Consider the altitude difference. It isn’t just that it’s higher so it has more potential energy to work with, the air is also thinner up there (less drag) and pressure is less (more ISP from the motor).

Sadly I have to expose my ignorance here: What does ISP mean? 😮

As for air density, how does that affect ramjet designs for example?

The thing that interests me most about quantifying kinetic advantages is how increases in the missile’s inherent kinematic dynamics, by means of propulsion and flight characteristics, relate to launch platform kinematic capabilities. And, of course, wondering which offers the best bang for the buck.

Its extremely clear that the higher launching speeds of AMRAAMS on the Raptor. Is an advantage………..

“Extremely clear”.

You know, opacity is quite the complex topic actually.

Satorian, as you’re an intelligent chap, you will realise that the 50% figure is merely a rule of thumb. Just because it is the F-22 does not mean it automatically gets a 50% range increase. But the way it has been expressed in the press is that the speed differential from supercruising fighter in the F-22 class – allows a much higher eventual launch energy state – compared to legacy type aircraft.

As a rule of thumb: Rules of thumb are all inadequate. :p

And my question was not about the F-22 in itself, but indeed about energy states and would apply for any aircraft.

If an MRM motor tops out at propelling the device at (let’s arbitrarily say) M4, how much kinetic advantage is there to the launch platform going M0.9 vs. M1.6? And considering ballistic or semi-ballistic flight profiles, how much is there to launching from height?

I understand that of course there are qualitative differences. All things being equal and one plane at M0.9 and the other at M1.6, I would probably bet on the latter winning the confrontation. Same for all things being equal and one plane launching at 40k and the other at 60k.

But to what extent do those variables extend the range quantitatively?

The +50% claim versus legacy aircraft interested me because it seemed like such an obvious marketing statement, with lots of semantic whitespace to explore and adapt as it suits one’s needs. I’d be as wary of that claim if it came from any other military hardware manufacturer.

Like sferrin said, I made no claim other than there’s no information available that would lead one to a conclusion that F-22s aren’t(haven’t been) carrying C7s.

Regarding the F-22 and its AMRAAM, could you please explain how to derive the 50% range increase for the F-22 in the exemplary data samples you posted? I’ve been wondering about how launch height and speed figure quantitatively into missile range, so I had hoped to gain some insight there. Which equations, even if only for approximate numbers, to apply would be very helpful as well.

For what ?? In March 2010 ?? By the time the MRCA would probably be decided.

“Would probably”.

I’d call it “could possibly”.

Want to bet on whether the deal is going to be decided by then? 🙂

Typhoid: AESA not existing yet,

AESA radar exists, but like MiG-35, its still being tested and not fully operational.

Does it exist, or does it not? 🙂

current users in no rush to develop it because they’re satisfied with the current one.

I’m not sure how you define “no rush”. Germany plans to procure Captor-E (or whatever the AESA is going to be called) from 2012 on.

maybe full ToT could be possible

Full ToT has been proposed. India could become the fifth consortium member, which would also allow valuable insight into advanced manufacturing processes, which could be interesting in itself.

Outside of Germany, the other major users will have F-35 for ground attack.. will Germany fund most of the A2G integration?

Don’t know whether that is outdated by now, but I’d imagine them funding the integration of Taurus. Other than that, we are going to keep our Tornados around for the ground attack role. I still think that GB, with their desire to present and use the Typhoon as multi-role platform, are going to drive the development on in that regard.

Too right its weird in respect if the Austrian air force.

They are using an air superiority fighter with a significant BVR capability and radious of action as a point defence fighter with IR missiles and cannon.

It’s even weirder that the money they “saved” would have been pulled in through industrial offsets again–and then some.

Darabos didn’t really win himself any favours with that particular move.

M.9 @ 40k feet vs. M1.5+ @60k feet

By which equation does that work out to a 50% range increase for the second data set?