AIM-120D has a conformal array?

Actually, the Tomcat was specifically designed as an interceptor, though with manouvreability as an important requirement too. The raison d’etre of the Tomcat was to carry Phoenix missiles out to intercept hoardes of Tu-22M Backfire bombers. This is very much interception!

The definition of interceptor that is used by pretty much everyone is that an interceptor must have a good radar, good missiles, and ideally a good range. During the cold war, there were generally two types of interceptor; those designed to race up to over Mach 2, but with short ranges, as point interceptors; and those designed to fly long distances with missiles, generally at subsonic speeds most of the way. The ultimate example of this was of course the Douglas F-6D Missileer, which was very much subsonic! This was cancelled, and the F-111 was designed, again as a long range missile carrying interceptor. The Tomcat then took over when they realised the F-111B wasn’t going to be very carrier-friendly.

As Sferrin rightly points out, by that definition, only a handful of types would be considered interceptors! As for F-16s for CAS, this is actually a dangerous analogy, since the fighter mafia actually insisted that the F-16 not be given A2A as its initial tasking, hence in the early ’80s, most F-16s were toting cluster bombs and multiple Mk82s…. :diablo:

Tomcat is not an interceptor, and SH will never be one. Both aircraft lack high supersonic cruise speeds, and combat radius at those speeds.

You certainly have an odd definition of what an interceptor is. By your definition the Mig-31 and YF-12 are the only aircraft that have ever flown that would qualify. How ’bout we make it that only aircraft that could cruise for over a thousand miles at Mach 3 are qualified to be considered “interceptors”? :rolleyes: Better yet let’s hear your scenario in which a Fiddler would engage in a dogfight :diablo:

Now, back on topic. Wouldn’t the airflow at high speeds damage the plyon-carried missile’s conformal array…or is USAF going with 5th gen internal carriage in mind?

Lots of people complained about the Tomcat/Phoenix retirement, but with an air launched SM-6 ERAM, the Super Hornet would certainly be a capable interceptor!!

Tomcat is not an interceptor, and SH will never be one. Both aircraft lack high supersonic cruise speeds, and combat radius at those speeds. Fitting an big radar and big missiles onto a fighter won’t turn it into a interceptor. It’ll just make it more suitable for occasional interception roles.

Looking at that analogy, Su-27P would be an interceptor then. R-27ER has 100+ km of kinematic range, and the radar is fairly long-ranged, too. However, Su-27P is an air superiority fighter, that can act as an interceptor in a way, if it’s required. Think of it this way; F-16 can do some CAS, but it wasn’t designed primarily for CAS, and it’s gonna do it lousier than dedicated aircraft such as A-10 and Su-25.

Thus, IMHO, F-14 is an air superiority fighter, with naval-based bomber interception as one of his roles. F-18E is an multirole fighter, that can also intercept if necessary. They can intercept, but they’re not interceptors.

I don’t see most F16s (blk 60 excepted) being compatible with either the Meteor or the Amraam D. Don’t they require a very powerful radar to lock on and guide such missiles (with ranges of about 150km++)? It’d be quite pointless to lug around a very LRAAM if you can’t use its extra range. The Typhoon and perhaps the Rafale (with AMSAR?) would probly be the only a/c with the ability to use such missiles to their potential.

Regards,
USS.

As far as I know, there would be no integration problems on F-16s, or any other NATO types. The real problem is that if the US tries to block F-16 customers from using the equipment they want, then it does not hold well for the future of the F-35. Remember, these countries will not appreciate being effectively blackmailed into buying what the US tells them to (it is blackmail to force them to only buy what the US lets them buy). If this happens, then these countries would certainly think twice before buying F-35s, and may switch to buying Rafales or Typhoons, and probably stealthy UCAVs as well.

Basically, if the US tries to force its customers and allies to only use what it lets them, then it makes buying American equipment unsavoury for many. This is one of the biggest reasons why the UK was (and to an extent still is) unwilling to simply buy on the US’ terms. If the US tries to push its luck, it may find itself losing a lot of customers!

the Meteor will have a sufficient edge over the -C model that the -D model will need to be cleared for export.

Depends..I dont know what the rate of production for the D model would be but IIRC there were plans to produce (co-produce) both the C5 and the D simeltaniously because they needed capacity . Having said that would existing Aim-120 users want to rearm with the meteor and also make the required changes on there Aircraft . Will the US be willing to let F-16 users integrate Meteor on there aircraft or is the meteor compatible with all NATO aircraft? If it is the former then i dont think that the US DOD would be that forthcomming to let a lot of Viper users integrate meteor on there aircrafts , atleast not initially . The meteor would do great for EF typhoon users and given that the nations (most) that have purchased the typhoon are a part of the meteor they will choose it regardless of the US offers them . Same with Gripen customers they would be better off going with the meteor . But outside of platform specific export market (for example Gripen competing with meteor and EF competing with meteor) i doubt that the US would want to start marketing their fighters with Meteor just yet. IIRC the meteor can fit into he F-35’s bays ? (does it not? ) so there would be some competition there but we’ll have to see how much of those descisions are political and how many technical !!

– How many aim-120’s are exported per annum? Anyone have numbers?

Sorry Bring it on, but I disagree – the Meteor will have a sufficient edge over the -C model that the -D model will need to be cleared for export. The US will not willingly give up on the export market by refusing to compete. As such, the -D and Meteor will effectively be competitors. In fact, it would be a surprise if the US did refuse export clearance, it may take a while, but it will happen!

As for the Standard, it was mostly due to the massive range, which would be well beyond that of any of the normal AAMs. The ability to engage targets at 100nm+ would be useful sometimes, even if it’s not needed all the time. Lots of people complained about the Tomcat/Phoenix retirement, but with an air launched SM-6 ERAM, the Super Hornet would certainly be a capable interceptor!!

Well, AMRAAM’s currently operates from Typhoons. Soon to be replaced by Meteors…………….As a matter fact most Western Types will operate one or the other. So, how are they not “Competitors”???? :confused:

The Aim-120D is not being actively marketed to countries around the world . Most of the production run would be consumed by the USAF and USN . The missile that would be in competition with the meteor for prospective buyers would be the Aim-120 C ( dont know which verison) so the D doesnt directly compete with the meteor , unless you call “COMPETE” interms of which is “BETTER” which is purely an academic question . The Aim-120D is an evolution of a proven missle meant to exist while the USAF/USN works on a new weapon systems probably for multi role ops. They had planned to introduce a C8 and C9 version which would introduce ramjet but now seem to have dropped the idea . The meteor EIS in 2012??

I dont think the Aim-120D is cleared for export yet , so it isnt a “Competitor” to begin with . Meteor looks like a winner but the Aim-120 D is also looking great specially cosidering the fact that it would arm the F-22 and F-35 which have First look advantage against current and planned fighter aircraft . For way into the future the USAF/USN allready has a bunch of programs lined up , the JDRADM is still in its infancy and it looks like that the USAF would have a new (brand new) BVRAAM EIS’n by around 2015-2020 so about 5-8 years after the Meteor . The aim-120D should work very well until then with the conformal arrays , increased NEZ , greater range , and other features (new electronics ) etc etc !

Well, AMRAAM’s currently operates from Typhoons. Soon to be replaced by Meteors…………….As a matter fact most Western Types will operate one or the other. So, how are they not “Competitors”???? :confused:

To be honest, I would love to see an air-launched SM-2 Standard missile, but with the AMRAAM seeker (i.e. the SM-6 ERAM). I always loved the idea of using an active seeker equipped Standard, since it was effectively cleared for carriage on a number of aircraft in AGM-78 form. It could perhaps even have been an alternative to the AIM-54 Phoenix. With engagement ranges probably out beyong 100nm, it would certainly be a capable missile. Even though you couldn’t carry a booster-equipped version, air launch could still give even basic SM-2MR (non-booster equipped) missiles a 90+nm range. Since the SM-2MR launches from the ship without a booster, and yet still gets up to 90nm range, it is probably fair to expect at least 110nm?

Yeah but the thing weighs what, 1500 pounds? I still say an ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker. It even fits inside the AIM-120 box for internal carriage.

To be honest, I would love to see an air-launched SM-2 Standard missile, but with the AMRAAM seeker (i.e. the SM-6 ERAM). I always loved the idea of using an active seeker equipped Standard, since it was effectively cleared for carriage on a number of aircraft in AGM-78 form. It could perhaps even have been an alternative to the AIM-54 Phoenix. With engagement ranges probably out beyong 100nm, it would certainly be a capable missile. Even though you couldn’t carry a booster-equipped version, air launch could still give even basic SM-2MR (non-booster equipped) missiles a 90+nm range. Since the SM-2MR launches from the ship without a booster, and yet still gets up to 90nm range, it is probably fair to expect at least 110nm?

As for AIM-120D, I do think the Meteor probably has the advantage in pure missile terms, though obviously launch platforms bestow advantages too. A Meteor with -120D seeker would be pretty unbeatable though!

How will the AIM-120D compare to forthcoming models of the Meteor? As I take it would be its nearest competitor

I dont think the Aim-120D is cleared for export yet , so it isnt a “Competitor” to begin with . Meteor looks like a winner but the Aim-120 D is also looking great specially cosidering the fact that it would arm the F-22 and F-35 which have First look advantage against current and planned fighter aircraft . For way into the future the USAF/USN allready has a bunch of programs lined up , the JDRADM is still in its infancy and it looks like that the USAF would have a new (brand new) BVRAAM EIS’n by around 2015-2020 so about 5-8 years after the Meteor . The aim-120D should work very well until then with the conformal arrays , increased NEZ , greater range , and other features (new electronics ) etc etc !

The Aim-120D is good evolution from the C varient . Its technical capability can easily justify skipping half a gen. ( D tech and ram powered) and going straight to a dual or tri purpose missle . F-22/F-35/F18E/F should do very well armed with the D !

How will the AIM-120D compare to forthcoming models of the Meteor? As I take it would be its nearest competitor.:confused:

The Aim-120D is good evolution from the C varient . Its technical capability can easily justify skipping half a gen. ( D tech and ram powered) and going straight to a dual or tri purpose missle . F-22/F-35/F18E/F should do very well armed with the D !