The new D version of the AMRAAM ordered

FAIR USE NOTICE

Amraam C7, D Delayed 15 Months
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/25/2006, page 49

Amy Butler
Eglin AFB, Fla.

Fielding of the AIM-120 C7 and D slips, but developers expect increased performance

Printed headline: New Amraams

Officials claim that the new AIM-120 variants, once fielded, will provide significant improvement over current versions. But development of the Pentagon’s new advanced air-to-air missile has slipped 15 months.

Raytheon’s Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam)–the AIM-120–has been the preeminent missile in its class and a cash cow for the company, with sales to at least 32 countries. It was introduced into the field more than a decade ago. Amraam is a beyond-visual-range weapon. Initial and mid-course guidance is provided by the launch aircraft, while Amraam’s radar provides target acquisition and terminal guidance. Because airborne threats–aircraft and cruise missiles–continue to become more sophisticated and employ increasingly complicated countermeasures, the U.S. and its allies find themselves playing catch-up in a technological game of cat and mouse. Airborne targets also continue to have smaller radar cross sections.

Using round electronics cards, engineers opened up space on the Amraam C7 missile. That hole will be filled with a GPS/IMU unit in the D version, currently being developed.

In the meantime, China is developing the PL-12 active medium-range air-to-air missile. And Russia is working on technology for its R-77 (AA-12 Adder).

The Pentagon is continuing early production of the AIM-120C7 after some recent snags in operational testing. Forging ahead, the Air Force has already started to fund its follow-up, the AIM-120D. Officials here were limited in what they were willing to discuss about Amraam’s ongoing development efforts.

The AIM-120C7 is estimated to cost about $700,000 per missile. It will use modern electronics on round–not longitudinal–cards in a hockey puck configuration, opening up space on the missile for upgrades to be added to the D-variant. The C7 also has a new, more robust and maintainable radar seeker, according to Lt. Col. Michael Schmidt, Amraam program manager here.

Schmidt says the Air Force “underestimated” the amount of time needed by Raytheon to build the first C7s. Operational testing was to be complete by March 2006, but additional time was needed to test software fixes for the missile. “We’ve encountered some things we didn’t expect in operational testing, and we had to reshoot the missile,” Schmidt says.

Baseline operational testing continues in parallel, but a fielding decision is not expected until the C7’s Software Upgrade Program is fully tested.

Operational testing should wrap up next spring, with a fielding decision likely in June 2007. Already, more than 250 of the weapons have been produced and are in storage. The Air Force and Navy C7 buy was to be 900, but that number is going up–including 70 additional C7s this year–to compensate for the delay in the D’s availability. None of the required fixes for the C7 have prompted officials to rescope work for the D variant.

Compared to the more substantial changes in the AIM-120D, the C7 is an incremental improvement. The 15-month delay in the C7 has spilled into the D developmental timeline. This summer, the Air Force added $25 million to Raytheon’s AIM-120D contract to extend development to June 2008, while officials continue operational testing of some technical fixes to the C7.

The space opened up on the C7 by installing round electronic cards enables developers to install a GPS receiver on the D missile. By using GPS, the missile is directed more accurately toward its target from the moment its motor ignites. The constantly moving target–an aircraft or cruise missile–forces the missile to receive continual course corrections from the launch aircraft, or to self correct, and the GPS guidance unit allows more efficient use of the missile’s propulsion.

“Because of the additional computing power and the GPS, we are better at putting the missile on the correct track from the beginning, which saves a lot of energy–it is efficiency,” Schmidt says. “The increased battery life allows us to use the guidance section longer and take advantage of the missile’s energy longer.”

The D will be the first Amraam to have a conformal, one-way antenna on the missile’s nose as well as an enhanced, two-way datalink at the back end. The improved communications capability, dubbed the “Enhanced Datalink,” is designed to increase the probability of a kill, especially against advanced targets, by extending communications between the missile and launch aircraft longer than possible as compared to earlier models.

The array is wrapped around the missile, giving it a wider field of view to receive targeting updates from more angles in flight. It also eliminates the need for a launch aircraft to have a direct line of sight to the back end of the missile.

“You are kind of guessing what the missile is doing in the current environment,” says Schmidt.

In other words, pilots are left to guess when they can break communications with a missile and possibly retreat to a safer position during an engagement.

