F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2013, 22:58
by disconnectedradical
I'm wondering if the MBDA Meteor will fit into F-22's main bays. Each bay can carry two AIM-120A without the clipped fins, and it appears as if the Meteor has roughly the same dimensions in length and diameter.

Also, does the side bays have enough room to carry the Python 5 since it's slightly larger than the AIM-9X?

Here's the Meteor next to an AIM-9M.
Image

RE: F-22

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 03:53
by structuresguy
The main bays can only fit 3 x of the AIM-120C with clipped fins. Not 4, and definitely not AIM-120's without shortened fins.

Re: RE: F-22

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 05:21
by disconnectedradical
structuresguy wrote:The main bays can only fit 3 x of the AIM-120C with clipped fins. Not 4, and definitely not AIM-120's without shortened fins.


I meant 4 total, two in each bay.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2013, 11:35
by stobiewan
Theoretically there may be some way to cram the Meteor into an F22 but I believe the US has it's own long range missile plans in hand?

Meteor for the F35, that's a no-brainer - MBDA would be looking at the international market and probably rubbing their hands at the prospect.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 04:33
by delvo
The latest version of Meteor, intended for use in F-35, has smaller fins, just like with AMRAAM, so it would fit in F-22 the same way the latest AMRAAM does.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2013, 13:02
by disconnectedradical
delvo wrote:The latest version of Meteor, intended for use in F-35, has smaller fins, just like with AMRAAM, so it would fit in F-22 the same way the latest AMRAAM does.


I'm not sure about that. F-35's bays can carry larger weapons than F-22's bays. The main issue is the Meteor's intakes, which protrude out quite a lot. See image below. So I don't know if the Meteor can fit in the F-22's main bay at all.

Also, given the Python 5's dimensions, 3100 mm long, 640 mm fin span, 160 diameter, will it fit in the side bays? For comparison, AIM-9M is 2850 mm long and 630 mm fin span and the AIM-9X is 3020 mm long and 280 mm fin span.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 01:32
by disconnectedradical
I'll revive this topic because of some recent reading regarding the AIM-152 AAAM. There has been some contention that the Air Force opposed the AAAM since it won't fit into the F-22's weapon bays. This may be true for the Hughes/Raytheon submission, but the GD/Westinghouse submission of the AAAM has the same cardinal dimensions as the AIM-120. In fact, it might be even slightly smaller. I wondering if these would fit inside the F-22. Also, how would the performance of this missile be against fighters? It seems like a multi-pulse rocket motor can have quite an advantage in terminal maneuvering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-152_AAAM

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 02:31
by aaam
disconnectedradical wrote:I'll revive this topic because of some recent reading regarding the AIM-152 AAAM. There has been some contention that the Air Force opposed the AAAM since it won't fit into the F-22's weapon bays. This may be true for the Hughes/Raytheon submission, but the GD/Westinghouse submission of the AAAM has the same cardinal dimensions as the AIM-120. In fact, it might be even slightly smaller. I wondering if these would fit inside the F-22. Also, how would the performance of this missile be against fighters? It seems like a multi-pulse rocket motor can have quite an advantage in terminal maneuvering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-152_AAAM


There were some potential issues regarding AIM-152 in Raptor's shallow bays. While the source you cite does indicate dimensions similar to AIM-120, remember that some of that was speculative, For example ACIMD is pictured in the article without mentioning that it is much larger than the Hughes entry. Also, the ranges look a bit low.

More importantly, while the dimensions cited may indeed be close, don't forget that the GD entry was designed to be fired from the tube it was delivered in, as part of USN's "wooden round" philosophy. I don't believe it was designed for free launch (missile ejected and lights up when clear of the aircraft. It launched more like AIM-9 (AIM launches either way). This, plus the size of the launch tube might be a problem for Raptor internal carry.

GD's multi-pulse, or boost-cruise-boost motor did have some good features both in getting range and in the endgame, depending on how far the missile had traveled to that point. OTOH, Hughes' rocket/ramjet combination would be powered all the way and would have plenty of available energy at that point as well, maybe even more (although it would be less agile at its minimum effective range). Both were designed to be highly effective against fighters except at the extreme end of their range.


