Read the forum code of contact
By: - 6th February 2007 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There would be weight issues which would restrict aircraft range, the number of missiles that can be carried as many pylons would not be riged to carry it while they would normally be able to handle an AMRAAM like the body hardpoints on F15Cs, Tornados and Typhoons. They would also have a hard time fitting in the bays of the Raptor and F35. By the time ASEA become available, better missiles were already in the pipes with longer range and ramjet engines for much greater speed but keeping the AMRAAM dimentions. Hard this missile.
Its just too small an improvement to be worth all the time and money needed to implement it (or least thats what the bean counters would think). Had it been available 5, 10 years eariler it might have had a chance.
By: - 6th February 2007 at 13:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About the weight-- it is the weight of the Sparrow. The F 15 was designed to carry 4 Sparrows and until AMRAAM was introduced, that was the standard configuration (+4 Sidewinders). As for range, according to the site, as a SAM it can achieve 45 km (vs. 20 km the basic AMRAAM in SAM configuration). Twice the range of an AMRAAM, I wouldn't call a minor improvement.
By: - 6th February 2007 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There would be weight issues which would restrict aircraft range, the number of missiles that can be carried as many pylons would not be riged to carry it while they would normally be able to handle an AMRAAM like the body hardpoints on F15Cs, Tornados and Typhoons.
THe weight difference is pretty much insignificant. All of the above mentioned aircraft would be able to carry them semi-recessed as at least the F-15s and Tornados are set up to carry Sparrow or Sky Flash which are MUCH heavier than AIM-120 or even this other variant.
Its just too small an improvement to be worth all the time and money needed to implement it (or least thats what the bean counters would think).
Hardly. Check out the difference in range and speed between Sea Sparrow and ESSM and that was only a 2" bump in diameter.
By: - 6th February 2007 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/amraam2descri.html there is a photo of a SAM variant of AMRAAM, tested in 1992. It was designed by Hughues (now Raytheon) aparently for the Norvegians and was called ASAM-1. Probably, it used an AMRAAM guidance section a bigger diammeter engine (10 inches). The weight was 227 kg, vs the MIM 120 (the SAM based on the regular AMRAAM) The range is supposed to be ~ 45 km. The engine seems to be the ESSM one, whice have sense, since this one is manufactured together by US company ATK and Norvegian Raufoss.I wonder why US did not continue with this configuration for A-A (IIRC Sferrin mentioned this sometime ago). If the missile could hit at 45 km as a SAM, it would be a real LRAAM in A-A! Nowadays, with AESA radar in use, or in LRIP (APG 79, APG 63(V)3) a longer range would make sense.
Thanks for the picture :) I don't know why they didn't move forward with an AAM version of this or even an AAM version of ESSM. ESSM has a 50 km range, much more compact fins, and thrust vectoring during boost (which would be REALLY valuable as an AAM). It's got plenty of room up front where they could swap out the guidance system for that of the AIM-120 and it's got a larger warhead too. On the other hand this AIM-120 variant might have had TVC also. I've got a video around hear that shows them testing a TVC version of AIM-120 in the surface-to-air role.
Posts: 1,366
By: aurcov - 6th February 2007 at 08:09
On http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/amraam2descri.html there is a photo of a SAM variant of AMRAAM, tested in 1992. It was designed by Hughues (now Raytheon) aparently for the Norvegians and was called ASAM-1. Probably, it used an AMRAAM guidance section a bigger diammeter engine (10 inches). The weight was 227 kg, vs the MIM 120 (the SAM based on the regular AMRAAM) The range is supposed to be ~ 45 km. The engine seems to be the ESSM one, whice have sense, since this one is manufactured together by US company ATK and Norvegian Raufoss.
I wonder why US did not continue with this configuration for A-A (IIRC Sferrin mentioned this sometime ago). If the missile could hit at 45 km as a SAM, it would be a real LRAAM in A-A! Nowadays, with AESA radar in use, or in LRIP (APG 79, APG 63(V)3) a longer range would make sense.