AMRAAM 120D vs MDBA vs R-77

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mustang65

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2009, 03:00
  • Location: Georgia

Unread post21 Nov 2009, 03:25

Is the AMRAAM 120D as good as it sounds to be it is not ram jet powered, and it uses conventional deltas as fins which reduce speed in turns? Can the MDBA go farther than the new AMRAAM? Can the new AMRAAM compare to the R-77m version?
Offline

mercuriuscantab

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2010, 18:35
  • Location: UK

Unread post25 Mar 2010, 14:24

mustang65 wrote:Is the AMRAAM 120D as good as it sounds to be it is not ram jet powered, and it uses conventional deltas as fins which reduce speed in turns? Can the MDBA go farther than the new AMRAAM? Can the new AMRAAM compare to the R-77m version?


Although this question is four months old, no-one seems to have addressed it.

The subject was extensively discussed in another forum, so I am able to draw on some of that material, plus briefings I have had from MBDA, Raytheon, and Vympel.

The MBDA Meteor was evaluated in the late 1990s against two proposals by Raytheon – the AIM-120C-8 ERAAM and the ramjet-powered FMRAAM. All had been proposed as candidates to meet the United Kingdom's Staff Requirement (Air) SR(A)1239.

At the time, Raytheon saw the FMRAAM as a relatively risky development programme given the proposed timescale, so offered to field the ERAAM on a shorter timescale as an interim weapon that did not fully meet the RAF’s requirement.

ERAAM would have combined the AIM-120C-7 guidance and warhead sections with a new dual-pulse solid-propellant rocket motor.
However, the AIM-120D did not opt for this route, but uses the existing single-pulse rocket motor from the –120C-7 version. It gains its additional kinematic and weapon effectiveness performance from a GPS-aided navigation system plus new guidance software.

So assuming that the AIM-120C-8 ERAAM and AIM-120D are in the same performance class, a level that did not meet the UK requirement, we must assume that this class of performance was below that offered by Meteor.

But Raytheon won't be standing still - work is under way to improve the -120D.

This says nothing about their relative maximum range; long range was never a direct requirement for Meteor. The prime requirement for the latter missile was the high kinematic performance needed to provide a 'no escape zone' more than three times that of the (then-current?) models of AMRAAM. Although this level of kinematic performance results in a missile with a maximum range of more than 100 km, its main purpose is to ‘run down’ a target 80 km distant, even if that target turns away from the air battle and attempts a supersonic dash in the hope of outrunning the threat missile.

The Russians are not always consistent in how they use the designation R-77M. It is often used to indicate the proposed ramjet-powered version of the R-77 (often referred to as R-77M-PD or RVV-AE-PD). This is probably no longer an active programme. Several years ago, Vympel chief designer Gennady Sokolovsky told me that the design was only an experimental project and stressed that it was not a planned operational weapon.

There is a new Izdeliye 180 upgrade of the R-77 expected to enter service around 2014, but according to Russian sources it is only intended to match the performance of the AIM-120C-7. The earlier Izdeliye 170-1 upgrade (which probably corresponds to the RVV-SD export missile revealed last year) is of lower performance than Izdeliye 180.

In the long run, Russia will produce air-to-air missiles in the performance class of the AIM-120D and beyond. But my understanding is that these will use some form of high-performance rocket motor.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1021
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post25 Mar 2010, 15:15

If 80% of modern a2a kills are from missiles the target never saw coming, is Meteor's 3x specs overkill? I mean, is it realistic to carry a full load compared to a mix of AIM-120C7? Let's say you are toting around 6 missiles. The 6x Meteor will add approx. 2500 pounds to the takeoff weight versus 2100 pounds for the 6x AIM-120C. But if you conceivably will rarely need more than two before your opponent is up in smoke then why not use 2x Meteor and 4 AIM-120C7 to save you >300 pounds? That 300 pounds is not trivial weight when you are turning multiple G's, Better yet, knock off another 300 pounds - 700 pounds total - by going 2x ASRAAM, 2x AIM-120C7, and 2x Meteor. Launch your AIM-120C7 for sniping, ASRAAM for close-in tail shots, and save the more expensive Meteor for maneuvering targets.
Offline

sundowner11

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2010, 02:58

Unread post26 Mar 2010, 23:53

I wonder how well these missiles would track their target, say if their launched at a target at an odd angle or at the extreme end or beggining of their performance and tracking envelope?
Offline

mercuriuscantab

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2010, 18:35
  • Location: UK

Unread post29 Mar 2010, 18:54

madrat wrote:But if you conceivably will rarely need more than two before your opponent is up in smoke then why not use 2x Meteor and 4 AIM-120C7 to save you >300 pounds?... Better yet, knock off another 300 pounds - 700 pounds total - by going 2x ASRAAM, 2x AIM-120C7, and 2x Meteor. Launch your AIM-120C7 for sniping, ASRAAM for close-in tail shots, and save the more expensive Meteor for maneuvering targets.

The RAF philosophy seems to be to get a missile onto the threat 'soonest' - both Meteor and ASRAAM have a higher speed than their counterparts from other manufacturers.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1021
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 Apr 2010, 00:48

I'm impressed by how much more speed they have over their counterparts. Do you think this velocity delta is being resolved by Raytheon?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4628
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Apr 2010, 01:12

ATK, the developer of AMRAAM's motors just got a contract (in Oct'09) to improve the AMRAAM's motors. One of the areas of interest is "decreased time to target", aka faster missiles.

