F-22's weapon bay capacity
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1736
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
- Location: San Antonio, TX
As far as I can tell, the D is dimensionally the same as the C. So the A and B have 1.4 times the span. I really hope the F-22 can get better BVRAAMs though. As far as I know the D is still not multi pulse.
I'm wondering if the can reduce the profile of the LAU-142s. Those things are pretty substantial in both mass and volume.
I'm wondering if the can reduce the profile of the LAU-142s. Those things are pretty substantial in both mass and volume.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 23 Mar 2015, 18:34
Professional Development Short Course on Tactical Missile Design, slide 278, Eugene L. Fleeman
Tactical Missile Design, Eugene L. Fleeman
Tactical Missile Design, Eugene L. Fleeman
- Attachments
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 23 Mar 2015, 18:34
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 12 Nov 2017, 23:28
Meteor will likely not be integrated with the F22 in any fashion for a number of reasons.
For starters, it would make the US dependent on a foreign source for offensive capabilities, thus reducing the experience and development of domestic industries in future developments. There is also the fact that ramjet propulsion is not the end-all and be-all that a lot of people make it out to be. It comes with its own sacrifices. High AoA maneuvers will not allow for enough air intake for the engine to run properly; while ramjet engines can produce higher thrust they do not "suck-in" air, meaning that the prograde motion of the missile is the only thing forcing air into the engine. The sophisticated network of fuel lines, air intakes, and the complicated engine allows for only a single engine to be fitted onto a conventionally sized missile. Rocket motors on the other hand can be used in a multistage missile that would provide much better performance in the terminal phase; the thrust of a second stage rocket would be nearly as much as the first stage but would have significantly less mass to propel, thus increasing acceleration and by extension agility (turning being induced by centripetal acceleration).
Current rocket powered missiles like the AMRAAMs lack the traits to capitalize on these advantages because they are single stage missiles without the agility for high AoA maneuvers. So the trade off is a ramjet missile provides greater range than any rocket powered missile and more burn time in the terminal phase than a single stage missile while rocket powered missiles have (the potential for) greater agility. Using multi-pulse boosting would increase the range of a rocket powered missile without sacrificing its advantages. The premise is that after the first stage burns out it doesn't detach and let the second stage ignite until an optimal point, gliding for most of its flight in a boost-coast-boost fashion. This could save all the fuel of the second stage rocket for just the terminal phase of the missile's flight. This type of multistage, multi-pulse missile would still not have the range of a ramjet missile, offering an intermediate range between single stage rockets and missiles like the meteor, but would have better terminal performance than either.
Long story short, there are a lot of paths for producing a new missile for the US fleet of fighters, and the meteor is a stretch from being the best. A stop gap solution on the F35? Sure, but in the long run it will not be the missile that replaces the AMRAAM.
For starters, it would make the US dependent on a foreign source for offensive capabilities, thus reducing the experience and development of domestic industries in future developments. There is also the fact that ramjet propulsion is not the end-all and be-all that a lot of people make it out to be. It comes with its own sacrifices. High AoA maneuvers will not allow for enough air intake for the engine to run properly; while ramjet engines can produce higher thrust they do not "suck-in" air, meaning that the prograde motion of the missile is the only thing forcing air into the engine. The sophisticated network of fuel lines, air intakes, and the complicated engine allows for only a single engine to be fitted onto a conventionally sized missile. Rocket motors on the other hand can be used in a multistage missile that would provide much better performance in the terminal phase; the thrust of a second stage rocket would be nearly as much as the first stage but would have significantly less mass to propel, thus increasing acceleration and by extension agility (turning being induced by centripetal acceleration).
Current rocket powered missiles like the AMRAAMs lack the traits to capitalize on these advantages because they are single stage missiles without the agility for high AoA maneuvers. So the trade off is a ramjet missile provides greater range than any rocket powered missile and more burn time in the terminal phase than a single stage missile while rocket powered missiles have (the potential for) greater agility. Using multi-pulse boosting would increase the range of a rocket powered missile without sacrificing its advantages. The premise is that after the first stage burns out it doesn't detach and let the second stage ignite until an optimal point, gliding for most of its flight in a boost-coast-boost fashion. This could save all the fuel of the second stage rocket for just the terminal phase of the missile's flight. This type of multistage, multi-pulse missile would still not have the range of a ramjet missile, offering an intermediate range between single stage rockets and missiles like the meteor, but would have better terminal performance than either.
Long story short, there are a lot of paths for producing a new missile for the US fleet of fighters, and the meteor is a stretch from being the best. A stop gap solution on the F35? Sure, but in the long run it will not be the missile that replaces the AMRAAM.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests