AMRAAM-ER

ESSM probably costs more thanks to the specific naval integration bits like the VLS TVC unit.

I'm not sure it would cost significantly more and as for the VLS TVC component those are driven by the same servos that move the tail-control fins and are jettisoned after the missile pitches over. If the ESSM isn't launched vertically it doesn't have the TVC unit installed.
 
I'm not sure it would cost significantly more and as for the VLS TVC component those are driven by the same servos that move the tail-control fins and are jettisoned after the missile pitches over. If the ESSM isn't launched vertically it doesn't have the TVC unit installed.
I went back and realized we have hashed out the differences before.


Basically, there's nothing in ESSM Blk 2 that would make it desirable for use in NASAMS compared to just more AMRAAM-ER. The extra elements are all basically about backwards- or cross-compatibility for naval applications.
 
I wonder if we'll see the ARAAM-ER being air-launched? That would a long range and large no escape zone.
 
I wonder if we'll see the ARAAM-ER being air-launched? That would a long range and large no escape zone.
Raytheon has considered it, but it seems unlikely, since it takes up a lot more bay space than standard AMRAAM (1 per side in the F-35A, for example). And USAF also has JATM/AIM-260 that fits inside the same box as an AIM-120.

 
Raytheon has considered it, but it seems unlikely, since it takes up a lot more bay space than standard AMRAAM

There might be countries outside of the USA which would go for it (Since the AIM-260 is unlikely to be available for export for years for example).
 
Wouldn't be an Peregine / Cuda AAM mounted on a ESSM make the perfect "AMRAAM / ESSM ER"? Yes smaller seeker and warhead but from a weight and size point of view possible to do. Longer range would be possible to achieve If the ESSM as booster give "normal" aircraft launch conditions (height and speed) so it can get to the 180km but even 120km would be more than enough (for me atleast)
 
There might be countries outside of the USA which would go for it (Since the AIM-260 is unlikely to be available for export for years for example).
You're talking about a 620lb, 10" diameter weapon. 280kg, 254mm diameter. Won't fit into any of the conformal carriage slots on F15 or F18, I don't think.
 
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.
There are still a good number of ESSMs built without that unit. All the carrier units, for example, and I believe the various gator-freighter LPH/LHA/etc all still have the Mk29 Sea Sparrow launchers instead of VLS units.
 
There are still a good number of ESSMs built without that unit. All the carrier units, for example, and I believe the various gator-freighter LPH/LHA/etc all still have the Mk29 Sea Sparrow launchers instead of VLS units.

Do they use a seperate variant missile though? I thought there was just the 1 stockpile of ESSM Blk.1
 
Do they use a seperate variant missile though? I thought there was just the 1 stockpile of ESSM Blk.1

If I understand your question correctly concerning the JVC unit used to vector the ESSM after launch from a Mk-41 cell, well the unit is jettison able. As soon as the missile has pitched over to the direction of its' target the JVC unit is jettisoned while the ESSMs fired from launchers such as the Mk-29 don't have the JVC attached to the missile.
 
There are still a good number of ESSMs built without that unit. All the carrier units, for example, and I believe the various gator-freighter LPH/LHA/etc all still have the Mk29 Sea Sparrow launchers instead of VLS units.

Even setting aside the JVC, ESSM has other specialized features like the dual-band data links.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom