Maybe all the missing missiles and planes are hidden in a hanger somewhere.I see, so the numbers sort of count up across a number of weapon types. I think I missed everything between about 180 and 260 though.I don't think the number means anything. Has it ever for AIMs? AIM-7, AIM-9, AIM-120, AIM-132, AIM-154.... I don't see anything correlation.
See here:
They don't just get their numbers from a Ouija board. (Though who knows today. . .)
They don't, "sort of count up", they're part of the official designation system. It's a coin flip whether they follow it anymore. The F-35 should have been F-24 (though it could be argued the Super Hornet should have been "F-24" with the F-35 being "F-25"). The "B-21" should be B-3. Interestingly enough the AGM-183A seems to follow it. The AIM-260 does not.
On the right hand of the slide, it says "Joint Air to Air Standoff Missile." On the left, it's back to the more usual (and correct) "Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile."
Well the ASALM did have a similar proposed role, except with a 200kT warhead.I suppose it might be able to hit a tanker or AWACS. A prox fuse with a 1000lb warhead would make a mess
Surely the TVC/DACT is only useful for close range.
Surely the TVC/DACT is only useful for close range.
Surely the TVC/DACT is only useful for close range.
Probably depends on the missile. If they were trying to unify to one missile there's no reason that capability couldn't be on an AIM-120 sized missile.
Yes but a medium range missile spends a lot of time post boost where TVC will only add weight.Surely the TVC/DACT is only useful for close range.
Probably depends on the missile. If they were trying to unify to one missile there's no reason that capability couldn't be on an AIM-120 sized missile.
TVC/DACT is potentially less draggy than using conventional control surfaces during certain phases e.g. boost.
The need & use of TVC depends on the physical layout.
In the AAAM (AIM-152) example, the booster had TVC mainly because it had no tailfins. It's 2nd stage also had TVC. TVS does not add that much weight as it's controlled by the same actuators as the tailfins.
How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
Would it limit altitude or ISP? One would think that if both missiles were flying at the same speed, producing the same amount of thrust, that they'd have the same altitude capability. (Even if you had to burn more solid to get there.)
Why would you need a higher angle of attack for less energetic fuel? Thrust could be the same (just not for as long).How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
Would it limit altitude or ISP? One would think that if both missiles were flying at the same speed, producing the same amount of thrust, that they'd have the same altitude capability. (Even if you had to burn more solid to get there.)
I think it's the range argument; you need to offset the higher induced drag (due to a higher required angle of attack) with either more fuel
or a more energetic fuel.
Why would you need a higher angle of attack for less energetic fuel? Thrust could be the same (just not for as long).How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
Would it limit altitude or ISP? One would think that if both missiles were flying at the same speed, producing the same amount of thrust, that they'd have the same altitude capability. (Even if you had to burn more solid to get there.)
I think it's the range argument; you need to offset the higher induced drag (due to a higher required angle of attack) with either more fuel
or a more energetic fuel.
Why would you need a higher angle of attack for less energetic fuel? Thrust could be the same (just not for as long).How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
Would it limit altitude or ISP? One would think that if both missiles were flying at the same speed, producing the same amount of thrust, that they'd have the same altitude capability. (Even if you had to burn more solid to get there.)
I think it's the range argument; you need to offset the higher induced drag (due to a higher required angle of attack) with either more fuel
or a more energetic fuel.
The higher angle-of-attack is required as the altitude increases; to offset the induced drag you need more thrust
which is coming from more fuel or a more energetic fuel.
Why would you need a higher angle of attack for less energetic fuel? Thrust could be the same (just not for as long).How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
Would it limit altitude or ISP? One would think that if both missiles were flying at the same speed, producing the same amount of thrust, that they'd have the same altitude capability. (Even if you had to burn more solid to get there.)
I think it's the range argument; you need to offset the higher induced drag (due to a higher required angle of attack) with either more fuel
or a more energetic fuel.
The higher angle-of-attack is required as the altitude increases; to offset the induced drag you need more thrust
which is coming from more fuel or a more energetic fuel.
This seems to be going 'round in circles. What, specifically, makes a solid fuel ramjet anymore altitude limited than a liquid fuel ramjet?
VFDRs have a gas generator that can adjust the flow of the incompletely combusted gas into the intakes.Why would you need a higher angle of attack for less energetic fuel? Thrust could be the same (just not for as long).How well do ramjets do at higher altitudes, ie > 50k?
Is there a way of making it's fixed inlets perform at all altitudes?
Many have operated at well above 50k. Bomarc, Talos, Typhon, X-7, ASALM, and D-21 all flew at high altitude. ASALM apparently did well at multiple altitudes. Was designed to cruise at 80,000 feet at Mach 4 but hit Mach 5.4 at 40,000 ft.
