Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Yes, but elsewhere on ATK's website they say the AMRAAM does have a boost/sustain motor.

Quote:

Currently, ATK produces two versions of the boost-sustain, solid-propellant rocket motor. The Propulsion Enhancement Program motor, which lengthened the case by 5 inches over the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) baseline motor, allows for increased propellant loading and significantly increases AMRAAM's range. This +5-inch motor is being delivered to the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The baseline rocket motor, which is still in production, is being produced primarily for U.S. allied nations. Both motors utilize a boost/sustain propellant configuration and case bonded grain design to maximize propellant loading.

F-16.net Sponsor

I saw that too. I tend to go with the PEP document due to it being a very specific notation (twice) in the Doc.

exec wrote:

Well, if we want to use wikipedia as our source then of course even the RVV-AE might have a better range than the AIM-120A Wink

Well if the manufacturer states such ranges itself...

The best way to look at useful range is get a ballistic range and divide by 3. I've seen MICA quoted as 80km max which for a 112kg missile with strakes must be a ballistic range.

If the motor was boost only it would certainly be a step backwards from previous AMRAAMs. That said, according to Janes:

Quote:

This is an 'all-sustain' solid-propellant rocket - current AMRAAMs have a combined boost/sustain motor - which gives a shorter time of flight and 10% greater range.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Mis ... llies.html

shingen wrote:

The best way to look at useful range is get a ballistic range and divide by 3. I've seen MICA quoted as 80km max which for a 112kg missile with strakes must be a ballistic range.

It's indeed a ballistic range. Raeython got a 30% gain in range for the AIM-120C7 over the C5 by changing the trajectory from direct to lofted.

Scorpion82 wrote:

exec wrote:

Well, if we want to use wikipedia as our source then of course even the RVV-AE might have a better range than the AIM-120A Wink

Well if the manufacturer states such ranges itself...

You’re right in one thing – range of the RVV-AE. We know exactly what the max range is, because we all have seen charts with max ranges of the missile. However with the AMRAAM situation is different. Max range is highly classified and IIRC the only public and official statement about its range is: “greater than 20 miles”. That’s all.
RVV-AE might get ~90km range against non-maneuvering target when firing at high speed and 20km altitude, however at 10km alt it gets only ~42km range while the AIM-120A comes close to 60km at the same altitude. RVV-SD has its range increased by ~35%. Does it mean that now it has longer range than the AIM-120A?

shingen wrote:

The best way to look at useful range is get a ballistic range and divide by 3. I've seen MICA quoted as 80km max which for a 112kg missile with strakes must be a ballistic range.

That certainly is not a ballistic range. Most likely it’s a range for high-speed high-altitude head on shot.

The WEZ/NEZ numbers are far more important than Max range numbers, and those are highly classified.

exec wrote:

You’re right in one thing – range of the RVV-AE. We know exactly what the max range is, because we all have seen charts with max ranges of the missile. However with the AMRAAM situation is different. Max range is highly classified and IIRC the only public and official statement about its range is: “greater than 20 miles”. That’s all.
RVV-AE might get ~90km range against non-maneuvering target when firing at high speed and 20km altitude, however at 10km alt it gets only ~42km range while the AIM-120A comes close to 60km at the same altitude. RVV-SD has its range increased by ~35%. Does it mean that now it has longer range than the AIM-120A?

There is a fair deal of sources indicating that the AIM-120A-C4 range is about 75 km max, with an expected engagement range of ~50 km in the most favourable conditions. For the C5 this has been increased to ~105 km and to ~135 km for the C7. The D is expected to reach 180 km.
Just out of curiosity where can I find the charts you are talking about?

Quote:

That certainly is not a ballistic range. Most likely it’s a range for high-speed high-altitude head on shot.

Well the public sources tend to leave out details such as launch range and speed. They talk about max. ranges, which aren't relevant for combat.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Well the public sources tend to leave out details such as launch range and speed. They talk about max. ranges, which aren't relevant for combat.

Send me a PM with your email.

Scorpion82 wrote:

shingen wrote:

The best way to look at useful range is get a ballistic range and divide by 3. I've seen MICA quoted as 80km max which for a 112kg missile with strakes must be a ballistic range.

It's indeed a ballistic range. Raeython got a 30% gain in range for the AIM-120C7 over the C5 by changing the trajectory from direct to lofted.

Where did you get that Info? AFAIK all C variants loft, its not a new method by far.

I think he’s right on that one. C-5 got better engine (and thus range increase). Navy wanted to have some kind of long-range Phoenix replacement so they got the C-7. New version had (among other improvements) compressed electronics, newer batteries and probably lofted trajectory. Maybe the new batteries enabled the AMRAAM to fly for a longer period of time and can thus enabling use of highly-lofted trajectories.

"probably"?

Loft exists since AIM-54A Phoenix back in late 70's, so its not new. I would be surprised if it took 30+ years to include the same on a smaller missile. I read "trajectory optimizations". And to me it means trajectory filters optimizations not loft method off-->on.

Bobby, put up your socks. No one is buying your game.

bobbyjoeblob wrote:

And what "game"Mr. Wolf

My name is not Bobby

Stop double posting. Either you need to think about what you want to say for long enough that you don't have to go back a minute later with a "by the way" post, or you need to stop trying to drive your post count up in the cheapest way possible (with 2-word responses).

I suggest you read more of the forum back threads to get a better feel for the site. Statements like "nothing can take on the Raptor" are silly and meaningless, especially in a community like this that has a pretty deep knowledge of combat aircraft. What if there were 100 million F-16's- could they beat an F-22? Obviously they could, nothing is invulnerable.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

superior agilty over the f-22