIM-9X's because then you will have to come closer to the enemy for longer. The 6 AMRAAM missile is much more usefull making sidwinders of realtive importance.

If you ran out of AMRAAMs and theres more than 1 enemy survivor per F-22 ...go home, thats the smartest thing to do. AIM-9X's are not there to fight multi battles but to finish off someone.

Further more you keep forgeting my first intention when I posted about thrust vectored msisile VS another with surfaces only.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Pilotasso wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

I think he's trying to say that he would rather not be put into the situation to use a short range missile

Yes, but that would once again be stating the obvious. My question to that statement is, "What's your point?" Stating something obvious doesn't mean you have a point. Smile

The point is, you dont want to give a damn if the F-22 could have 4 AIM-9X's because then you will have to come closer to the enemy for longer. The 6 AMRAAM missile is much more usefull making sidwinders of realtive importance.

If you ran out of AMRAAMs and theres more than 1 enemy survivor per F-22 ...go home, thats the smartest thing to do. AIM-9X's are not there to fight multi battles but to finish off someone.

Further more you keep forgeting my first intention when I posted about thrust vectored msisile VS another with surfaces only.

You have a knack for stating the obvious. Once again you've stated obvious facts. I don't see what point you make by stating the obvious. Tell me again... what are your specific issues with the AIM-9X? If you don't have any, then why are you coming off as though you have issues with the AIM-9X and, perhaps, short range missiles in general?

If thats so obvious then why discuss 4 AIM-9s on the F-22 anyway? Isnt THAT it ovious? Razz

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Pilotasso wrote:

If thats so obvious then why discuss 4 AIM-9s on the F-22 anyway? Isnt THAT it ovious? Razz

Yes... it's obvious that 4 AIM-9Xs won't be an option for the F-22, but at least it was an honest question (or so it seemed). You, however, seem to be repeatedly stating the obvious. For what reason, I'm not sure.

F15A's were typically loaded with 4 MRAAM and 4 SRAAM even if it never had the same capacity of closing to enemies undetected as F22.. and the mission is the same..
I think also the Russians use to load their Sukhoi's with more than 2 SRAAM's..
So why do you consider them so useless ?
Don't forget that not all enemies pilots on the sky are sitting over a super-maneuverable Su-37 or EF2000.. there are also a lot of Mig-27, Mig-31, Su-24, Tu-160.. is not so cheaper to say always "fox one"

Neno wrote:

F15A's were typically loaded with 4 MRAAM and 4 SRAAM even if it never had the same capacity of closing to enemies undetected as F22.. and the mission is the same..
I think also the Russians use to load their Sukhoi's with more than 2 SRAAM's..
So why do you consider them so useless ?
Don't forget that not all enemies pilots on the sky are sitting over a super-maneuverable Su-37 or EF2000.. there are also a lot of Mig-27, Mig-31, Su-24, Tu-160.. is not so cheaper to say always "fox one"

Because the F-22 is designed 25 years after the F-15 and the landscape as changed? Besides the F-22 also has 8 AAMs. The difference is that the bias is towards MRAAMs (6) over SRAAMs (2).

With today's super agile, HOBS and very accurate SRAAMs, you DON'T want to be in a WVR if you can avoid it. It is in BVR and in an energy fight over considerable distances that the F-22 has an overwhelming advantage in speed, sensors and stealth. You don't want to merge with the enemy. The AIM-9Xes are there just in case you got caught in a bind so you will at least have something to shoot. Like a handgun on the belt of an tank commander, the idea is NOT to have to use it!

You won't say that anymore anyways :p SARH is not an option for USAF anymore (regarding front-line fighters at least).

Fact is that the most maneuverable and agile aircraft is still much less agile than any currently-used missile fired properly, so super-maneuverability is mostly cancelled. Short-rangers are still useful, but they fill another role today than they did in, say, Vietnam. Now if you're in a sweep/escort and you step on a CAP, closing up just behind him and putting an SR up his tailpipe is less an option. Modern BVR missiles have an exceptional Pk and good characteristics that gives them the element of surprise. While you won't fire the Slammer from 40 miles out trying to hit anything, a shot from 15-20 miles out is safer for you and probably more efficient than shooting a Sidewinder from a couple of miles behind.

The above case does not mean that SR are out of the game. Many targets (flying drones etc.) are too small for radars. Sometimes positive ID is required and some countries don't have some sort of AWACS or you got to intercept them before shooting them down (see for example the Galeb shootdowns). They are good for self-defense weapons and for A-10 chopper hunters. But today's "Duke" won't use his AIM-9 over an AIM-120 if he has an option (range and ability) to go for the latter.

Edit: Reply was intended for Neno.

Neno wrote:

F15A's were typically loaded with 4 MRAAM and 4 SRAAM even if it never had the same capacity of closing to enemies undetected as F22.. and the mission is the same..
I think also the Russians use to load their Sukhoi's with more than 2 SRAAM's..
Don't forget that not all enemies pilots on the sky are sitting over a super-maneuverable Su-37 or EF2000.. there are also a lot of Mig-27, Mig-31, Su-24, Tu-160.. is not so cheaper to say always "fox one"
So why do you consider them so useless ?

They arent useless, but then when you build a plane after the concept of stealth the least you want to do is to come close enough so that any radar can pick it up. IF you load 4 on the raptor your expected to stay there longer wich is NOT a good thing.

The F-15 had 4 Sidwinders because of sparrows, you had to balance a beam riding missile with another fire and forget one. But ever since AMRAAM came along that carrying only 2 became more standard as well.

About the russians planes, their R-73 missile IMHO is the missile withe best PK as all but 1 R-27 have missed every time they were fired and the R-77 is not proven, neither its developement and testing to have come about a fine refined missile like the AMRAAM. High manueverability of the flanker series reflects the belief that it will be more efective in that enevelope, with R-73's.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

The F-22 was never designed to hold 2 AIM-9X per bay as far as I know. The answer to the main question posed by the thread starter has already been answered I think. What are we talking about now? Pilotasso... are you saying that the F-22 should not carry AIM-9Xs at all because it shouldn't get into a dogfight or close range shooting situation? If so, go read up on Murphy's Law. I guess you think the F-22 shouldn't have a cannon either? What ARE you trying to say besides the obvious?

LOL good grief!!! Very Happy

I say considering its pros and cons, its not worth the effort , money and reliability issues by cramping 2 more missiles in. Youd better off with more AMRAAMs instead in the main bay. And no I dont want to ditch the gun and since your so clever to figure out the obvious I dont have to explain why! Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Pilotasso wrote:

LOL good grief!!! Very Happy

I say considering its pros and cons, its not worth the effort , money and reliability issues by cramping 2 more missiles in. Youd better off with more AMRAAMs instead in the main bay. And no I dont want to ditch the gun and since your so clever to figure out the obvious I dont have to explain why! Wink

But the F-22 was never designed to carry 2 AIM-9X per side bay in the first place! We already covered this, right? It's not possible. Why would you give pros and cons for an impossible configuration? It makes absolutely no sense. I guess you're really trying to say that Lockheed Martin did a good job by only designing the F-22 to carry 2 x AIM-9M/X (one per side bay), right? If not, then I have no idea what you're trying to say.

You're right, but don't forget maybe one day (and maybe not so far..) enemy warplanes will be stealth too..

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

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