AMRAAM-ER

"Sidekick"? Is that some fanboi lingo? Also, there's nothing official about size. Just a bunch of blogger speculation.
Sidekick is the weapons bay adapter for the F-35A/C that allows them to carry up to 6x AMRAAMs internally; I personally haven't heard any confirmation that JATM will fit Sidekick, but it would be unfortunate if it couldn't.
Short of a multistage missile (say a boosted CUDA) I don't see how they could get a significantly greater range than AIM-120D in the same envelope. I got the impression that AIM-260 is something larger.
Stretch the fins out into strakes and range will jump. If they're using divert thrusters for terminal maneuvers, like on CUDA, the aerodynamic package can be tailored to range rather than agility.

Could you enlarge the fuselage diameter if you didn't need fins at all? Or had tightly folding ones? Even the cropped fins in AIM-120D take up some box space.
Most likely, though it would be better to give it some kind of lift-generating shape rather than just a cylinder. There's also the RAM Block II approach of increasing the diameter of the fuselage between the fore and aft fins.
 
I believe I have discovered the guidance-law used by the AIM-120:

Proportional Guidance (PROGUIDE) and Augmented Proportional Guidance (Augmented PROGUIDE)​

Abstract​

Two new homing guidance laws, designated as proportional Guidance (PROGUIDE) and Augmented Proportional Guidance (Augmented PROGUIDE), have been developed for use against non-maneuvering and maneuvering targets, respectively. These guidance laws are the solutions of linear-quadratic regulator control problems and minimize deviations from the collision triangle over the entire period of homing flight, thereby indirectly minimizing miss distance. In contrast to proportional navigation (PRONAV), these algorithms command the achievement of angular acceleration instead of linear acceleration and there is a significant advantage in doing so. The guidance laws (1) are more compatible with the seeker measurements which are angular in nature, (2) do not require an estimate of time-to-go, (3) can be used to directly drive the skid-to-turn or bank-to-turn logic that produces autopilot input commands, (4) avoid actuator saturation through the real-time adjustment of a single parameter in each channel, and (5) are less sensitive to random errors. Thus these guidance laws are not only effective in and of themselves, but also provide a simple framework within which an integrated guidance and control design can be carried out. The integrated design accounts for interactions between the target state estimator, the guidance law, and the autopilot during the design process.
Why do I think it's this particular guidance-law?
A) A direct reference to the AMRAAM programme office is made in it.
B) The equation doesn't have a time-to-go component in it due to the way it was derived which is important as the Tgo value is usually an imprecise calculated value.
 
"Sidekick"? Is that some fanboi lingo? Also, there's nothing official about size. Just a bunch of blogger speculation.
Sidekick is the weapons bay adapter for the F-35A/C that allows them to carry up to 6x AMRAAMs internally; I personally haven't heard any confirmation that JATM will fit Sidekick, but it would be unfortunate if it couldn't.
Short of a multistage missile (say a boosted CUDA) I don't see how they could get a significantly greater range than AIM-120D in the same envelope. I got the impression that AIM-260 is something larger.
Stretch the fins out into strakes and range will jump. If they're using divert thrusters for terminal maneuvers, like on CUDA, the aerodynamic package can be tailored to range rather than agility.

Could you enlarge the fuselage diameter if you didn't need fins at all? Or had tightly folding ones? Even the cropped fins in AIM-120D take up some box space.
10" booster. and folding fins (Basically ESSM with everything forward of the motor closure replaced:

1621908070472.png
 
Only thing you've gotta watch out for is the overlap geometry - based on the fact that the F-35B isn't getting Sidekick, and 2x AMRAAMs and an adapter shouldn't exceed anywhere near 1500lb, the logical conclusion is that the F-35B's truncated bays (where they're shorter in length) would be prohibiting AMRAAMs from being staggered fore / aft like how the F-22 carries 6x AMRAAMs in its main bay.

So even if (eg) a 10" rocket body doesn't exceed the wingspan of an AIM-120D, it might still not fit with Sidekick as you might have fins of each missile overlapping with the body of another, rather than just having fins overlapping fins.
 
The entire air to air missile "portfolio" resides with one company and the last thing they would want to do is hand it over to another. You've got to have multiple OEM's producing competitive prototypes that add value at one level or another. It sounds like this is what they are looking to do. Seems like pursuing the AIM-260, something in the "HALFRAAM" class (cheaper, smaller/larger-mag) and a Very long range AAM are all areas to put some money in and keep the 2-3 design teams busy over the next decade.
 
The article does not state what missile system it is referring to here.

The United States is likely to announce this week the purchase of an advanced medium to long range surface-to-air missile defense system for Ukraine, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday.

Edited to add that CNN states it is likely to be the Norwegian NASAMS.

 
Last edited:
The article does not state what missile system it is referring to here.

The United States is likely to announce this week the purchase of an advanced medium to long range surface-to-air missile defense system for Ukraine, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday.

Edited to add that CNN states it is likely to be the Norwegian NASAMS.

NASAMS doesn't have a range of >100 miles unless I missed something. Or is that just news reporters being news reporters?
 
The article does not state what missile system it is referring to here.

The United States is likely to announce this week the purchase of an advanced medium to long range surface-to-air missile defense system for Ukraine, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday.

Edited to add that CNN states it is likely to be the Norwegian NASAMS.

NASAMS doesn't have a range of >100 miles unless I missed something. Or is that just news reporters being news reporters?

Almost certainly someone seeing that NASAMS fires AIM-120D, which is usually listed as having a range of 160km. But of course that's an air-launched range and surface launch chops that down dramatically.
 
Last edited:
Almost certainly someone seeing that NASAMs fired AIM-120D, which is usually listed as having a range of 160km. But of course that's an air-launched range and surface launch chops that down dramatically.
Quite possibly? Is it NASAMS 1 or 2?
 
Almost certainly someone seeing that NASAMs fired AIM-120D, which is usually listed as having a range of 160km. But of course that's an air-launched range and surface launch chops that down dramatically.
Quite possibly? Is it NASAMS 1 or 2?

Haven't seen anything but NASAMS 1 is old; hasn't been made in years. Probably NASAMS 2 but could possibly even be NASAMS 3, which has been delivered to Lithuania and I believe Norway.
 
WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The United States is sending Ukraine two NASAMS surface-to-air missile systems, four additional counter-artillery radars and up to 150,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition as part of its latest weapons packages for Ukraine, the Pentagon said on Friday.
The Pentagon offered more details on Friday as it formalized the announcement, and said the latest round of security assistance also included additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS).

The counter artillery radars being sent are the Raytheon-Technologies (RTX.N) AN/TPQ-37 systems, a senior defense official told reporters. This is the first time these systems are being sent to Ukraine which have about triple the effective range of the previously sent AN/TPQ-36 systems.
 

There was at least one QF-16 shot down before, in August 2021 (also by a F-15/AIM-120) and there may have been other hard kills before or since that.
 
:( I kind of hope they have something new like AIM-260
From the article:

“Two years later, the Air Force said the AIM-260 would enter service on the Lockheed Martin F-22 in 2022, but have not provided status updates since.”

So maybe?
 
:( I kind of hope they have something new like AIM-260
They did or must have and lost that competition. Their focus now is to extend their AIM-120 production by at least a decade which means offering incremental upgrades like the AIM-120D3, AMRAAM-ER, AMRAAM-E2 and the AMRAAM AL extended envelope or AMRAAM-AXE. Sound strategy as there’s plenty of US ( US alone has to buy 3500 missiles before program end) and foreign demand for the AMRAAM and it gives them some time to mature a clean sheet medium ranged offering like the Peregrine concept.
 
I'm surprised that there are any more range increases to be had be improving the guidance and trajectory. Sending the missile on a "lofting" trajectory is nothing new and the AIM-120D already got a range boost by the same sort of methods described in this article.
 
Last edited:
:( I kind of hope they have something new like AIM-260
They did or must have and lost that competition. Their focus now is to extend their AIM-120 production by at least a decade which means offering incremental upgrades like the AIM-120D3, AMRAAM-ER, AMRAAM-E2 and the AMRAAM AL extended envelope or AMRAAM-AXE. Sound strategy as there’s plenty of US ( US alone has to buy 3500 missiles before program end) and foreign demand for the AMRAAM and it gives them some time to mature a clean sheet medium ranged offering like the Peregrine concept.
:( not gonna lie, while other nation seem to seek more range with different propulsion (meteor/PL-21) or bigger missile (RVV-BD/PL-XX), US strategy of getting bigger range by software alone seem a bit disappointing
 
Last edited:
:( I kind of hope they have something new like AIM-260
They did or must have and lost that competition. Their focus now is to extend their AIM-120 production by at least a decade which means offering incremental upgrades like the AIM-120D3, AMRAAM-ER, AMRAAM-E2 and the AMRAAM AL extended envelope or AMRAAM-AXE. Sound strategy as there’s plenty of US ( US alone has to buy 3500 missiles before program end) and foreign demand for the AMRAAM and it gives them some time to mature a clean sheet medium ranged offering like the Peregrine concept.
:( not gonna lie, while other nation seem to seek more range with different propulsion (meteor/PL-21) or bigger missile (RVV-BD/PL-XX), US strategy of getting bigger range by software alone seem a bit disappointing

They aren't seeking to get more range by "software" alone. They are optimizing trajectory and adding more accuracy via enhancements to the initially fielded GPS. Separately, they are working on the AXE which will have the AMRAAM-ER booster, and additional optimizations around the motor and CAS. These are serious upgrades for a weapon that has an established supply chain, logistical base and is integrated on wide number of platforms. Not to mention that it will be in addition to and a complement the AIM-260 and not as a replacement for it. Raytheon's value prop on the AIM-120 is not to pit it against the AIM-260 (they lost that competition back in 2017) but to grow their portfolio with new capabilities that make the missile highly attractive given its existing supply chain, capabilities and sustainment since it will be several years until the AIM-260 makes it through the same level of platform integrations.

Thats a sound strategy that will likely see Raytheon outproduce its western competitors over the next 5-10 years. Beyond that, the USAF and USN will need a new medium ranged weapon and they have been working on those systems as well which will likely be fielded in the early 2030s. New AMRAAM capabilities in the D3 (to which the DOD is committed to order 3K missiles) and new variants will ensure that they continue to maintain production as they mature new designs.

The AMRAAM-Extended Range missile will be integrated with the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile launcher, also called NASAMS, a medium-range air defense system.

In 2022, AMRAAM-ER passed an audit that demonstrated the missile meets the requirements and that the design is ready for production.

The new weapon's maximum range is 50 percent longer than the standard version, and its maximum altitude is 70 percent higher, thanks to enhancements like an enlarged rocket motor built by Norwegian company NAMMO. Work is underway with NAMMO and KONGSBERG Defence & Aerospace on the AMRAAM-E2 variant that will have an improved rocket motor and a new control actuation system.

New versions are in development.

The AMRAAM-ER and AMRAAM-E2 efforts open the door for more modernization like the AMRAAM Air-launched Extended Envelope, or AXE, which will deliver a boost in range and speed to target.

“Because of the existing work being done on these two systems, we see this as a capability we could field in short order to address the emerging threat,” Dickman said.

 
Last edited:
:( I kind of hope they have something new like AIM-260
They did or must have and lost that competition. Their focus now is to extend their AIM-120 production by at least a decade which means offering incremental upgrades like the AIM-120D3, AMRAAM-ER, AMRAAM-E2 and the AMRAAM AL extended envelope or AMRAAM-AXE. Sound strategy as there’s plenty of US ( US alone has to buy 3500 missiles before program end) and foreign demand for the AMRAAM and it gives them some time to mature a clean sheet medium ranged offering like the Peregrine concept.
:( not gonna lie, while other nation seem to seek more range with different propulsion (meteor/PL-21) or bigger missile (RVV-BD/PL-XX), US strategy of getting bigger range by software alone seem a bit disappointing

They aren't seeking to get more range by "software" alone. They are optimizing trajectory and adding more accuracy via enhancements to the initially fielded GPS. Separately, they are working on the AXE which will have the AMRAAM-ER booster, and additional optimizations around the motor and CAS. These are serious upgrades for a weapon that has an established supply chain, logistical base and is integrated on wide number of platforms. Not to mention that it will be in addition to and a complement the AIM-260 and not as a replacement for it. Raytheon's value prop on the AIM-120 is not to pit it against the AIM-260 (they lost that competition back in 2017) but to grow their portfolio with new capabilities that make the missile highly attractive given its existing supply chain, capabilities and sustainment since it will be several years until the AIM-260 makes it through the same level of platform integrations.

Thats a sound strategy that will likely see Raytheon outproduce its western competitors over the next 5-10 years. Beyond that, the USAF and USN will need a new medium ranged weapon and they have been working on those systems as well which will likely be fielded in the early 2030s. New AMRAAM capabilities in the D3 (to which the DOD is committed to order 3K missiles) and new variants will ensure that they continue to maintain production as they mature new designs.

The AMRAAM-Extended Range missile will be integrated with the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile launcher, also called NASAMS, a medium-range air defense system.

In 2022, AMRAAM-ER passed an audit that demonstrated the missile meets the requirements and that the design is ready for production.

The new weapon's maximum range is 50 percent longer than the standard version, and its maximum altitude is 70 percent higher, thanks to enhancements like an enlarged rocket motor built by Norwegian company NAMMO. Work is underway with NAMMO and KONGSBERG Defence & Aerospace on the AMRAAM-E2 variant that will have an improved rocket motor and a new control actuation system.

New versions are in development.

The AMRAAM-ER and AMRAAM-E2 efforts open the door for more modernization like the AMRAAM Air-launched Extended Envelope, or AXE, which will deliver a boost in range and speed to target.

“Because of the existing work being done on these two systems, we see this as a capability we could field in short order to address the emerging threat,” Dickman said.

Shame they have to lose the "deterrent effect" by waiting until an emerging threat has been fielded....
 
I am going to assume the AIM260 has a AESA radar as an active seeker. Several other countries have already started using AESA radar in missiles. It provides a massive capability increase with a greater lock on range, greater no escape zone & much more difficult to jam. An AESA radar is also something the SM6 is in need of. It would provide a huge capability increase. I am also assuming the AMRAAM D does not have an AESA guidance radar. I suppose its possible it does and the US has just done a good job of keeping it secret. After all the USAF did tout a significant ECCM increase in the D so that would lend one to think it might have an AESA inside it. However on the contrary the USAF or military as a whole is also not known for keeping secrets well.
 
Think also at the acquisition mode of the radar. A stealth aircraft would want a missile that switch on its acquisition radar at the appropriate time and not something ready to lock-on at a longer range. So, AESA is probably not a priority when it come to range for a Stealth aircraft like the USAF/USN and US Marines are going to field in mass. On the contrary, non-AESA, so far, have a cost advantages that meets the exchange parity on the US side.

Their mind might be to let nations flying 4th Gen aircraft only, swallow the brunt of initial cost.
 
I'm honestly a bit lost with the various US long-range radar-seeking missiles in development (or rumored to be) over the past couple of years. Based on the speculated capabilities of the latest Russian and Chinese missiles, particularly the PL-21, combined with the apparent shortcomings of US 5th generation designs when it comes to weapons bays being too small to fit larger missiles (or to carry a large quantity of long-range missiles), can someone with more knowledge on this topic give me a blunt answer on the most likely outcome?

1. Is the US likely to catch up on missile range soon, and if so, how much longer before these capabilities are operational to the point of at least meeting near-peer capabilities?

2. Do you believe there are programs in progress to not only match, but also overtake other world powers in missile range and effectiveness?

3. Is there any air-to-air missile design in the future US portfolio specifically tasked for AWACS and large bomber sniping? For example, is it realistic to assume the US will use one of the new hypersonic missiles which make it to operational status, attach it to a fourth generation fighter (or bomber) and then potentially make some minor adjustments (like a radar seeker head and some missile software updates) in order to enable a very long range launch at hypersonic speeds to hit an enemy AWACS or large bomber (due to their low stealth, slow speeds, and low maneuverability)?

Thank you to anyone who can help me out.
 
I'm honestly a bit lost with the various US long-range radar-seeking missiles in development (or rumored to be) over the past couple of years. Based on the speculated capabilities of the latest Russian and Chinese missiles, particularly the PL-21, combined with the apparent shortcomings of US 5th generation designs when it comes to weapons bays being too small to fit larger missiles (or to carry a large quantity of long-range missiles), can someone with more knowledge on this topic give me a blunt answer on the most likely outcome?

1. Is the US likely to catch up on missile range soon, and if so, how much longer before these capabilities are operational to the point of at least meeting near-peer capabilities?

2. Do you believe there are programs in progress to not only match, but also overtake other world powers in missile range and effectiveness?

3. Is there any air-to-air missile design in the future US portfolio specifically tasked for AWACS and large bomber sniping? For example, is it realistic to assume the US will use one of the new hypersonic missiles which make it to operational status, attach it to a fourth generation fighter (or bomber) and then potentially make some minor adjustments (like a radar seeker head and some missile software updates) in order to enable a very long range launch at hypersonic speeds to hit an enemy AWACS or large bomber (due to their low stealth, slow speeds, and low maneuverability)?

Thank you to anyone who can help me out.

A lot of these are really hard to answer because much of US AAM development is happening in the dark grey or black world. We see some tidbits of performance info (JATM/AIM-260 in particular), the occasional program solicitation (LREW), and very rare sightings (SM-6 airframe on a Super Hornet). But the era of open information on the capability of US AAMs has largely ended, at least for the moment.

What we "know" about U.S. long-range AAMs:

  • AIM-260 -- Lockheed Martin, in limited production, will displace AIM-120 production by 2026, outranges AIM-120, fits in the same envelope, and requires classified storage spaces. That's about it. Otherwise it's all buzzwords and speculation.
  • Long-Range Engagement Weapon -- Raytheon, maybe a two-stage weapon, maybe it fits internally in the F-22, (or maybe it's too big for F-22 bays), maybe all of that is wrong.
  • Air-launched SM-6 -- we have precisely one picture of a Super Hornet carrying an SM-6 upper stage, could well be an interim high-speed strike missile rather than AAM.
 
Last edited:
I'm honestly a bit lost with the various US long-range radar-seeking missiles in development (or rumored to be) over the past couple of years. Based on the speculated capabilities of the latest Russian and Chinese missiles, particularly the PL-21, combined with the apparent shortcomings of US 5th generation designs when it comes to weapons bays being too small to fit larger missiles (or to carry a large quantity of long-range missiles), can someone with more knowledge on this topic give me a blunt answer on the most likely outcome?

1. Is the US likely to catch up on missile range soon, and if so, how much longer before these capabilities are operational to the point of at least meeting near-peer capabilities?

2. Do you believe there are programs in progress to not only match, but also overtake other world powers in missile range and effectiveness?

3. Is there any air-to-air missile design in the future US portfolio specifically tasked for AWACS and large bomber sniping? For example, is it realistic to assume the US will use one of the new hypersonic missiles which make it to operational status, attach it to a fourth generation fighter (or bomber) and then potentially make some minor adjustments (like a radar seeker head and some missile software updates) in order to enable a very long range launch at hypersonic speeds to hit an enemy AWACS or large bomber (due to their low stealth, slow speeds, and low maneuverability)?

Thank you to anyone who can help me out.

A lot of these are really hard to answer because a lot of US AAM development is happening in the dark grey or black world. We see some tidbits of performance info (JATM/AIM-260 in particular), the occasional program solicitation (LREW), and very rare sightings (SM-6 airframe on a Super Hornet). But the era of open information on the capability of US AAMs has largely ended, at least for the moment.

What we "know" about U.S. long-range AAMs:

  • AIM-260 -- Lockheed Martin, in limited production, will displace AIM-120 production by 2026, outranges AIM-120, fits in the same envelope, and requires classified storage spaces. That's about it. Otherwise it's all buzzwords and speculation.
  • Long-Range Engagement Weapon -- Raytheon, maybe a two-stage weapon, maybe it fits internally in the F-22, (or maybe it's too big for F-22 bays), maybe all of that is wrong.
  • Air-launched SM-6 -- we have precisely one picture of a Super Hornet carrying an SM-6 upper stage, could well be an interim high-speed strike missile rather than AAM.

Thanks for the reply, and it appears the situation is as bad as I suspected unfortunately. I was hoping I was just way out of the loop and I'd get a reply to tell me it's all going to be okay hah. Long bitching-mode enabled, you've been warned.

I personally find the whole scenario stupidly frustrating. The USAF and USN are supposed to maintain absolute air superiority based on overall US military doctrine. They have the largest budgets, they have the most intangible resources available to them in order to identify and study the development cycle and capabilities of potential adversaries (human/signal intelligence). The US has access to a huge number of highly-capable defense contractors, R&D companies, academic/scientific communities, and even allied international defense contractors who work with the US on various needs. Then there are multiple branches of our own military capable of sharing technology and developed systems as needed.

The USN has a whole host of SM-series missiles (such as the SM-6 you mentioned, and before that, literally dozens of USN SAMs or older SM-series variants), the radar-homing Harpoon, and the Aegis fire-control system using highly capable sensors and advanced radar systems, and have led in the technology needed to launch missiles from ships and submarines for many decades.

NASA and now the US Space Force have been leaders in rocket programs and satellite sensors since the 1960's. The USAF used to lead the way in both infrared and radar-seeking missiles back when the AIM-120 and AIM-9 series were considered top-of-the-line (back to the AIM-154 too). The AGM-88 HARM is highly successful for its mission.

The US Army has decades of ICBM development, Patriot missiles in multiple varieties including more relevant (anti-cruise missile) models like the PAC-2 GEM and (smaller) PAC-3 MSE, THAAD missiles designed to literally hit-to-kill hypersonic projectiles, the GMD Ground-Based-Interceptors, infantry-deployed missile models (Stinger, Javelin, wireless version of TOW), a whole series of badass precision-guided rocket artillery missiles, active radar-homing Hellfires, etc. (I only mention all of the US Army tech to support the fact there has been research in all sorts of different types of seekers, guidance systems, integrated sensor integration, programming for integration purposes, and a huge range of different propulsion tech in order to assist in finding the limits of overall missile capabilities in varying environments and desired goals).

Then to add even more ridiculousness, we have access to many allied missiles which, in my opinion, are absolutely worth a request to purchase for our own study and reverse-engineering purposes. I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be worth a small batch order (at worse) for MBDA Meteors, while many other countries may sell us one/a few of their missiles just at a chance of getting some future benefit in an arms deal. There's the MICA/Python/Derby/IRIS-T/Astra Mk2/Barak-8/AAM-4B/Sky Sword II. Even old cancelled US programs like the ramjet-powered FMRAAM and the AIM-152 had a claimed range approaching 200km in the early 1990s, so why exactly is that propulsion design/packaging apparently lost to time? Then there's tons of joint-funding and R&D work put into multiple highly-successful Israel-based missile programs such as the Arrow-series, Iron Dome, and David's Sling.

Given all of that and even more I'm not thinking of at the moment, I find it absolutely ridiculous that the US has developed top-tier fourth generation fighter platforms, the two most stealthy 5th-generation jets which are generally considered the most advanced in the world, and at this point, the limitation in our capabilities are due to use of old missiles in the AIM-120 and AIM-9 series of missiles (granted there are new variants, but if they aren't the best, who cares).

How the hell does all of this result in allowing Russia and China to very likely gain a significant air-to-air missile advantage with much less funding and R&D? It's almost as if the US has made an effort to ignore the issue on purpose. The lack of leadership and results in this specific capability is astounding. Even if, for some reason, they just haven't managed to create a bespoke series of modern A-to-A missiles, you'd certainly expect them to at least jerry-rig an existing missile design with adequate propulsion and seeker/guidance/sensor combination to (at the absolute least) allow a limited number of oversized missiles be strapped on (use my belt) to a fourth-gen fighter not concerned with RCS. I don't care if it can only carry one of these unoptimized oversized heavy-ass missiles. If it gives us the capability to hit air targets at-range until we get out collective shit together, it's worth the relatively small investment in the grand scheme of the annual defense budget to put a bandaid on this shit situation.

There's basically one glaring vulnerability which could result in potentially losing out on the US's trademark capability of gaining and maintaining air superiority, they knew what that specific vulnerability was, and they just let it happen anyway. I just don't get it.

Okay, sorry for the rant dudes, I got it out of the system. : )
 
Thanks for the reply, and it appears the situation is as bad as I suspected unfortunately. I was hoping I was just way out of the loop and I'd get a reply to tell me it's all going to be okay hah. Long bitching-mode enabled, you've been warned.
A good rant :D

Something else to take into consideration are the intense Rules of Engagement placed on BVR shots placed by western forces. As long as those rules are in place, additional range does not equate to additional lethality. Look at Vietnam, Iraq 1991/2003, and more recently in Syria where a pilot had several steps to go through for a BVR shot. By the time you’ve been cleared to engage, you’re in AIM-9 range anyways. Additional sensors whether IRST or off board distributed networks will help close the ROE gap eventually, but still need real world testing in a live fire environment.
 
A good rant :D

Something else to take into consideration are the intense Rules of Engagement placed on BVR shots placed by western forces. As long as those rules are in place, additional range does not equate to additional lethality. Look at Vietnam, Iraq 1991/2003, and more recently in Syria where a pilot had several steps to go through for a BVR shot. By the time you’ve been cleared to engage, you’re in AIM-9 range anyways. Additional sensors whether IRST or off board distributed networks will help close the ROE gap eventually, but still need real world testing in a live fire environment.
Most of the planes in the Gulf War never had an NCTR radar mode though, only the F-15 did. That's what caused the problem. That's somewhat different now.
 

Government-industry team demonstrates first-of-its kind Air Base Air Defense capability​

NASAMS fires AIM-9X, AMRAAM, and AMRAAM-ER in layered cruise missile defense experiment​


ANDØYA, Norway, (Sept. 7, 2022) — Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies business, and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) office, conducted a first-of-its kind Air Base Air Defense experiment.

During the demonstration, the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, known as NASAMS™, fired AIM-9X®, AMRAAM®, and AMRAAM-Extended Range missiles, engaging cruise missile targets at various distances.

“We demonstrated how integrated defense solutions enable the warfighter to deploy the right effector at the right time and at the right target,” said Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon Missiles & Defense. “Using fielded systems, our goal is to provide customers the quickest, most effective way to protect their people and critical infrastructure with layered cruise missile defense.”

This complex experiment assessed NASAMS’ operational ability to fire the three missile variants when integrated with U.S. Army radars and U.S. Air Force’s operationally fielded command and control capability, the Battle Space Command and Control Center, or BC3, developed by Raytheon Solipsys. During the demonstration, the radar first passed targeting information to BC3, then BC3 relayed key data to the KDA Fire Distribution Center for threat evaluation and weapon assignment. The operator in the FDC used that information to close the kill chain by selecting and firing the most effective missile from the NASAMS multi-missile canister launcher.

“Our intent was to inform strategic investment decisions through the evaluation of low-cost, high technology readiness level capabilities that could provide near term air base air defense capability,” said Jim Simonds, SDPE experiment program manager, U.S. Air Force. “This layered defense solution can provide immediate defensive capability at a fraction of the price of currently fielded systems.”

NASAMS, a highly adaptable medium-range air defense solution, is jointly developed and produced by RMD and Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.

“This experiment demonstrates NASAMS’ flexibility, providing the operator with enhanced firing alternatives to successfully execute complex threat scenarios employing a range of missiles,” said Eirik Lie, president of Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.
 
This will pop up in Kyiv soon enough

Yeah, since Ukraine has already successfully used NASAMS to shutdown Russian missiles that's a sure bet, and if they're going to send the AMRAAM-ER why not also the ESSM Block II?
 
Yeah, since Ukraine has already successfully used NASAMS to shutdown Russian missiles that's a sure bet, and if they're going to send the AMRAAM-ER why not also the ESSM Block II?

Why, though? They're very similar in capability but ESSM probably costs more thanks to the specific naval integration bits like the VLS TVC unit.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom