Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

"Whatever is being developed is automatically inferior to my notional upgrade of existing equipment. I am the ultimate genius of weapons design."

I wonder why these guys post here instead of actually designing hardware.

F-16.net Sponsor

shingen wrote:

"Whatever is being developed is automatically inferior to my notional upgrade of existing equipment. I am the ultimate genius of weapons design."

Damn, that really did make me laugh as it's so true!

How about an F-86 with HMS? Or maybe an F-104 because the kinematics of the F-35 are subpar. So obviously since something that's new, an F-35, does not dominate through kinematics then kinematics must be the key to success. Is that the logic?

bruant328 wrote:

exec wrote:

I'm not so sure. If they can pack it all in a 7'' diameter body then why use a bigger one? Why do you think AA missles are getting thinner everywhere? (R27=>R77, AIM-7=>AIM-120, Indian Astra missile etc).
Smaller missile-less drag-better maneuverability.

Maybe when it comes to electronics you can get away with 7" diameter bodies but for Phoenix type long range work I don't know if the propulsives work that way. I mean is 9" diameter asking for that much?

The- 120D is already in the Phoenix range class, in a missile 1/3 the size. In a VLO vs VLO(or even LO) fight, you're not going to be acquiring/engaging targets at >100nm, so you're better off with more missiles with good range, than a few missiles with a huge range(but unusable).

This was one of the factors that caused the cancellation of the AAAM. It had a proposed range that was longer than what sensors of the time could detect.

A far better use of money, would be getting the D+ in service quickly, with the dual pulse motor, and perhaps an IIR version, if they really wanted to get jiggy.

geogen wrote:

To bruant -
please keep up the hard hitting posts. People here need a wake up call to reality and a challenge... not an easy dream.

Thank you geogen. I may not be as erudite in electronics as others on this site but I like to think I can present some good questions.

I would like to see a Long Range AAM so we can threaten some of our "friends"
HVAs as much as missiles like the R-37 or KS-172 are supposed to do to ours.

a. I think a 9" diameter body can give us some interesting prospects. My theoretical AAAM would have ~125 mile range with great kinematics so that even at that range a fighter would not be safe from it. Mach 4 speed would be a minimum if possible.

b. Dual mode guidance active radar and IIR with conformal arrays to geive better seeker angle coverage and the larger size body would be for more radar electrical power against low observable craft.

c. Instead of cramming 92 mission profiles into one missile like JDRADM(listen I hope it works too) let's use our 9" body as a modular platform to produce a family of seekers for surface targets and go tri-mode adding a MMW radar. I think it will improve the odds if one missile does not have to be expected to handle so many targets.

d. The Russians and the Israelis have abandoned the 5" diameter body for SRAAMs and I don't think those missiles are to be sneezed at. So I'm to believe that the 7" body is the ultimate answer?? This is because we screwed up the ATF in the sense of mandating AMRAAM size missile bays which handcuffed missile makers. The Navy for its NATF wanted a larger bay for different missile sizes.

e. Although I've discussed a LRAAM, I still think a larger than 7" size would help with MRAAMs as well. 8"?

f. I don't want to hear after some future war against a real Air Force that we had performance issues with our 7" AAMs.

Just my opinion.

The JDRADM isn't cramming 92 roles into 1. Only 2- air to air, and anti-radiation. It likely will have a 125mile range(or more). Neither the R-37 nor the KS-172 are currently fielded. The AIM-120D isn't outmatched by any current enemy AAM.

wrightwing wrote:

A far better use of money, would be getting the D+ in service quickly, with the dual pulse motor, and perhaps an IIR version, if they really wanted to get jiggy.

You would then be in the interim-ELP-camp of thought, lol. Smile

I would have to concur with you.

Sure, this could be seen as 'rocking the boat' in terms of the usual slow-moving, USG decision making process of things, but in truth it's a credible 'poke' to accelerate the way how things with regards to 'the acquisition process' advance. God speed.

wrightwing wrote:

...The AIM-120D isn't outmatched by any current enemy AAM.

Very interesting. So then there is no need for the unaffordable and unsustainable F-35 in the A2A role as the continued evolution of dominating AAM technolgoy will keep full rate production of cheap 4.5+ gen aircraft on top.

When there is a requirement for a VLO sortie (rather than LO), then you've got the next-gen of VLO UCAVs coming on line, as well as the next-gen upgraded F-22 increments.

Substantial procurement $$ spending saved, overall tactial capabilities increased, deterrence maintained, tax-payers off the hook, USAF generals looking good. Very Happy

That's quite an extrapolation.

Last edited by geogen on Feb 23, 2011 - 05:06 AM; edited 2 times in total

bruant328 wrote:

geogen wrote:

To bruant -
please keep up the hard hitting posts. People here need a wake up call to reality and a challenge... not an easy dream.

Thank you geogen. I may not be as erudite in electronics as others on this site but I like to think I can present some good questions.

Being erudite is certainly a nice skill set to have, agreed. Cheers

But you indeed pose some fair questions for discussion yourself too. Posing these fair and open questions, conjecturing and listening to others is what we're all here for anyway in first place, right !? Thumb

With regards to this 'ESSM' proposal... I'm only an advocate of this concept out of support for a rigorously studied, cost-effective and overlapping next-gen capabiltity if feasible, nothing more!

And no... I'm not suggesting the semi-active Homer head folks, please. lol.

Seriously, let's put things in context ok. It's a Raytheon-based system being discussed. Let's try to break outside of the box for one moment? Every sub-component contemplated is Raytheon based (including the data-links under development for similar systems), with possible exception of a collaborative effort to incorporate mmW seeking tech for one of the proposed variants. Otherwise, start simple and evolve the system in block increments.

A good case to study would be the AGM-75, which was developed from the SM-1 in the late 60s.

Apparently (according to wiki); use of this "off the shelf" design greatly reduced development costs, and trials of the new weapon begun in 1967 after only a year of development. The first operational missiles were issued in early 1968.

That's pretty interesting.

The point is I guess... given the proper doctrinal shift and decision making, such an AIM-162 family of derivatives (including follow-up software modified mods to counter ground targets) could be possible.

No, it would not be 'cool' like the X-31 would be cool at an air-show.

And no, it is not some proposal to replace AMRAAM. That was not being implied if there was some confusion, regardless of the greater engagement range and double the AMRAAM's warhead points being mentioned.

It would only be proposed and studied as both a rigorously analyzed and rather timely interim concept, based on affordable, accelerated requirements based on emerging contingencies prior to say, 2020.

Externally mounted on current platforms as an asymmetrical force-multiplier? Sure. Perhaps internally mounted as a 2+2 loadout with AMRAAM? I'm pretty sure the engineers can figure out the little issue if it's a question to anyone's mind. imho.

Respects.

edit: 'no, not a semi-active homer folks', comment.

geogen wrote:

Being erudite is certainly a nice skill set to have, agreed. Cheers

But you indeed pose some fair questions for discussion yourself too. Posing these fair and open questions, conjecturing and listening to others is what we're all here for anyway in first place, right !? Thumb

Thank you again for your kind words. I guess most of us are here for that, others to "teach the heathen." I just hope Western Air Forces do not get "taught."

bruant328 wrote:

exec wrote:

Do you know that Phoenix was meant to shot down bombers?

Quite aware of it. I'm sure a swarm of them shot into a group of non-bombers
Very Happy

would create a nice raid disruption.

The Iranians did quite well with the AIM-54 during their "unpleasantness" with Iraq, including a number of multiple a/c kills with a single missile. Shocked

Sometimes, there's something to be said for size.

wrightwing wrote:

That's quite an extrapolation.

Indeed it was, And a real pity that some cannot grasp and infact will never grasp the fact a UCAV falls far short of a mannned aircraft in the A-A role and that the "unaffordable and unsustainable F-35" is not going to be cancelled in favour of souped up F-16's, at least not in the real world anyway.

Edit: Great, another thread derailed by talk of fantasy missiles that that the airforce are not interested in and never will be.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

AMRAAM/HARM Replacement