Navy's requirement was that although only the F-14D could use it to full effectiveness, AIM-120 must be usable by all a/c that could operate AIM-7. That notwithstanding, USAF stated that the weapon should not be developed and even if was they wouldn't use it. I believe that in addition to the fit issue there were other things in play:

AIM-120 was a Navy missile. Historically AF doesn't like combat systems(rotary wing excepted) that it didn't develop or control. Usually it had to be forced into that by fiat (F-4) or circumstance (AIM-7); A-7 was an exception, but there was a war on.

F-22 development was beginning and AF's position was that no such weapon was needed because with the F-22 they could get close enough without being seen that extended range was unnecessary anyway. Besides, with their hundreds of F-22s they would be so awesome that no one else would need such a weapon since AF would have already wiped out everybody.

AF arguably also was concerned that AIM-152 might be a threat to F-22 funding. In addition to long range, it would have a high energy state through most of its flight, greater ability to operate in an ECM environment as well as multi-mode seeking. The fear being that maybe some might say that with a weapon like that the US could get by with evolved F-15s or the like. USAF strongly would move against anything perceived to be a threat to Raptor. It is instructive to go back some years and observe how USAF looked on F-35, its role and mission (remember the "F/A-22"?), and the capabilities that it would have, especially air-to-air taking advantage of F-35's larger bay. This attitude remained up until the point where it was clear that there was no chance of getting more than 187 (boo!). Then F-35 became the greatest thing there ever was.

As with almost everything, there's usually never just one reason.

Enough blathering by me; my hand's still not healed and using my elbows and nose is not really an option (probably wouldn't look any worse than my usual output, just more tiring.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 02:54
by sferrin
stobiewan wrote:Theoretically there may be some way to cram the Meteor into an F22 but I believe the US has it's own long range missile plans in hand?


Yeah, for about 20 years. It's progressed from the drawing board, to the Powerpoint, to the waste bin.

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2014, 03:35
by aaam
sferrin wrote:
stobiewan wrote:Theoretically there may be some way to cram the Meteor into an F22 but I believe the US has it's own long range missile plans in hand?


Yeah, for about 20 years. It's progressed from the drawing board, to the Powerpoint, to the waste bin.


There had been studies for a number of years for a longer range ramjet version of AIM-120/AMRAAM, FMRAAM ("Future" instead of "Advanced"). USAF was not a supporter of the concept reportedly for some of the same reasons it didn't like AIM-152. Repeated rumors were that a couple of brassboard examples flew but I can't find confirmation of that.

However, when Europe started work on their BVRAAM ("Beyond Visual Range"), the US position changed and FRAAM was championed to get those orders. However, Europe no doubt skeptical of US commitment and wanting to support the home team, went with Meteor and FRAAM ended up in sferrin's waste bin along with AIM-120.

http://www.hughesmissiles.com/develop_p ... fmraam.htm

And then there's JDRADM...the waste bin is getting crowded, isn't it?

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 01:05
by southernphantom
So, the USN states that the AIM-120C/D has a wingspan of 19", with the AIM-120A/B having 21". disconnectedradical, if your assertion about the Raptor being able to carry A/B in reduced quantities is correct, that establishes a minimum bay height of 14.849" (assuming 45deg fins and the missile being stored at a diagonal to minimize its profile).

The thing is, I can't find a damn thing about the Meteor's wingspan. Its diameter, sure, but a figure of 7.0" is clearly not an all-up wingspan and is therefore basically useless for this analysis.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 11:38
by linkomart
southernphantom wrote:
The thing is, I can't find a damn thing about the Meteor's wingspan. Its diameter, sure, but a figure of 7.0" is clearly not an all-up wingspan and is therefore basically useless for this analysis.


The meteor span is a lot more than the AMRAAM, and I'm pretty sure you won't find any oficcial numbers. It's also not symmetrical top/bottom since the bottom finns are located on the sidepods behind the air-intakes.
I personally doubt that the Meteor of the current model will fit inside the bay of the F-22, but that's just my guess.
MBDA are working on an clipped fin version to fit inside the F-35 bay, and that version should be possible to fit inside the F-22 as well.
The diameter and length of the body is the same, as well as the attachments, to make it interchangeable with the AMRAAM on the Eurofighter, the semi recession dictated those simillarities.
1 sunday cent

Re: Re:

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 13:55
by count_to_10
sferrin wrote:
stobiewan wrote:Theoretically there may be some way to cram the Meteor into an F22 but I believe the US has it's own long range missile plans in hand?


Yeah, for about 20 years. It's progressed from the drawing board, to the Powerpoint, to the waste bin.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Progr ... T3%29.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/T3- ... tor-06645/
T3 was the latest to go into the circular file.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2014, 23:27
by disconnectedradical
I'm not entirely convinced that USAF was opposed to long range AAMs just because of the ATF. At around the same time as the AIM-152 the USAF had their own AIM-120 replacement program in the Have Dash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Dash

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2014, 03:05
by delvo
southernphantom wrote:I can't find a damn thing about the Meteor's wingspan. Its diameter, sure, but a figure of 7.0" is clearly not an all-up wingspan and is therefore basically useless for this analysis.
linkomart wrote:The meteor span is a lot more than the AMRAAM, and I'm pretty sure you won't find any oficcial numbers. It's also not symmetrical top/bottom since the bottom finns are located on the sidepods behind the air-intakes.
Images like this one and this one show the fins making a square with height & width 2.3 times the central body's diameter, which means 16.1".

linkomart wrote:MBDA are working on an clipped fin version to fit inside the F-35 bay, and that version should be possible to fit inside the F-22 as well.
They have their final design and have already revealed it to the public; there was a thread about it somewhere around here. But the announcement wasn't very informative. Not only did it not give dimensions, but even what it did say about where the missiles would fit is open to interpretation, so they still haven't really specified to the public whether it really fits everywhere AMRAAM does.

It said four of these new Meteors could fit inside an F-35. Sometimes that's said to be the limit for AMRAAMs, too, but we already know that's only counting one AMRAAM apiece on stations 4, 5, 7, and 8, and not accounting for the rack to carry pairs of them on stations 4 and 8 for a total of six. So, especially when combined with the fact that the weight limit that's usually stated for stations 5 and 7 is lower than the weight of a Meteor, that gives us two different ways to interpret the thing about four internal Meteors:
  1. one apiece on all four internal stations, with no mention of the expansion racks, just as they sometimes aren't mentioned for AMRAAMs
  2. two apiece on only stations 4 and 8, leaving stations 5 and 7 with none
If it's #1, then that doesn't eliminate the possibility of carrying six internally using the same racks on stations 4 and 8 that AMRAAMs would use, but it's also still consistent a missile that you can't do that with because some part somewhere sticks out too far in some direction.

If it's #2, then it's consistent with a missile that either weighs too much or doesn't fit the space by the little door because some part somewhere sticks out too far in some direction.

Either way, unless it just means six of them actually can fit internally just like with AMRAAMs and they just didn't think to mention that (as does happen sometimes when people are talking about F-35 carrying AMRAAMs), it could mean that whatever keeps them from putting six in an F-35 could also be something that interferes with putting them in an F-22 (or at least with putting six of them in there).

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 10:11
by linkomart
delvo wrote:
linkomart wrote:The meteor span is a lot more than the AMRAAM, and I'm pretty sure you won't find any oficcial numbers. It's also not symmetrical top/bottom since the bottom finns are located on the sidepods behind the air-intakes.
Images like this one and this one show the fins making a square with height & width 2.3 times the central body's diameter, which means 16.1".


There were a lot of initial versions, from the begining there were even plans to have eight fins just like the AMRAAM. My guess is that it is an early image. As far as I can tell METEOR have four equal sized fins, but since the lower fins are located on the sidepods the span is slightly larger.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2014, 12:15
by disconnectedradical
Perhaps a better question is what's the largest box section that can be fitted in the main bay. I've heard that it's about 0.35 meters, in which case the AIM-120A/B can't even fit into the bay at all due to the 25 inch fin span (21 inch is for the middle fins).

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 23:57
by uclass
Do clipped fins affect manoeuvrability?

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 22:26
by hephaestusaetnaean
F-22 weapons bay dimensions

Each bay is at least 13.4 inches tall x 33.9 inches wide x 156 inches long. That's the geometrically smallest box in which you can fit AIM-120D's 3-abreast and staggered. Add 4 inches of width and 3 inches of length for each inch of separation between missile/missile and missile/wall.

Obviously, I don't need to know the true dimensions, but since Raytheon clipped the -120C's wings just enough to fit inside the raptor, we can assume for our arguments that the bay can't fit anything larger than the -120D.

AIM-120D in the F-22

Each -120D measures 12 ft long, 7 inches wide, 19 inch wingspan, with 12 inch long fins. Each fits in a 13.4 x 13.4 x 156 inch box. The center missile is staggered forward 12 inches to make room so the fins don't overlap, allowing the triplet to nestle closer together, occupying only 33.9 inches of width instead of the 40.2" they would otherwise. Again, the box for all 3 is 13.4 x 33.9 x156 inches (H/W/L)

For comparison, three 120C's would occupy 36.7 inches of width (and 14.8 inches of height) given their 21 inch wingspan. Presumably this makes them too large to fit.

MBDA Meteor in the F-22

Each meteor measures 12 ft long, 7 inches wide, 25 inch wingspan, with 12 inch long fins. Each fits in a 17.7 x 17.7 x 156 inch box. Fitted 3-abreast and staggered like the 120's, they measure 17.7 x 46.1 x 156 inches (H/W/L). (Again, add 4 inches of width and 3 inches of length for each inch of margin.) That's much too wide.

The issue are the intakes, which protrude down and out, making the body effectively 10.75 inches wide (much wider than the 7 inch diameter casing of the main body), so the missiles can't sit as close to each other.

Fitted with just 2 meteors per bay, they occupy only 28.4 inches of width (less than -120D), but are still too tall at 17.7 inches, which again is taller than even the -120C.

In order to fit 3 Meteors per bay (abreast and staggered), the fins would have to be clipped to half their span (4.7 inches vs 9 inches each), yielding a wingspan of just 16.4 inches (down from 25 inches). (Box = 11.6 x 33.9 x 156 inches H/W/L.) Unfortunately, that means the lower fins barely protrude out from behind the intakes. And the fins can't be lengthened (either much or at all) because that'll increase the length occupied.

That might be too small, and the control issues might be unacceptable. To offset the smaller, less effective fins, they could add another set of fins, or add strakes, or add jet vanes for thrust vectoring. All of these have their own issues.

Or instead of clipping the fins, MBDA could slim down the intakes or even reorient/reposition them to narrow the body width. This will obviously reduce thrust and turning performance ... or require a major rework of the combustor (read: not going to happen).

It's not clear which option MBDA will choose to fit the Meteor into the F-22 and F-35. For sure the fins will get clipped. Maybe the intakes will shrink, reducing speed and the NEZ a tad. Maybe they'll make folding fins strong enough to endure external carriage---very straightforward option with the least impact on the rest of the missile, but I've never heard anyone seriously consider this, so maybe it's impractical. Although Have Dash II tried it. Clipped wings with TVC also seem like a workable option.

AIM-152 AAAM GD/Westinghouse in the F-22

Each -152 measures 11.8 ft long, 7 inches wide (wings folded). Encapsulated, they fit in a canister 11.25 x 8.75 x 144 inches (H/W/L).

Fitted abreast 3 per bay, they occupy a box 11.25 x 26.3 x 144 inches H/W/L. Far less than the 33.9 inch width "limit." You could almost fit four per bay (35.0 inches).

In reality, you probably could fit four per bay, since the rounds are safely encapsulated (assuming the tube separated well and could launch the missile after being dropped, which they probably weren't designed to do). You could definitely fit four per bay if you strengthened it for internal carriage and launched without a tube, since the rounds are only 7 inches wide.

---

Approx dimensions of the meteor and aim-152 are taken from pics similar to the ones posted here.
This questions crops up often enough, so here we go.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 22:33
by hephaestusaetnaean
Btw, is T3 still alive? Did anything come out of it?

According to this FY15 Budget estimate from March 2014 http://www.darpa.mil/workarea/downloada ... 2147487546,

The Triple Target Terminator (T3) program developed a high speed, long-range missile to engage air, cruise missile, and air defense targets. T3 would be carried internally on stealth aircraft or externally on fighters, bombers, and UAVs. The enabling technologies are: air breathing propulsion, advanced networking and data links, and flexible guidance and control. T3 would allow any aircraft to rapidly switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. T3's speed, maneuverability, and network-centric capabilities would significantly improve U.S. aircraft survivability and increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each sortie. The program is jointly funded with, and will transition to the Air Force.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 01:24
by SpudmanWP
Instead of clipping, why not go with folding fins (-120 and Metior)?


btw, the GD AAAM was always my favorite version too (6-8 per bay, not 4 [double stacked]).

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 07:41
by hephaestusaetnaean
Yeah, folding fins seems like the obvious solution. But apparently they don't stand up well to the rigors and wear n tear of external carriage, whereas internal bays are much more benign environments. (It doesn't seem that hard to make a reliable hinge robust enough to survive long hours hanging from a pylon, or to wrap the fins in a jettisonable protective shroud, but what do I know?) (There might also be an issue accommodating folding fins into semi-recessed mounts.)

Have Dash II did use folding fins and could be carried both internally and externally. Never entered service though.

Also, the USAF didn't want to operate two variants of AMRAAM, one for external carriage, one for internal bays (solely the F-22 at the time).

This may not matter to MBDA; they're aiming for the internal AAM market (basically just the F-35 at the moment), but since their pre-existing Meteor can't fit in internal bays, they'll have to make a new variant anyway, they may as well use folding fins.

But it does matter to anyone buying it for their F-35's, who would prefer the new variant to work on their current 4th gen (externally) without having to buy two versions.

I don't really see us buying either variant of the Meteor though. Whichever BVRAAM we buy we'll use for the next 40+ years... with all the upgrading and O&S that entails. We will likely make our own... at some point. So it doesn't make sense to buy the Meteor and build up a support structure only to use it just for the 15 year interim until we field our own BVRAAM. It would make more sense to hack together an ERAAM or "-120E." ...And I certainly don't see us using a European AAM for 40 years, regardless of how good it is.

Besides, in order "to make [the Meteor] interchangeable with the AMRAAM on the Eurofighter, the semi recession dictated [fixed dimensions that matched the AMRAAM, ie 12ft x 7inches]." It also dictated, I think, using two inlets instead of four, which reduced performance at negative g's and sideslip, thus dictating bank-to-turn (since it couldn't take full advantage of TVC anyway).

We can do better. We're not locked into 12ft by 7inch semi-recessed (many of ours will retire before we field a new BVRAAM anyway), which opens up a lot of options:
  • We can widen the casing diameter to 8 inches: more fuel, wider aperture for sensors (easier to integrate dual band radars, or multi-mode seekers, eg radar/EO/IIR).
  • A large diameter separable booster with TVC (instead of the smaller, less efficient, integrated nozzle-less booster in Meteor) that separates post-boost to reduce weight and drag. Being modular, we can tailor the motor to each launch platform, eg 10" for the F-22, 14" for the F-35, a longer 14" for a B-1R standoff missile bus (arbitrary diameters).
  • Four inlets. Without having to accommodate semi-recessed mounting, we can fit four (smaller) inlets symmetrically around the body. Meteor's sideslip and negative AOA issues disappear.
  • TVC. Easier in a larger diameter body and without sideslip/AOA issues.
  • Stealthy trapezoidal body. Again, don't have to fit semi-recessed.
I'm not saying we should do all these things, or even that they're good ideas, but the options are available to us.

--

What impressed me most about the GD AAAM was the sheer range they claimed in a frame smaller than the AMRAAM. Not to mention all the other innovative features: multipulse motors, separable booster, multimode seeker (dual band radar AND 2 color IR), tube launch... simultaneously ahead of its time and born too late.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 10:54
by sferrin
How many ESSM would fit?

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 12:57
by popcorn
Maybe they can find a way to squeeze this in.

http://alert5.com/2015/02/24/amraam-er- ... e-section/

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 03:30
by hephaestusaetnaean
RIM-162 ESSM's in the F-22

sferrin wrote:How many ESSM would fit?


3 ESSM's fit perfectly (without any modifications to neither the missile nor bay, except attachments). 4 ESSM's would not fit unless the rounds were spaced just 7.62mm apart.

Each ESSM is 12 ft long, 10 in wide, with a ~25.2" wingspan (~14.7" folded wingspan), and ~8.2" long fins. Each fits into a box 10.8" x 10.8" x 144" (H/W/L). Fitted three abreast and staggered, the box is 10.8" x 32.2" x 152.2" (H/W/L). That's slightly less than the -120D (mostly just squatter).

It's noticeably larger than you'd expect because the fins don't fold quite flat (see below) and and the strakes (which span a touch more than the folded fins) are too long to be staggered, making the body effectively 0.6" wider.

Image

One caveat. You need to delete a rear section of strake so the folded fins can be staggered. But this only saves 0.2". If the strakes and fins (folded) were clipped from 2.3" down to 1.5" (each side), they wouldn't protrude outside the 10" body's "box", saving 2.4"... enough room to enlarge the casing from 10" to 11". Basically, the ESSM is narrow enough that it doesn't need to be staggered at all.

So a much better idea, I think, is to not stagger the missiles but use the extra length to stretch the rocket motor by 12+ inches. You only increase the fuel by ~12% instead of 21% (vs 11" casing), but this is a lot easier and doesn't sacrifice agility. (Box = 10.8" x 32.4" x 156" H/W/L, still less than -120D)

A 10" sensor aperture does make it easier to fit a multi-modal ARH/EO/IIR seeker...

And the performance should... impressive. If not Meteor-like, definitely "-120ER" worthy.

---

BTW, judging from a pic of the F-22 bay, it looks like the center missile is staggered forward at least 13.15 inches (implying >1.15" of fore/aft separation between fins), and laterally the AMRAAMS are very tightly packed with very little separation between adjacent casings/fins. I doubt anything larger than -120D's will fit.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 03:53
by disconnectedradical
I'm not sure if we can say that the F-22 can't carry the AIM-120A/B. I've read that it can carry four of those missiles in lieu of the six clipped-fin AIM-120C/D.

I believe the A/B models have 25 inch span compared to the 17.6 inch span of the C/D. Incidentally the A/B takes up approximately 17.6 x 17.6 square inch cross section. Here are some pictures of the F-22's internal bays. Also, the GBU-32 has a 19.6 inch span, but I think the BRU rack has lower profile than the LAU-142.

Image
Image
Image
Image

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 22:31
by hephaestusaetnaean
You're probably right. For sake of argument, it can be useful to assume nothing larger than the -120C/D can fit [three-abreast per bay]. Otherwise, people like to play with the margins and try to cram all sorts of things that don't belong in there.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 05:17
by disconnectedradical
Also, what's the span of the C/D? I'm getting conflicting reports, because some say it's 19 in, and some say 17.6 in.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 21:58
by hephaestusaetnaean
~17 inches at 1:03: .

Although the navy fact sheet says 19 inches. Maybe they trimmed the D even more than the C?

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 11:58
by hephaestusaetnaean
Definitely looks like 17.6 inches here.

Image

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2015, 16:07
by disconnectedradical
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.

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2017, 04:44
by hephaestusaetnaean

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2017, 05:04
by hephaestusaetnaean

Re: F-22's weapon bay capacity

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 00:39
by cry_me_a_river_kids
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.