Sparrow II, the missile proposed for the Avro Arrow at one point, was also a fully active missile, and was much earlier. Didn’t end up working all that well, but in 1956, if was certainly first!

The first truely ARH missiles were probably anti ship missiles…

Such care for details, calls a reformulation: AMRAAM was the first operational, ARH, ait-to-air missile…:)

When has it proven that capability? We know the Zaslon has because it has engaged 4 targets simultaneously using SARH because it couldn’t use ARH missiles at the time. Also those targets were widely spaced horizontally and vertically while the only time the F-14 has engaged 6 targets in tests the vertical seperation has been rediculously small (I remember a figure of something like 610m).

There is something to be said in the AWG-9’s credit if the vertical separation was in fact that small (I can look up the specifics later once I find the right books that are, lazily, still in boxes )-it had the ability to discriminate targets at range and during the SARH guidance phase.

SOC is right, the fact that the AWG was able to discriminate between two such close targets at such distance, speaks volumes about the talent of Hughes Aerospace engineers. Although I somehow doubt that it was supposed to be a compliment…:D

For the moment, Lightning II’s advantage would be that very advanced IRST, HMD, AIM-9X. Raptor Vs Lightning II dogfight there should a few dead Raptors

In this moment, there isn’t any advantage for the Lightning II. Why? There are almost 100 Raptor operational and one F 35 in tests. By the time the F 35 will become operational, the F 22 would have received HMD (not the “old” JHMCS of the F 15/F 16, but the same, more advanced, HMD of the F 35) and also AIM 9X. So, I wouldn’t bet on the F 35:p. BTW, the F 22 already has a very potent IR system (AN/AAR 56). It provides a 360 deg coverage (6 sensors) and alert the pilot of any missile fired upon. Also it detect a fighter at ~ 50 km. That’s more than many dedicated IRSTs on today fighters can. As for a long-range IRST, I think that it won’t be a problem (except money). The Tiger Eye IRST (F 15K) can detect fighters at> 100km.

Says nothing. These are just the extreme values. From lateral angles Raptor has roughly 0,3-0,4 m2 RCS, which is still remarkable given the large reflecting areas, but no way invisible anymore.

Then the maintenance aspect comes into play – make one forgotten rivet stick out a bit and you have a nice lighthouse on your radar.

Indeed, the Raptor RCS depends of the aspect, but from any angle the Raptor is far, far more furtive than anithing flying. BTW, the pilot knows in each moment what RCS is presenting to the enemy; as you can see in the picture, the central dispaly has the F 22 in the middle and it also shows the variation of the RCS according to the aspect–see the lateral “spikes”. Combined with the predicted detection range og the enemy fighters (the circles around the red triangles, in the same central display), the pilot knows what to do in order to avoid detection.

Also the raptor hasn’t any rivet to to stick out. OTOH an maintenance panel could cause a problem, but IIRC the plane “tells” the pilot/crew if there is such a thing before take-off.

The 2 radars are totally diffferent interms of capabilities and performance. The 81 is far more suited to A2g then the -77 and has many modes to support that . Funny thing i was talking to some folks at tyndall a while back (before f-35 first flight) and they wished that integrating new stuff on the -77 was as easy as on the -81 . The -77 is a brute radar , very powerful , very advanced and built with a “ALL GLOVES OFF” approach and requirments . The -81 is very good radar system (according to some very informative people inside NG ) and has awsome A2A features , and ranges are very very good specially compared to the jets its replacing ( far better then the -block 60 radar in many ways ( read – brute) ) . The size is also different and much of the software and the systems are more export oreinted IIRC , so some technology is logically missing or has been subsituted with a less sophisticated and more practical ( translated – Exportable) sollution , but compared to any modern AESA radar the -81 is very competitive . It is easily the most flexible , Multi role radar in the world .

From what I red on NG magazine, the T/R modules of the APG 77 (V)1 are the same with APG 81; also the A/G modes are/will be incorporated into the APG 77 (V)1, so the 81 won’t be more “multirole” than the 77.

What is the standing record for the longst range SAM kill? Still those Long Beach Talos 120km?

Distiller, can you tell more about that Talos kill? It was in Vietnam, IIRC? Thanks in advance.

Imagine something like this:

It launches into a ballistic arc using the entire first stage burn for a maximum range arc but doesn’t jettison the first stage for the moment. (Not going to gain much by dropping the weight when the motor is burned out and the tail and empty first stage would be necessary for stability at this point). On the way down the stages seperate giving 25 seconds (at least) of powered, thrust vector-controlled flight. Seeing how they’re going with a monopropellant it sounds like the top stage is liquid propelled. The only reason you’d want to take the ISP hit is if you want to be able to throttle the thing. Could be 150 lbs for 25 seconds or 1500 for 2.5 seconds or anywhere in between. Presumably they have a way to LOAL. Could make for a VERY deadly AAM. Where range with the AIM-120D is supposedly going to be pushing 100 nm I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing could hit 150 nm or better especially if it was launched from 65,000 ft, at Mach 2 in a climb. And no give-away active radar seeker. Fun times for all. :diablo:

A LOAL capability would be provided by the datalink of the present C version. The future Small Form Factor Datalink (http://www.rockwellcollins.com/content/pdf/pdf_7561.pdf) plus a GPS aided fiber optic INS will be even better. This future datalink is small (5 inches and 3.1 lbs.), it is Link 16 compatible, and can send 2.25 Mbps. at over 120 Nmiles. With the launching platform communicating the target postion and its own GPS telling the missile its own position, it could work.

It’s a good idea for Raytheon to combine already developped technologies (the AMRAAM motor, the AMRAAM D GPS, the 9X sensor, the deplyable nosecone and the staging assembly of the Standard 3) with new ones, like the new Aerojet motor or the new datalink.

A clip of better quality compared to youtube posted so far: http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv

The F 15E is compatible with the AGM 154 JSOW and the AGM 158 JASSM, although untill now, the F 15E never used those.

As about the 21 GBUs 38, that would be the possible, but I can’t imagine that it would be a serious option. For a more realistic idea about the loadout options, check this: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/navigation/index_loadouts.htm (good site about the F 15E).

But as for Japan, they aren’t in the business of selling military technology to China and are more reliable.

Toshiba did it in the ’80s. And that technolgy helped Russian nuclear subs to became less noisy.

It is good time to start on bomber project because they are working PAK-FA. once u master 5th generation fighter Stealth, Supercruise, Internal weopon, Super maneourability, new materials and method of construction. it is much easier to transform those strenghts into larger layout with emphasis on straight line performance. and u can use 4 engines instead of two in non-afterburning. and cost should not be that much as they are developing it in public sector.
here they are proposing twin AL-41 for civilian SST. or they can use upcoming PS-12 series.

I can’t wait to see the supermaneuvrability inserted in the future russian bomber…:diablo: