@ Spudman :

From Jane ‘s (also reported on Wiki) :

Cheers .

In which case you might have to “settle” for AMRAAMs.

You may want to recheck your facts. The F-35 can carry 4 Meteors internally.

:rolleyes:

?

That was for Spudman, but whatever.

Aurcov (Quoting P. Metz) :

Ok , I stand corrected but I still think Mr. Metz is slightly exagerating .
Note the altitude advantage which proves that the missile needs a lot of “room” to archive its max range (like any other BVR missile) .

BVR missiles like the AMRAAM C , Vympel R-77 and Mica are quoted to have a max speed of Mach 4 when launched in optimum conditions .
The VL (vertical launched) Mica ‘s max speed is around Mach 2.5 because it starts from zero speed and its max range is around 20km .
Statoreactor missiles like the R-77M1 or Meteor have an even greater max speed (around Mach 4.5) even launched in subsonic speed .

Actually, most of these missiles are listed as M4+, without qualification, which when combined with high airspeed of the launching aircraft, can significantly effect the missile’s top speed. Additionally, when fired at high altitude, the amount of friction is much less, which accomplishes 2 things- allows the missile to fly faster, and the missile decelerates much slower.

You illustrate my point. There are lots of estimates, but facts come thin on the ground. Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons gives a range of 50 km (presumably for the AIM-120C) and I seem to recall that in the days when Flight International did its annual missile survey, they used a similar figure.

This thread is getting very wrapped up in discussions of 150 and 180 km range missiles, but there is not a lot of hard evidence that real-world BVR missiles are achieving this sort of range under any circumstances, let alone in a realistic scenario.

The 50km was a very conservative figure for the A model. The ranges of the C7/D models are why the USAF/USN weren’t immediately pressing for the Meteor(or a ramjet AMRAAM). Like I said earlier though, those ranges aren’t engagement ranges.

It seems I might have explain the basics. “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.”
A lofted trajectory makes the average speed lower relative to a straight line. Or in other words, it takes longer time to fly to the target .

For most modern fighters there A2A is more than a secondary role a wider field of view for the radar has been seen as important. Therefore a movable AESA is planned for Gripen and Typhoon while cheek arrays has been planned for F-22 from the beginning. I also have to admit that due to the high speed and altitude capability the conventionally powered AIM-120 is less of a shortcoming for the F-22.

Think of it like artillery- a howitzer can fire a projectile much further with an elevated trajectory, than if it depressed the tube to parallel with the ground. This combined with lower air density helps the missile maintain its energy.

After 60 km, that M4 missile is down to M2 already, at which point it can’t even intercept a Boeing 747, and that’s assuming a very generous 40,000 ft, as well as supersonic launch.
As the missile drops to less then M1, it will have to descend to remain in controlled flight, which will further reduce range, not to mention the target will need to dive in order to intercept the missile before the missile crash 😀
The numbers does not add up unless you allow the target to close in at high supersonic speeds.

If a missile has a range of 180km+, I strongly suspect that it’s not going to lose energy that fast after less than 1/3 of that range.

Could you provide a source for the claim that the target needs to be flying supersonic, in addition to the launching aircraft.