F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 26, 2006 Posts: 55 Status: Offline

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?

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index. ... 2.420.html

Honk

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 23, 2006 Posts: 29 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???

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,292.420.html

Honk

8 total. 6 AIM-120 compressed carriage (-120C and -120D) in the main ventral bays, one AIM-9 series in each cheek bay.

BDF

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Here is a load chart.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 26, 2006 Posts: 55 Status: Offline

Thanks for the responses guys!!! Thanks

Honk

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

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.

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 9 Status: Offline

Excellent!

Enthusiast 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?

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?

playloud wrote:

What is the reason for this?

Same old reasons, money, time, priority and availability...

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 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.

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 28, 2006 Posts: 25 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.

Enthusiast 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. Crazy Pilot

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 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.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 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.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

How many AAM's can the F-22 carry internally?