“Depending on what the aircraft is doing and what the missile is doing, you get a lot better opportunity to stay in communication with the missile,” Schmidt explains. Ball Aerospace is developing the conformal array.
Initial operational capability for the D is slated for the fall of 2009, and the F/A-18C/D will follow about six months later. The Air Force expects to declare operational capability for the D on the F-22 in 2013.

Meanwhile, officials at the Air Force Research Laboratory are also looking ahead to other Amraam improvements that may be ready in the near future, possibly as soon as the next decade. Among them are reaction jets, which could be used to direct the missile at extreme angles during flight, similar to thrust vectoring in a jet. Small exhaust nozzles ring the back of the missile around the main exhaust, and depending on the vector needed, these nozzles could take over, directing the missile with the heat-plume thrust. The typical Amraam fins would also be removed. Reaction jets would be useful in high-off-boresight engagements.In other avenues, officials at Air Combat Command are now examining the potential utility of a Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), which would be useful against short- to medium-range aerial targets as well as small ground targets. The missile, if developed, could be optimized to suppress enemy air defenses, or it could be used to work against cruise missiles. It is possible that JDRADM could assume some of the roles of the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile.

Eglin is finalizing negotiations for study work with three contractors, and a downselect is expected in about one year.

These things ( looking at the language there also use LEAN concepts ) are starting to become the standard in USAF managed big dollar programs. Current programs that don’t have a process like this in place are now being asked; “why not?” .

AFSO 21 process gets weapons to warfighters faster

11/8/2006 – EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFPN) — When the AIM-120D production program manager was asked to be team leader on an Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century rapid improvement event, he was a little skeptical.

“We had a very sound and fundamentally strong (acquisition) process going and I really pushed back at the idea,” said Maj. Charles Seidel.

“I wasn’t sure it was the best use of our time, but I said I would do my best,” he said.

But after cutting their “very sound” acquisition process by more than half, from 48 weeks to 20 weeks, the major is now sold on the possibilities of AFSO 21.

“The process was absolutely eye opening,” he said. “We went in trying to eliminate waste and that’s what we did.”

And that is exactly the goal of AFSO 21 when it was implemented by the secretary of the Air Force in March. The program is designed for commanders and supervisors at all levels to look at their processes from beginning to end. It’s a dedicated effort to maximize value and minimize waste in our operations and push unnecessary work out the door forever.

When Major Seidel’s contract proposal and award process rapid improvement event began in July, it was originally designed solely for the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile program. But no sooner than he was tasked to lead this effort, he was informed that two other squadrons from the 328th Armament Systems Wing, to include the Harm Targeting System and Miniature Air Launched Decoy, and one squadron from the 308th ARSW, the Small Diameter Bomb II, wanted to participate as well.

“We have many common processes we share with other organizations, whether we work in a weapons program office or on the flightline,” said Emily Jay, 328th ARSW chief of contracts. “When we identify common processes across organizations, we can rid ourselves of a lot of the little aggravations that bog us down and are non-value added. The common link between these programs is that each team works with Raytheon.”

To pull off this undertaking, Major Seidel brought together two pools of key players.

“We had about 22 people from the government and Raytheon spanning all functional specialties such as program managers, engineers, manufacturing experts, contracting officers, finance or pricing officers and auditors represented,” he said.

At first both teams worked together to accurately map out their entire contracting “value stream.” Basically the government team members mapped out their process as the Raytheon team did theirs. This exercise accomplished two critical actions: first it ensured the process was accurately depicted; second, it educated the government and industry partners of each others’ internal actions when putting things on contract.

The second stage was to split into two teams, mixed with government and industry members, to develop a better process using what is called “clean sheet thinking” to come up with a combined process.

“We reviewed both team’s ideas, discussed each one and then color-coded them,” Major Seidel said. “Green indicated we had the authority to change it and we wanted to change it. Blue indicated a good idea, but we weren’t sure if we had the authority to do it, or we weren’t sure the investment was really worth the change. And finally, red indicated we either didn’t have the authority to make the change, or we simply did not want to do it.”

Next the two groups came together to build a whole new process, based on the ideas they came up with through their two groups.

“We took the key themes out of those clean sheet thoughts and we implemented the ones we could,” Major Seidel said. “The good thing was, all the ‘green — implement now’ items, got put into the new strategy.”

Both teams were amazed at how changing a few small things could eliminate time and waste. The goal for both teams was to buy weapons more quickly and get them out in the warfighters’ hands faster.

“We walked away with a compete understanding of everything that must be accomplished internally for the government and Raytheon,” Major Seidel said. “It was educating for both of us. We now have a thorough understanding of what our existing process is, and the ‘care abouts’ for the contractors and the government.”

Programs across the base have already started using the new system and the program managers are excited to see the results.

“Time is money and getting the missiles to the warfighters six months earlier is an immediate plus,” Major Seidel said. “Everyone would agree with that.”

“The projected savings … will enable us to reinvest the (money) in resources for other activities,” Ms. Jay said. “The key will be to maintain good metrics as we use the improved process over the next several months to see if we are realizing the projected efficiencies.”

I think we have had a discussion in it and that there was a wide consensus where some one pointed out that the 2000k bomb could be replaced by 1 Aim-120 !!

EDIT – I did a bit of research and found that it cannot carry a missile in the A2g section , if this is indeed the case then I see a capability downfall however Someone out there will shell out the millions to configure the weapons rack so that there could be a dual ejector positioned !!

I think it is 4 a peice for the F-35 internally as of now !!

I wasn’t aware of this capability.. is this confirmed?

I think it is 4 a peice for the F-35 internally as of now !! We must remember that the F-35’s stealth is a tactical advantage and therefore in a BARCAP mission not all of them have to portray their perfect RCS , there could always be set ups where say a 1/3 of the force is loaded with 2 External Aim-120’s and 2 Aim-9′ X’s for a total of 8 missiles but the front line F-35 force resembles a stealth configuration . In a single engined MULTI-ROLE fighter the 4 internal missle is more then a satisfactory compromise if stealth needs to be FULLY PRESERVED . Just look at other BARCAP options , other then the F-22 Raptor nothing currently available offers STEALTH . The eurofighter is not a STEALTH design but only offers LO , DITTO with a Rafale and gripen . The F-35 fits perfectly , You can always hang 2 or 4 missiles externally and get your weapons advantage but if stealth needs to be fully preserved you have options to go with 4 BVR missiles internally. With time the industry has plenty of options to come up with upgrade proposals for modular bays and Stealthy external pylons given the scope of sales to thousands of F-35’s that will be eventually flying througout the world .

That is an excellent tactical point: Exposed wingloaded Buicks with a number of A2A each being fed off by clean JSF. Makes a good point. And then, the legacy’s BVR kit still has to deal with a bunch of AESAs, multi-tasking in concert. Not a pretty picture for the legacy.

The scenario would be different in the case of a smaller airforce (ie. not USAF) w/c will only have a limited number of F-35s doing double-duty. I wouldn’t feel too comfortable being a F-35 pilot on BARCAP facing a squadron of approaching bandits with only a handful of AMRAAMs between me and my wingman. I’d waste no time calling for help but will my buddies arrive in time? maybe, maybe not.. sure would be nice to have more AMRAAMS in that situation.

Where the JSF knows where the legacy is well before hand and will most likely get the first shots in….. Well …. we will have to see…. A legacy carrying more A2A weapons and has a lesser chance if any of first shot vs. a low observable. And…. after the first kills made by the JSF… it is possible that it still could…. in some situations…. kill and still not be detected. I would take those odds. Again though it is a rule book of air warfare that now has a fork in it. Skillsets the legacy is going to have a hard time dealing with. Starting an air engagement with a legacy where your force has just sustained multiple kills and may still not have found the source, doesn’t sound like a very bright future. All depends on how good the Buicks L.O. is I guess. The AESA will be brutal to deal with too. If it frequency hunts and finds out the frequency pass-through of the legacys radome cover, that will be even more problems for the legacy. The AESA will have the potential ability to do this….and other tricks as the nerdsquad figures out all the dirty tricks you can do with AESA. Just a matter of time.

I wouldn’t feel too comfortable being a F-35 pilot on BARCAP facing a squadron of approaching bandits with only a handful of AMRAAMs between me and my wingman.

I think it is 4 a peice for the F-35 internally as of now !! We must remember that the F-35’s stealth is a tactical advantage and therefore in a BARCAP mission not all of them have to portray their perfect RCS , there could always be set ups where say a 1/3 of the force is loaded with 2 External Aim-120’s and 2 Aim-9′ X’s for a total of 8 missiles but the front line F-35 force resembles a stealth configuration . In a single engined MULTI-ROLE fighter the 4 internal missle is more then a satisfactory compromise if stealth needs to be FULLY PRESERVED . Just look at other BARCAP options , other then the F-22 Raptor nothing currently available offers STEALTH . The eurofighter is not a STEALTH design but only offers LO , DITTO with a Rafale and gripen . The F-35 fits perfectly , You can always hang 2 or 4 missiles externally and get your weapons advantage but if stealth needs to be fully preserved you have options to go with 4 BVR missiles internally. With time the industry has plenty of options to come up with upgrade proposals for modular bays and Stealthy external pylons given the scope of sales to thousands of F-35’s that will be eventually flying througout the world .