ATK Awarded Rocket Motor Technologies Development Contract for Next Generation Air-to-Air Missiles

(Source: ATK Alliant Techsystems; issued October 29, 2009)

MINNEAPOLIS --- Alliant Techsystems has been awarded a research and development contract for the Counter Air / Future Naval Capabilities (CA/FNC) program to develop technologies that can be incorporated into next generation air-to-air missile systems.

The nearly $10-million contract was issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California. ATK will work in concert with NAWCWD to identify specific propulsion technologies to develop for integration into future missile systems. The work is expected to be completed by June 2013.

The scope of the CA/FNC program is to develop technologies that will extend missile range, decrease time-to-target, improve end-game maneuverability, and improve the rocket motor's response to insensitive munitions (IM) stimuli. These improvements are oriented towards the 7-inch diameter Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) that is currently in use by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and many allied nations, but will be applicable to other air-to-air missile systems.

There are four main areas that ATK will be concentrating their development efforts on which include: high burn rate propellants for improved kinematics; improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility; low erosion nozzles for improved performance; and multi-pulse propulsion for end-game maneuverability. Additionally, ATK will address the IM requirement by incorporating affordable solutions including an advanced propellant formulation, a low cost composite case, and mitigation safety devices proven on other tactical rocket motor programs.

"By drawing on our heritage rocket motor experience, proven service life of fielded propulsion systems, and incorporating unique technologies, ATK will develop a robust, affordable propulsion system to meet current and future counter air targets with the potential to influence all future air-launched missiles. ATK's proven leadership in the development of advanced propellants, IM solutions, and pulse motors will pay benefits in developing this improved propulsion system for the U.S. Navy," said Bart Olson, Vice President and General Manager of ATK's Tactical Propulsion and Controls Division.

ATK is the sole source rocket motor supplier for all currently fielded U.S. air-to-air missile systems that include the AMRAAM and AIM-9X. The technologies developed under this contract will ensure ATK maintains its leadership role in providing rocket motors for next generation air-to-air missiles.


ATK is a premier aerospace and defense company with more than 18,000 employees in 22 states, Puerto Rico and internationally, and revenues of approximately $4.8 billion.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1021
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post09 Apr 2010, 21:28

Pulsatic exhaust? What's that good between, Mach 5-8, with simpler fuels? (The choice of fuels being the limiting factor I suppose.) That could mean some pretty exceptional performance on the straighter runs. I wonder what they will do for the terminal portion when closing the distance to the target.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4628
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Apr 2010, 06:19

Well, "multi-pulse propulsion" means that the motor turns off mid flight and re-ignites in the end-game to ensure max maneuverability.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post27 Mar 2012, 12:26

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-368249/

Will this decision put US fighters in a difficult position ?
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Mar 2012, 14:31

No.

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35 ... nterprise/


Of course, you'll just discount the whole LO thing. Maybe the US should cancel F-35 and buy Rafale with Meteor, right?
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post27 Mar 2012, 21:40

The meteor will of course only be as good as the platform carrying it due to the dependence on an external source for targeting data. If a CAP formation of fighters and their AWACs can't even detect the opposition, their "superior missiles" won't be able to make a difference unless the LO adversary wishes for that to be the case. Being VLO and denying the enemy access to airspace SA is key to destroying said enemy. When your side controls how much SA the enemy can have, then YOU control the battle almost irregardless of what missiles the opposition are using.
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post30 Mar 2012, 16:42

shingen wrote:No.

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35 ... nterprise/

Of course, you'll just discount the whole LO thing. Maybe the US should cancel F-35 and buy Rafale with Meteor, right?
Actually not a bad idea... 10 years late, I trillion dollars over budget and has achieved only 20% of its flight-test program and still has a looong way to go.
I think the US should have continued with F-22 and not cancelled the AMRAAM replacement because the US will not have an equivalent aircraft to carry out the A2A role. The F-35 lacks the maneuverability which other 4-4.5 Gen fighters possess.
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post31 Mar 2012, 00:25

duplex wrote:
shingen wrote:No.

http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35 ... nterprise/

Of course, you'll just discount the whole LO thing. Maybe the US should cancel F-35 and buy Rafale with Meteor, right?

Actually not a bad idea... 10 years late, I trillion dollars over budget and has achieved only 20% of its flight-test program and still has a looong way to go.

I think the US should have continued with F-22 and not cancelled the AMRAAM replacement because the US will not have an equivalent aircraft to carry out the A2A role. The F-35 lacks the maneuverability which other 4-4.5 Gen fighters possess.


! trillion over budget, huh? That's a lie.

F-35 lacks maneuverability of the so-called 4.5th gen? And what do the so-called 4.5th gen lack that the F-35 has?
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post31 Mar 2012, 16:09

http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/f-35- ... s-program/
You are right, its half a trillion over budget , sorry my mistake but it may easily end up at 1 trillion end of the decade. Anyway...

Well the Rafale outperforms the F-35 in every flight regime except stealth, it carries much more and flies almost twice as far, accelerates faster,turns better and has 2 engines and unlike the F-35, it can supercruise so whats left? and it will always cost less !! If you take away the stealth aspect - the remainder of what the the F-35 offers is way below average.

We will soon see how many countries will dump the F-35 after they find an interim solution.
Next

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests