AMRAAM

IIRC, the miniaturization and switch from rectangular circuit cards to circular ones (C7) freed up 6 inches that is still empty.

That and they could develop a gel based fuel (more energetic). That would help both the 9X and the 120.

Lets get on the ball ATK.

Where are you getting the data for the burn time, on the D model?

I don’t have data, it’s just rough numbers for a rough idea what to expect until some more substantial comes by, time will tell soon i hope. 🙂

Yes, but that missile has some 7 sec worth of burn, gonna need to miniature a lot just to make that 8 sec, and 1 sec extra worth of burn won’t do alot.
A lofted target will allow it to reach longer especially vs an easy target like like an AWAC in a descending glide. But i guess time will tell.

Where are you getting the data for the burn time, on the D model?

Yes, but that missile has some 7 sec worth of burn, gonna need to miniature a lot just to make that 8 sec, and 1 sec extra worth of burn won’t do alot.
A lofted target will allow it to reach longer especially vs an easy target like like an AWAC in a descending glide. But i guess time will tell.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86033&highlight=amraam+dual+pulse

That will seriosly improve the performance, but the AIM 120D will need to be bigger to provide the extra fuel, and given F-22 weapons bay, how feasable is that ?

Not necessarily. Earlier model AMRAAMs increased motor size due to miniaturization of the onboard electronics. The D also has optimized flight profiles to maximize the effective range.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86033&highlight=amraam+dual+pulse

So there is a possibility that the final motor burn can be cued by the terminal seeker going active or even acquiring the target.

That will seriosly improve the performance, but the AIM 120D will need to be bigger to provide the extra fuel, and given F-22 weapons bay, how feasable is that ?

Thanks..

There was a previous thread on the subject.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86033&highlight=amraam+dual+pulse

Actually, dual pulse motors have all the high impulse at the start to get it up to speed and a lower, cruise impulse later.

What you are describing is a combined booster/sustainer. In the SAM and AIM world, the second burn of a dual-pulse motor is used to provide a velocity increment in the end game.

Actually, dual pulse motors have all the high impulse at the start to get it up to speed and a lower, cruise impulse later.

x

Its also been reported that the D model comes with a dual-pulse motor.. it will be able to put on a sudden burst of speed as it closes with its target.

No, the primary reason was to enable it to turn away, as it was discovered they would need to continue fly towards the red fighter to illuminate the missile and get a sidewinder in return before impact.
The MiG-31 can probably engage at least as many targets simultaneously with it’s ESA and semi active missiles as the F-14 with MSA + active missiles.
Not a problem in Foxhounds case, it will only engage targets that can’t shoot back.
Not sure if it was actually a problem to engage 2 targets simultaneously with MSA+ Sparrows, but if that was the catch, it could have been fixed with (X)ESA alone.

The Sparrow missile (like the Sky Flash) was command link guided. Once one missile was launched it had to be guided the entire way by the FCR or it would no longer be effective. The radars of the day were not capable of guiding more than one Sparrow at a time.

When designing the next generation air to air missile, they looked at adding an active seeker to the Sparrow airframe, but decided not to go with it.

The Sparrow missile airframe was too heavy for the F-16 wingtip rails, which was a primary requirement for AMRAAM, in order to provide the predominant USAF fighter with a BVR capability…

Subsequently all AMRAAM equipped aircraft have been stuck with a missile the size and weight of AMRAAM (ie: not all that big nor long ranging) because of the weight limit of the F-16’s wingtips…

Given how long it has taken to build a replacement, apparently that is not such a big issue…

Can anyone please give me information about the long range AMRAAM designed to fill the role of the Phoenix

Regards

Nick

Well there’s some non-specific info out there-

50 percent increase in range over the C7
2 way datalink w/ third party targeting
greater HOBS
greater ECCM
HOJ
GPS/INS
improved warhead fuzing

just for starters.

As far as i know the Aim-120D will be more accurate that previous versions

The AMRRAM datalink can be updated from much more than radar info. There is IRST, RwR, EODAS, AWACS, and off-board sensors that all can take a role.

The AIM-120D will get a GPS upgrade to it’s INS and allow it to find the mark much easier.

No, the primary reason was to enable it to turn away, as it was discovered they would need to continue fly towards the red fighter to illuminate the missile and get a sidewinder in return before impact.
The MiG-31 can probably engage at least as many targets simultaneously with it’s ESA and semi active missiles as the F-14 with MSA + active missiles.
Not a problem in Foxhounds case, it will only engage targets that can’t shoot back.
Not sure if it was actually a problem to engage 2 targets simultaneously with MSA+ Sparrows, but if that was the catch, it could have been fixed with (X)ESA alone.

The a/c can provide mid-course update, yes. But that’s still a step back from the idea behind AMRAAM in the first case, to be able to turn away. In a one on one, you gotta keep your radar at a target to have any info for the missile.
With 4 a/c, triangulation can be used with passive sensors so no need to keep the a/c pointed, but only if the target is emitting.
It’s probably a wasted shot in the first case if mid-course update is thought to be needed.

Mid-course updates don’t have to be provided by the launch aircraft…

AMRAAM can be “handed off”.

The original idea behind AMRAAM wasn’t actually to allow an aircraft to turn away, though they can, provided the missile’s seeker is within range of the target, it was to allow a single fighter to engage multiple enemy aircraft, which was not possible with the AIM-7 Sparrow.

The a/c can provide mid-course update, yes. But that’s still a step back from the idea behind AMRAAM in the first case, to be able to turn away. In a one on one, you gotta keep your radar at a target to have any info for the missile.
With 4 a/c, triangulation can be used with passive sensors so no need to keep the a/c pointed, but only if the target is emitting.
It’s probably a wasted shot in the first case if mid-course update is thought to be needed.

a two-way datalink.

I guess we can only speculate, but will that somehow enable the pilot/crew to communicate with the missile (e.g. with commands) after launch?