The navy (succesfully) tested the SM 6 active (uses the AMRAAm seeker) http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/06-24-2008/0004838058&EDATE=Jun+24,+2008
By: sferrin - 25th June 2008 at 15:38
It will need more powerful batteries if the time of flight is longer. Is it?
It only needs batteries for the time it’s operating. It would be switched on the same distance from it’s target as a regular AMRAAM. It’s not emitting the entire distance.
By: swerve - 25th June 2008 at 15:08
Why would an AMRAAM active seeker require more batteries when mounted in an SM-6 airframe than in an AMRAAM airframe? (that’s a rhetorical question obviously – it wouldn’t.)
It will need more powerful batteries if the time of flight is longer. Is it?
By: sferrin - 25th June 2008 at 14:49
The AMRAAM seeker would take less space that the Standard one
You’re missing the point. The AMRAAM seeker is currently optimized for a 7″ dia airframe. That means if you repackaged it for the 13.5″ dia airframe you would have room for more fuel because it would take less length.
but OTOH the active radar will need much more powerful batteries, so the space saved will be used.
Why would an AMRAAM active seeker require more batteries when mounted in an SM-6 airframe than in an AMRAAM airframe? (that’s a rhetorical question obviously – it wouldn’t.)
By: aurcov - 25th June 2008 at 10:34
The AMRAAM seeker would take less space that the Standard one, but OTOH the active radar will need much more powerful batteries, so the space saved will be used.
By: sferrin - 25th June 2008 at 06:37
Cool. I wonder if they were able to repackage the avionics (to take less space length wise) or if they just dropped them in with a spacer. Hopefully repackaged but that’s more $$$.
Sign In
June 25, 2008 at 6:32 am