Might also be a function of those ramjets being liquid fueled; the solid fuels are much less energetic which limits altitude.
Would it limit altitude or ISP? One would think that if both missiles were flying at the same speed, producing the same amount of thrust, that they'd have the same altitude capability. (Even if you had to burn more solid to get there.)
I think it's the range argument; you need to offset the higher induced drag (due to a higher required angle of attack) with either more fuel
or a more energetic fuel.
The higher angle-of-attack is required as the altitude increases; to offset the induced drag you need more thrust
which is coming from more fuel or a more energetic fuel.
This seems to be going 'round in circles. What, specifically, makes a solid fuel ramjet anymore altitude limited than a liquid fuel ramjet?
Fundamentally, solid-fuel ramjets can't achieve the optimal fuel-to-air ratios that liquids can because the fuel flow rates
in solids are (crudely) a function of air flow rates and air stagnation temperature both of which drop off with altitude.
And the sort of metal fuel additives you typically add to solids to increase their combustion efficiency don't want to burn
at high altitudes either.
The Meteor includes an electronics and propulsion control unit (EPCU). The EPCU adjusts the rocket’s air intake and duct covers based on the cruise speed and the target’s altitude.
The EPCU observes the distance and fuel level in the rocket and adjusts the throttle of the rocket. This feature of the EPCU helps the missile to manage its fuel system.
It also claims, in supporting the choice of a solid ramjet, that there have been concerns over the combustion stability of small-diameter liquid ramjets at high-altitude flight profiles, suggesting that the BAe Sea Dart missile's Rolls- Royce Odin ramjet suffers from such a problem. Another concern it raises is with the choice of JP10 for the FMRAAM sustainer, suggesting that the corrosive properties of this fuel cause doubts about suitability for long-term storage.
Very useful picture. Always wondered what the difference between solid-fuel ramjet and a ducted rocket was.Also I should make it clear that I'm comparing solid fuel ramjets relative to liquid fuel ramjets (rows 1 and 2).
rather than liquid or solid ducted rockets.
In variable flow ducted rockets, you have far better control of fuel flow rates and can typically use whatever
additives you want in the solid fuel like boron since the gas generator
heats it up before it's combusted. That's much harder to do in a SRFJ.
We don't really know what 5th gen detection technologies will provide in terms of detection ranges, especially the AEW kind. There is also the case that it will be a long time before all fighters are 5th gen, so 5th gen fighters up front could be used to target enemy 5th gen and 4th gen at the rear with VFDR missiles could then launch on them, without being in their range, giving greater missile strike power. Enemy AEWs could also be targeted with these VFDR missiles and there is the potential for a dual-role AAM/ARM VFDR-based missile.With the onset of 5th gen aircraft, ultra long range is not only not required, but counter-productive.
The range at which a 5th gen fighter will detect another 5th gen fighter is relatively short compared to the detection of a 4th gen fighter. Time to target, seeker performance, and the ECCM capabilities are more important than having a longer range than today's AAMs (ie AIM-120D).
On top of that, VFDR missiles are more complex & expensive and cannot be packed in as tight as traditional AAMs in the internal bays of 5th gen fighters.
You might want to take out the enemy AEW from long range though, without having to go through enemy 5th gen jets first.AEW is not likely going to get you a weapon's quality lock on a 5th gen jet and neither will radar or IRST at ranges where a VFDR missile gives you an advantage over the current AIM-120D let alone what the AIM-260 ends up being. IMHO, The only place a VFDR missile has in future 5th gen warfare is as a long range AAM from guys further back, assuming that your spotters live long enough to give them updates.
As far as CUDA-type HtK AAMs go, since they do it for TBMs they should not have a problem for AAMs. The lack of engame motor thrust is more than offset by the Attitude Control Motors that supplement the fin-based maneuverability. The PAC-3 HtK missile also contains a "Lethality Enhancer" and the CUDA or other HtK AAM should be the same. Think point blank shotgun vs single penetrating bullet.
Your AAM prices are also off. The difference between the two is actually $850k+ and not the $200k you state. That gap grows to over twice the price in only two years.
The latest Brazil Meteor contract put it at $2.27 mil each.
The latest DoD budget puts the AIM-120D at $1.4 mil each (Weapons System Cost, not "bare bones").
However, the key thing to remember is that the Meteor keeps getting more expensive and the AMRAAM less. The projection for next year's batch is only $1.13 mil and $1.06 the year after.
View attachment 615860
Who knows, maybe it can make a comeback. Take a MALD, swap some fuels space for a bigger engine & inlet and reshape the wing a bit.
Who knows, maybe it can make a comeback. Take a MALD, swap some fuels space for a bigger engine & inlet and reshape the wing a bit.