AIM-120D

Hey,

So, I was wondering about the current status of the AIM-120D. I haven't really seen anything since the initial test firings from F model Super Hornets that resulted in intert missiles passing within the "leathal range" of the target. has it advanced to LRIP, or even full rate production? Is there an estimated IOC yet? Also, when people throw around numbers for internal AMRAAMs for the F-35, F-22, and F-15SE, are those figures going to change with the introduction of the -120D, is the missile any larger?

I know that those are a lot of questions up there, an anything y'all know is bound to be a lot more than what I do.

Thanks!

They completed Engineering and Manufacturing Development in Sep 2009. They began LRIP in FY2010.

Lot 23 = 133 AIM-120Ds for the USAF (and 57 for the USN) in FY 2009
Lot 24 = 191 AIM-120Ds for the USAF (and 79 for the USN) in FY 2010
Lot 25 = 246 AIM-120Ds for the USAF (and 101 for the USN) in FY 2011

Deliveries to start Jun 2011 for Lot 23, Feb 2012 for Lot 24.

Lots 25 and on are due to be delivered Feb of FY+2 yrs (ie, FY2011 missiles arrive starting in Feb 2013)

Lot 26 (FY2012) planned for 247/165 (USAF/USN)
Lot 27 (FY2013) planned for 408/226 (USAF/USN)
Lot 28 (FY2014) planned for 392/323 (USAF/USN)
Lot 29 (FY2015) planned for 402/253 (USAF/USN)

Now if they could only start dev on NCADE-Interceptor...

geogen wrote:Now if they could only start dev on NCADE-Interceptor...

For it's intended use, or some other?

--edit--

The FY2010 budget had 3.5 mil for continued dev of the NCADE.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/smd09/ncade/
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/rtnwcm ... asheet.pdf


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

MDA requested $3.5 million for NCADE in the Fiscal 2010 budget request, although Booen says he had hoped for about $15 million. So Raytheon plans to push Congress for more funds. He says that if additional funding is provided, he could deliver 20 of the weapons to the Pacific region within four years to help counter the threat of a ballistic missile attack from North Korea.

As a side note on the AIM-9X Blk2:

Half of the FY2009 AIM-9Xs were Block 2 and all FY2010 and on are Block 2.

First deliveries of Blk 2s will be Sep 2010.

'Other', asymmetrical cap. At least to stop-gap until JDRADM, but as an entire unique strategic supplement. Imo.

I must say, it's crazy to see Raytheon 'pushing Congress' for seemingly no-brainer next-gen stuff like this, leading the charge for National defense. One concerns should be that so much cost overrun is consumed by platform programs at the expense of the actual next-gen weapons be they AA, AG, Anti-cruise missile/VLO, or ABM.

SO, am I correct that the -120D has a higher range than the -120C-7?

npnpeterman18, yes the -D has a longer range than the C7.

geogen, the NCADE has no warhead, proximity fuse, mid-course updates, cannot attack maneuvering targets, etc. It is designed as a boost-phase HTK (Hit To Kill) interceptor only.

No warhead but a proximity fuze? What happens when the fuze is triggered? Does the NCADE go "Bang! You're dead!"?

I meant no warhead, NO prox fuse, NO mid-course updates, etc.

SpudmanWP wrote:I meant no warhead, NO prox fuse, NO mid-course updates, etc.

Bummer, dude. I wonder how hard it would be to change the configuration back into a more AMRAAM-y state- keep the AIM-9X seeker, but put the warhead back in (which was removed to make room for fuel).

Well, with the AIM-120D's improved GPS based INS and mid-course updates, I think it would make a rather nasty long range AAM as it would never go active and could have full TVC in the endgame.

NCADE has no warhead, proximity fuse, mid-course updates, cannot attack maneuvering targets,

Spud... Hence the post remarking on 'should start dev on the Interceptor variant'.

It would probably involve removing some of the (ballistic oriented, extreme altitude engaging) fuel section to add the WH segment, yes. Other relevant AMRAAM controls, perhaps taken from the C-7 or D could be integrated. The result in theory though could give very high speed, time to target Intercept AIM capability against VLO and cruise missiles at ranges perhaps greater than D, to supplement the D loadout mix. Perhaps properly packed N-UCAS types (or even a trusty F-16 still plugging away), equipped with appropriately tuned sensors/network could patrol/deter against both future rogue/militant Iskander class TBM intimidation and supersonic CM surprises in the same sortie.

geogen wrote:

NCADE has no warhead, proximity fuse, mid-course updates, cannot attack maneuvering targets,

Spud... Hence the post remarking on 'should start dev on the Interceptor variant'.

It already is a Boost Phase Interceptor... you should have been clearer.

If Raytheon looses the JDRADM contract, I can see them perusing a NCADE-based AAM.