https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iga9DpjKIng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=HH07%20-%20R-73

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/566/

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-9.htm

We can see that AIM-9X has about 4,5 seconds of burn time and that R-73 has about 5,5 seconds.
Depending on model, their max operational range can go up to 40km (variation in motor burn time between “blocks” is very small). Both missiles are much slower than bigger BVRAAM-s (about 2,5M compared to about 4M) and inherently they have more drag.

Is it possible for a bigger BVRAAM, that has almost two times the speed and motor burn time (about 10 sec. Mach 4) and less drag compared to IR missile, to have double the range?

The IRIS-T can achieve Mach 3 but has a range of only 25km, so we again see that range is dependent on more than the maximum speed achieved. Similarly Starstreak makes Mach 3.5, some sources say Mach 4. It’s obviously a far smaller, draggier missile, but the range is miniscule compared to the various ground-launched versions of AAMs that achieve similar speeds.

There are also some strange assumptions being made regarding smoke trail and burn time. A motor might smoke more during the initial burn and may burn largely invisibly after that. As the missile gets further away it also becomes less visible.

3:25 – see clear smoke from AIM-120 during initial phase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpJSviD8D4k

I don’t know about SRAAMs but I can’t see something like an AIM-120C7 burning for 9s and then managing 110+(?)km gliding in level flight, not forgeting that MRAAMs generally have less lift/weight than SRAAMs. Below M2.0 at 20km altitude, it would be flying more sideways than forwards. What you also notice for MRAAMs is that Rmin is larger than for SRAAMs. That isn’t just about warhead size, it’s also about needing to have room for the missile to reach intercept speed using a lower impulse fuel. So whilst an IRIS-T might have a high impulse fuel that kicks it up to Mach 3 in 500m at 60,000ft, an AIM-120 might take 5km to reach the same speed. It might take another 30km to get from M3.0 to M4.0 and the same again to get from M4.0 to M4.5 due to the non-linear nature of acceleration.

The difference in rocket design is due to the fact that the IRIS-T needs its maximum manoeuvrability straight away for dog-fighting. Whilst the AIM-120 can be used in dog-fights, it’s intended more for BVR, so as long as it can make >2/3rd of it’s maximum speed within about half WVR distance, it’s not a big deal. For a Meteor I suspect Rmin will be larger still.

Watch at 9:25:

Agree with BIO, the missile discussion is better played here
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt…ange-questions
…and @lukos you are making assumptions on burn time and speed of incoming target on head on statements,
‘over 9 sec’ ‘about mach 0.7’
this is not true, burn time is 6-8 sec and head on figures assume supersonic non maneuvering target,
and that it assume high alt is a given

If the maximum burn time is 9s and maximum speed is M4.5 at 25km and M3.0-3.5 at 11km (based on roughly T = D at maximum speed), then at SL, the missile won’t even do 5km vs a tail chase target before burn runs out, and it will only reach around M1.5-1.75 at SL, so by the time it accelerates and does 5km, the target doing a constant M1.2, will also have done 5km and another 5km before the missile does the next 5km. Not only would it not catch it, it wouldn’t even gain on it.

If you could achieve a kinetic range of 105km with only 9s of burn (distance covered ~10km), then any missile of similar mass-to-reference area that reaches M4.0, would immediately have a range of nearly 100km regardless of burn time. That fails to be the case. In fact they wouldn’t waste their time with missile technology for SAMs, they’d just fire homing projectiles from a gun.

Well I tried, but since we will continue to talk about MRAAM’s, might as well have a bit of fun 🙂

I actually searched that but it didn’t give me a clue as to the burn time.:)

I don’t think its misleading at all. Thing to consider is, AIM-120 do have 9 second boost, but it does not only gain M4.5 airspeed; it also gains 15++ km altitude during that boost. Gliding at M3.0 on average at 25000+ meters is hardly draggy, due to extremely low air denisty. Flying about 50 or so km at 20km altitude, then hitting a non-maneuvering target at 15 km altitude at 95km. It doesn’t need M1.5 for such terminal approach, it would only need to reach target point. Effective? No. Possible? Yes. IMHO, its also possible to reach a non-maneuvering target at 42 km range at 25km altitude.

Comparing with known data; R-27RE has 117 km maximal head on range, but its effective kill range is 65,5 km. Assuming same ratio applies; AIM-120C-5 wont have effective kill range greater than ~53 km @ 15km altitude.

It was probably only a launch test with partial propellant to reduce missile range to a safe distance.

How do you get to 15+km altitude after a 9s boost, with a terminal velocity of only M4.5? Even starting at M4.5 and doing it all the way, you only travel 14km and that’s based on Speed of sound at SL. The C7 has greater kinetic range than a C5, you can’t do that with a 9s boost and gliding at M3.0 isn’t draggy, seriously?

You’re not understanding how the rear aspect range is done. The missile doesn’t travel 42km, the target starts 42 km away and this missile has to chase it down. So even at a peak speed 4 times the speed of the target, it wouldn’t reach it until after 60km. The missile has to reach M4.5 from rest, a 9s acceleration would only result in about 10-12km being covered. It’s now doing maybe 4 times the target speed but the target is now at 45km. At an average of 4 times target speed, it would make the intercept at 56km but that’s impossible because the drag is slowing the missile down (and it only started at 4 times target speed) and the target is probably speeding up if aware. At an average of 3 times target speed, it would make the intercept at 62km. However, you can’t start at Mach 4.5 and only slow down to M2.0 after a further 50km unpowered and I’ve been using level flight not taking account of the height increase. With the height increase in the flight, you probably only make 9km on boost. I’m fairly convinced an AAM can’t fly under M2.0, at least not at 25km up, and if it did the AoA would be immense, with tons of drag. As for the 105km kinetic range before it falls out of the sky, no way using just 9s of boost.

Aim120 has a burn time of <9 seconds which at 15kft gives a tail chase range of 8km as per attachement (the missile envelope).

Meteor should have a booster if I’m not mistaken. Based on the data we have the Meteor should still have propulsion and a velovity of mach 4 at least 2,5 times longer than the tail chase case for the RVV AE at 10km alt.

The actual numbers for the Meteor are secret so I can only speak of the lowest possible performance metric based on public trials/benchmarks. And the lowest number for range with propulsion is 30km or ~25 seconds @43 kft or 13,3 km alt. I have no doubt the Meteor performs better IRL but that at least gives you a floor.

Which version of the AIM-120? Which version of the R-77?

I’m guessing this is an AIM-120B vs R-77-PD?

AIM-120C-5

Even for a B, 9s seems a little low. Even assuming Mach 5, 9s only gives you 9mi(15km) ignoring acceleration time, whereas even the B version can make tail-chase intercepts at >25km horizontal distance after a 5km climb and only achieves a maximum of Mach 4. The C-5 manages the same at >40km. To me that suggests nearer >30s of powered flight, assuming average speed is about 1km/s. After 30km and a 5km altitude increase, boost ceases and it continues decelerating rapidly from Mach 4. The enemy plane is at Mach 1.5+ and is 5 km in front. The missile averages Mach 3 over the next 10km and meets it at 40km from the launch point.

The AIM-120B has a stated kinetic range of ~80km, on the graph the head on intercept range is given as 100km. Assuming the oncoming aircraft is at Mach 0.75-0.85 and the AIM-120B averages Mach 3-3.4, that pretty much checks out for an edge intercept at 80km if the target is subsonic.

For an AIM-120C-5 the maximum range is quoted at 105km. The average speed will be higher (Mach 3.6-4.0, because the sustainer lasts for a longer portion of the flight. The maximum intercept on the graph is 127km. AT Mach 0.75-0.85 an incoming aircraft will do 22 km before intercept at 105km from the launch point.

It’s stated in AIR Forces monthly that the NEZ of Meteor is 3 times the current RAF AIM-120, which is the C-5 variant, which is roughly similar to the R-77-PD looking at the diagrams (see 18km altitude tail chase – looks the same).

When it says 3 times larger NEZ, the simplest interpretation of that is that you drag the engagement envelope of the AIM-120C-5 out across the x-axis by a factor of 3 for tail chase, giving 125km. What that implies in terms of powered flight is impossible to know. How fast is the target going? At one quarter the average speed of the missile it will reach 156km before intercept, at a third the average speed, it will reach nearly 170km before intercept. At half the average speed, nearly 190km. So powered flight will likely be a minimum of 156km, or potentially up near 200km, assuming something around about Mach 4 for the missile’s average speed. Burn time 2 minutes minimum (Mach 4 = ~80s for 100km). Speed can maybe be reduced to Mach 2.5ish for sitting duck aircraft like AEWs and who knows what that does for powered range, 50% increase.

I disagree with any 3D printing on board a fighter being useful. There is no weight savings from 3D printing. In fact you will absolutely carry more weight because of the weight of the 3D printer will add to the plane in addition to anything it makes. The smaller the printed item is the larger the weight penalty of the 3D printer will be. The potential advantage of space saving is also negated because you need a internal bay to do the printing and that negates compactness of 3D printing. That only leaves ability to tailor UAV and Munitions to potential targets and in that case you really should just plan your missions better.

3D printing is maybe more useful for forward ground bases. I guess you save money by not having to maintain and operate a fleet of UAVs permanently, with sufficient spare UAVs to allow for attrition and sufficient parts for maintenance (logistics, space etc.). It’s sort of the UAV equivalent of agency staff.

3D printing could have a future onboard aircraft carriers for replacing out of stock parts maybe.

Bingo. Maybe even weapon air-frames too.

I think BAE are trolling.

However, 3D-printing on carriers feels like a good move. It is possible to 3D-print aluminum, stanless steel and titanium nowadays…

Yes, metal printers are expensive but definitely a reality.

http://3dprinting.com/materials/metal/3d-printing-metal/

The Koenigsegg Agera One car used a 3D printed turbo housing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNedUZxP8NU

Are we talking about the booster stage or the ramjet here? The ramjet burns for well over 25s! 25s would only give it a range approximating an AIM-120B.