I was just over at FenceCheck looking at some great shots of the F-22 and some of the pics kinda surprised me... It looks like only one Sidewinder will fit in each of the intake bays, plus what, 4 AMRAAM's in the Belly Bay... Is that right? So the F-22 can only carry 6 AAM's Internally?
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
BDF
Posted: Mar 16, 2007 - 07:03 PM
Regular User
Joined: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 27
Status: Offline
honkhntr wrote:
I was just over at FenceCheck looking at some great shots of the F-22 and some of the pics kinda surprised me... It looks like only one Sidewinder will fit in each of the intake bays, plus what, 4 AMRAAM's in the Belly Bay... Is that right? So the F-22 can only carry 6 AAM's Internally???
The F-22 can carry two AIM-9L/M sidewinders in the cheek bays. Even though the AIM-9X is slightly narrower in finspan still only two can be accommodated physically. In fact to date the F-22 has not carried the AIM-9X.
The F-22 can also carry four AIM-120A/B or six AIM-120C/D missiles in the main weapons bay. When carrying a pair of 1000 lbs JDAMs or eight SDBs, the F-22 can carry two AIM-120C/D missiles but not AIM-120A/B missiles in the main bay. In practice though, the F-22 practically never carry the AIM-120A/B even though it can and was originally designed around a 4 x AIM-120A/B payload in the main bays.
DPRK
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 - 02:00 AM
Newbie
Joined: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 9
Status: Offline
Excellent!
playloud
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 - 05:10 AM
Regular User
Joined: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 24
Status: Offline
dwightlooi wrote:
In fact to date the F-22 has not carried the AIM-9X.
What is the reason for this?
sprstdlyscottsmn
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 - 04:01 PM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 338
Status: Offline
what effect does firing a HOBS missile from under the plane have as compared to firing one from the wingtip? Could that be the reason AIM-9X is not used?
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
PhillyGuy
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 - 04:45 PM
Active member
Joined: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
playloud wrote:
What is the reason for this?
Same old reasons, money, time, priority and availability...
_________________ "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
dwightlooi
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 - 07:15 PM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 885
Status: Offline
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
what effect does firing a HOBS missile from under the plane have as compared to firing one from the wingtip? Could that be the reason AIM-9X is not used?
The wing tip position has possibly the best seeker field of view. On the wingtips, the seeker head is least obstructed by the airframe. The cheek, underbody or under wing positions are all inferior to some degree in this regard. Regardless of the cueing methods, to lock-on before launch the missile's own seeker head must be able to see the target. Hence, the wingtip position offers the widest possible lock-on hemisphere for a HOBS missile like the AIM-9X.
However, the AIM-9X and most state of the art IIR missiles can be fired in a lock-on after launch mode where the missile has no target lock when it leaves the rail and will attempt to acquire it mid-flight. The missile however is cued by the helmet sight and/or other sensors to maneuver to a predetermined vector and before it starts looking. It may also be told its target type and in more advanced missiles the focal plane array image will be used to determine if the image it sees matches the target it is told to find. This is how those over the shoulder and backwards shots are possible. However, firing a missile in lock-on after launch mode it believed to increase the chances of friendly fire or wrong target acquisition.
Slimm
Posted: Mar 17, 2007 - 10:37 PM
Newbie
Joined: Oct 28, 2006
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
On the config pic, it's not shown but there is also the option to fly w/ 4 external tanks w/ a total of 8 externally carried AAMs. I don't know if this config has been Seek Eagled yet. Anyone know?
Also, I believe the missiles ferried w/ the external tanks cannot be employed.
mabie
Posted: Mar 20, 2007 - 05:15 AM
Regular User
Joined: Aug 07, 2006
Posts: 24
Status: Offline
There was some consideration to build an AMRAAM w/o fins would almost certainly allow you to cram more missiles internally on both the F-22 aand F-35.. maneuvering would be via tiny thrusters on the outside circumference of the tail section.
However you load it out, it is one IMPRESSIVE kite, with a NASTY bite.
_________________ Life, Liberty And the Pursuit of ANYONE who threatens either.
dwightlooi
Posted: Mar 20, 2007 - 06:22 AM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 885
Status: Offline
mabie wrote:
There was some consideration to build an AMRAAM w/o fins would almost certainly allow you to cram more missiles internally on both the F-22 aand F-35.. maneuvering would be via tiny thrusters on the outside circumference of the tail section.
There are two ways to achieve a thrust based control system. Using a separate lateral rocket set or using bleed off thrust from the main rocket motor. Separate rocket sets are very heavy and even a sizeable system like that on the PAC-3 does not have enough fuel for anything more than a few terminal final corrections. Bleed off thrust is more economical, but there is a problem with that... when you run out of sustainer fuel you'll also run out of maneuvering capability. In traditional missiles, the missile is fully capable of engaging a target way after the sustainer is burned out. In fact up to about 1/3 to 1/2 of the effective envelope of a missile is in motor out condition.
Besides, there is no need for that. It is fully feasible to design a missile with folding fins whose maximum width is in significantly wider than a finless AMRAAM. The ESSM (RIM-162) for instance has folding rear fins. The missile is 10" in diameter and fits into a 11" box section cannister. Four of them fit into a 22x22" quad pack which goes into the Mk41 VLS.
dwightlooi
Posted: Mar 20, 2007 - 06:27 AM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 885
Status: Offline
mabie wrote:
There was some consideration to build an AMRAAM w/o fins would almost certainly allow you to cram more missiles internally on both the F-22 aand F-35.. maneuvering would be via tiny thrusters on the outside circumference of the tail section.
There are two ways to achieve a thrust based control system. Using a separate lateral rocket set or using bleed off thrust from the main rocket motor. Separate rocket sets are very heavy and even a sizeable system like that on the PAC-3 does not have enough fuel for anything more than a few terminal final corrections. Bleed off thrust is more economical, but there is a problem with that... when you run out of sustainer fuel you'll also run out of maneuvering capability. In traditional missiles, the missile is fully capable of engaging a target way after the sustainer is burned out. In fact up to about 1/3 to 1/2 of the effective envelope of a missile is in motor out condition.
Besides, there is no need for that. It is fully feasible to design a missile with folding fins whose maximum width is in significantly wider than a finless AMRAAM. The ESSM (RIM-162) for instance has folding rear fins. The missile is 10" in diameter and fits into a 11" box section cannister. Four of them fit into a 22x22" quad pack which goes into the Mk41 VLS.
Speaking of the ESSM, it'll make one hell of an AAM (easily Phoenix class or better in range). Fitting the AMRAAM seeker on it is NP and is in fact a planned growth path for the missile. The 10" missile will fit both the F-22 and F-35 too with its 11" box section and 3.7 m length. An air launched, active seeker ESSM will be a cheaper route to a Meteor class performance without the cost, risks and acceleration disadvantages of a Ramjet.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