I’m not really big on putting more A2A internals on JSF. JSF on the offense will fight with a large advantage in that you have to find the thing with legacy systems and keep it from doing a Rodney King style beatdown of your airfields and AD assets. That includes the AESA on it doing any number of dirty deeds on the ingress.
In a by-directional conflict where it is set up for air defense, and doesn’t initiate the first punch, there is opportunity for a second set ….small number of JSF setup for A2G, on alert and immediately sent out on a counter air strike against the opposing legacy tech airfield(s) AD of the aggressor. Here the legacy aggressor has to strike during the day in good visability. Otherwise they are going to get overwhelmed with a lack of situational awarness and even then a good day might not help a legacy aggressor. The JSF force will most likely be controlling the tempo of the air war early on and sustaining it. If the passive JSF defender isn’t wiped out on the first day by some adverse pearl harbor scenario, then the following night will be it’s to own and deal out a severe beating. The legacys that survive the initial encounter with JSF will be demoralized and know that their chance of making it through a second mission if they even get off the ground, will be slim. While there may be losses, most likely the percentage of Buick-of-Stealths lost will be far less than the legacy agressor. Given that both sides SAM belts are at least equal, the legacy team will suffer a lot more.

The scenario would be different in the case of a smaller airforce (ie. not USAF) w/c will only have a limited number of F-35s doing double-duty. I wouldn’t feel too comfortable being a F-35 pilot on BARCAP facing a squadron of approaching bandits with only a handful of AMRAAMs between me and my wingman. I’d waste no time calling for help but will my buddies arrive in time? maybe, maybe not.. sure would be nice to have more AMRAAMS in that situation.

Be an interesting trick to make JDRADM cost effective for A2G. Blowing away a white Toyota pickup during bug hunt ops in Afcrapistan with a munition that costs several hundred thousand dollars, might not be the way to go. Even the more expensive mud targets don’t justify the cost per shot.

There would still be some Time critical targetting that would require a faster weapon . As i have explained earlier , the DOD dont know which concept to “flag off” yet as the various concepts mature . However for TC targetting and some anti radiation work an expensive option is always welcome if it can provide quicker destruction.

[QUOTE]

You cannot cram it into the existing bay however you can go out and redesign a bay for future block varients ( maybe a modular one) , with over 2500 jets posible the JSF would be a very lucrative market for modular Bays 😉

I’m not really big on putting more A2A internals on JSF. JSF on the offense will fight with a large advantage in that you have to find the thing with legacy systems and keep it from doing a Rodney King style beatdown of your airfields and AD assets. That includes the AESA on it doing any number of dirty deeds on the ingress.
In a bi-directional conflict where it is set up for air defense, and doesn’t initiate the first punch, there is opportunity for a second set ….small number of JSF setup for A2G, on alert and immediately sent out on a counter air strike against the opposing legacy tech airfield(s) AD of the aggressor. Here the legacy aggressor has to strike during the day in good visability. Otherwise they are going to get overwhelmed with a lack of situational awarness and even then a good day might not help a legacy aggressor. The JSF force will most likely be controlling the tempo of the air war early on and sustaining it. If the passive JSF defender isn’t wiped out on the first day by some adverse pearl harbor scenario, then the following night will be it’s to own and deal out a severe beating. The legacys that survive the initial encounter with JSF will be demoralized and know that their chance of making it through a second mission if they even get off the ground, will be slim. While there may be losses, most likely the percentage of Buick-of-Stealths lost will be far less than the legacy aggressor. Given that both sides SAM belts are at least equal, the legacy team will suffer a lot more.

Be an interesting trick to make JDRADM cost effective for A2G. Blowing away a white Toyota pickup during bug hunt ops in Afcrapistan with a munition that costs several hundred thousand dollars, might not be the way to go. Even the more expensive mud targets don’t justify the cost per shot. :p . It would be nice if we could take one jack of all trades munition to the fight, but except for the gun or a future energy weapon, I don’t see it happening. JCM ( nice and small ) and SDB II,would solve most of our moving target issues at the short range end without having to jump through hoops to do it.

We may yet see an AMRAAM with TVC and with the fins removed…simplify cramming more of them into the F-35
…………………………………………………
Amraam C7, D Delayed 15 Months
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/25/2006, page 49

Amy Butler
Eglin AFB, Fla.

Fielding of the AIM-120 C7 and D slips, but developers expect increased performance

Printed headline: New Amraams

Officials claim that the new AIM-120 variants, once fielded, will provide significant improvement over current versions. But development of the Pentagon’s new advanced air-to-air missile has slipped 15 months.

Raytheon’s Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam)–the AIM-120–has been the preeminent missile in its class and a cash cow for the company, with sales to at least 32 countries. It was introduced into the field more than a decade ago. Amraam is a beyond-visual-range weapon. Initial and mid-course guidance is provided by the launch aircraft, while Amraam’s radar provides target acquisition and terminal guidance. Because airborne threats–aircraft and cruise missiles–continue to become more sophisticated and employ increasingly complicated countermeasures, the U.S. and its allies find themselves playing catch-up in a technological game of cat and mouse. Airborne targets also continue to have smaller radar cross sections.

Using round electronics cards, engineers opened up space on the Amraam C7 missile. That hole will be filled with a GPS/IMU unit in the D version, currently being developed.

In the meantime, China is developing the PL-12 active medium-range air-to-air missile. And Russia is working on technology for its R-77 (AA-12 Adder).

The Pentagon is continuing early production of the AIM-120C7 after some recent snags in operational testing. Forging ahead, the Air Force has already started to fund its follow-up, the AIM-120D. Officials here were limited in what they were willing to discuss about Amraam’s ongoing development efforts.

The AIM-120C7 is estimated to cost about $700,000 per missile. It will use modern electronics on round–not longitudinal–cards in a hockey puck configuration, opening up space on the missile for upgrades to be added to the D-variant. The C7 also has a new, more robust and maintainable radar seeker, according to Lt. Col. Michael Schmidt, Amraam program manager here.

Schmidt says the Air Force “underestimated” the amount of time needed by Raytheon to build the first C7s. Operational testing was to be complete by March 2006, but additional time was needed to test software fixes for the missile. “We’ve encountered some things we didn’t expect in operational testing, and we had to reshoot the missile,” Schmidt says.

Baseline operational testing continues in parallel, but a fielding decision is not expected until the C7’s Software Upgrade Program is fully tested.

Operational testing should wrap up next spring, with a fielding decision likely in June 2007. Already, more than 250 of the weapons have been produced and are in storage. The Air Force and Navy C7 buy was to be 900, but that number is going up–including 70 additional C7s this year–to compensate for the delay in the D’s availability. None of the required fixes for the C7 have prompted officials to rescope work for the D variant.

Compared to the more substantial changes in the AIM-120D, the C7 is an incremental improvement. The 15-month delay in the C7 has spilled into the D developmental timeline. This summer, the Air Force added $25 million to Raytheon’s AIM-120D contract to extend development to June 2008, while officials continue operational testing of some technical fixes to the C7.

The space opened up on the C7 by installing round electronic cards enables developers to install a GPS receiver on the D missile. By using GPS, the missile is directed more accurately toward its target from the moment its motor ignites. The constantly moving target–an aircraft or cruise missile–forces the missile to receive continual course corrections from the launch aircraft, or to self correct, and the GPS guidance unit allows more efficient use of the missile’s propulsion.

“Because of the additional computing power and the GPS, we are better at putting the missile on the correct track from the beginning, which saves a lot of energy–it is efficiency,” Schmidt says. “The increased battery life allows us to use the guidance section longer and take advantage of the missile’s energy longer.”

The D will be the first Amraam to have a conformal, one-way antenna on the missile’s nose as well as an enhanced, two-way datalink at the back end. The improved communications capability, dubbed the “Enhanced Datalink,” is designed to increase the probability of a kill, especially against advanced targets, by extending communications between the missile and launch aircraft longer than possible as compared to earlier models.

The array is wrapped around the missile, giving it a wider field of view to receive targeting updates from more angles in flight. It also eliminates the need for a launch aircraft to have a direct line of sight to the back end of the missile.

“You are kind of guessing what the missile is doing in the current environment,” says Schmidt.

In other words, pilots are left to guess when they can break communications with a missile and possibly retreat to a safer position during an engagement.

“Depending on what the aircraft is doing and what the missile is doing, you get a lot better opportunity to stay in communication with the missile,” Schmidt explains. Ball Aerospace is developing the conformal array.

Initial operational capability for the D is slated for the fall of 2009, and the F/A-18C/D will follow about six months later. The Air Force expects to declare operational capability for the D on the F-22 in 2013.

Meanwhile, officials at the Air Force Research Laboratory are also looking ahead to other Amraam improvements that may be ready in the near future, possibly as soon as the next decade. Among them are reaction jets, which could be used to direct the missile at extreme angles during flight, similar to thrust vectoring in a jet. Small exhaust nozzles ring the back of the missile around the main exhaust, and depending on the vector needed, these nozzles could take over, directing the missile with the heat-plume thrust. The typical Amraam fins would also be removed. Reaction jets would be useful in high-off-boresight engagements.

In other avenues, officials at Air Combat Command are now examining the potential utility of a Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), which would be useful against short- to medium-range aerial targets as well as small ground targets. The missile, if developed, could be optimized to suppress enemy air defenses, or it could be used to work against cruise missiles. It is possible that JDRADM could assume some of the roles of the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile.

Eglin is finalizing negotiations for study work with three contractors, and a downselect is expected in about one year.

Don’t forget there are no real wingtip stations, but missile rails near the wingtips for Sidewinder only carriage. The pylons itself will likely increase the rcs further.

And the wave propogation of the wing/pylon/missle fins. Overall, I think it’d negate it’s stealth far too much. 4 internal AMRAAMs should be enough for any A-A mission a JSF would be called on to perform. Remember… you’re not likely going to be facing an incoming barage of missles in 5th generation fighters…. you have the ability to stalk your target and get in the optimum firing position without your target knowing you’re there. If the AMRAAM-D has such good kinematics and a large no escape zone, then the need to carry more missles is reduced.

Still, I do understand the warm and fuzzy feeling a combat pilot feels when they have the ability to carry as much as possible.

What role could ESSM perform if placed on a plane that existing missiles can’t do? Surely for A2A the D model AMRAAM would be superior.. or are you thinking of some other role?

Range.

I did some calculations of marble sized jsf and amraams and jsf with just two wingtip amraams seems to be detected at more or less twice the range than completely clean jsf. When talking about big, powerful radars like awacs, that can be a difference of 100 km. Better to go stealthy then.

Don’t forget there are no real wingtip stations, but missile rails near the wingtips for Sidewinder only carriage. The pylons itself will likely increase the rcs further.

than to cram 3 of them in each jsf bay.

You cannot cram it into the existing bay however you can go out and redesign a bay for future block varients ( maybe a modular one) , with over 2500 jets posible the JSF would be a very lucrative market for modular Bays 😉

That was merely for illustration purposes. I guess aim9 would have smaller rcs than aim120, but increase would still be substantial. Anyhow, i also think it’d be easier to clear amraams for wingtips than to cram 3 of them in each jsf bay.

As for eurofighter, if we assume 0.5 sq. meter rcs for awacs like, 10cm wavelength, 200 kw radar clean plane could be detected from some 155 Nm. 2 pylon amraam class weapons plus 4 semirecessed ones would add some 0.3 sq. m for little over 170 Nm. If EF has bigger rcs to begin with, payload added rcs would have even smaller influence on overall detection range, to little under 200 Nm for 1.3 sq. meter RCS for plane and aams combined.

I did some calculations of marble sized jsf and amraams and jsf with just two wingtip amraams

JSF cannot carry 2 wingtip mounted Aim-120’s As far as i know ( only Aim-9’s)

When talking about big, powerful radars like awacs, that can be a difference of 100 km. Better to go stealthy then.

Yup stay stealth for high threat areas and when the High threat is neutralized then switch to all external weaponry . Its interesting what the effect of 6 Meteor would have on EF typhoon’s RCS !!!

I did some calculations of marble sized jsf and amraams and jsf with just two wingtip amraams seems to be detected at more or less twice the range than completely clean jsf. When talking about big, powerful radars like awacs, that can be a difference of 100 km. Better to go stealthy then.

Two aim-c side to side with just 1 cm of clearance between them take up 65 cm of width. 2000 lbs jdam is 63 cm wide. staggering the amraams would make their combined width less though it’d make the duo some 4.05 m long, 16-17 cm longer than the jdam. Might be enough, might be not, depending on for what the weapons bay was designed.