Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Aim-260 is supposed to have the same form factor as AIM-120.
Where did you see that?
Traveling for Easter and on a cell phone but I’ll look it up when I get home. My understanding was that AIM-260 is limited to AIM-120 dimensions to be compatible with internal carriage and launchers in the F-22/35 fleets.
Maybe in length but not necessarily 7" circular cross section?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,821
Reaction score
1,700
That would make sense, commonality tends to drive many updates. I wonder how long it will take to delete this post seeing as I am not an aviation weapons tech, must be irrelevant.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
440
Reaction score
296
Aim-260 is supposed to have the same form factor as AIM-120.
Where did you see that?
Traveling for Easter and on a cell phone but I’ll look it up when I get home. My understanding was that AIM-260 is limited to AIM-120 dimensions to be compatible with internal carriage and launchers in the F-22/35 fleets.
I should hope so, or they are wasting money on a missile for barely 200 f15s
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Aim-260 is supposed to have the same form factor as AIM-120.
Where did you see that?
Traveling for Easter and on a cell phone but I’ll look it up when I get home. My understanding was that AIM-260 is limited to AIM-120 dimensions to be compatible with internal carriage and launchers in the F-22/35 fleets.
I should hope so, or they are wasting money on a missile for barely 200 f15s
The US has over 400 Eagles as well as MANY F-16s, F/A-18s. And both the F-22 and F-35 can carry weapons externally.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
I can't find anything from the USAF explicitly stating the dimension requirements, but a few different quotes from sources from people who indicate it is sized for internal carriage. Here's one:

“We’ll have to continue to make sure our weapons evolve like the platforms do,” he said. “We need weapons that can fit inside the weapons bays of our fifth-gen platforms, the F-22 and the F-35, and then we need weapons that can survive against those future threats and make it all the way to their target.” The AIM-260 JATM is one of those, he said."


I take this to mean it can use existing bays and launchers in F-22/35, however the exact shape and dimensions may differ. In particular most open sources theorize it will be wider than AIM-120 to carry more fuel. Presumably a clipped fin arrangement will be retained.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
I take this to mean it can use existing bays and launchers in F-22/35, however the exact shape and dimensions may differ. In particular most open sources theorize it will be wider than AIM-120 to carry more fuel. Presumably a clipped fin arrangement will be retained.

I agree. If you adopted something like ESSM's configuration of long strakes combined with no, or folding tailfins, you could fit a significantly wider missile in the box of an AIM-120C/D.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
366
Reaction score
505
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
In terms of fitting into the box of an AIM-120C/D, the only limitation may be the door/hinge-mounted inboard station on the F-35. I'm not sure if something the diameter of the ESSM would fit into that station. Similarly, I'm not sure if the Sidekick adapters would work for a missile with a larger diameter than the AMRAAM.

Strictly in terms of air-to-air missile capacity, I think the F-22's bays allow for more flexibility and magazine depth than the F-35's.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Hard to imagine that SLAMRAAM-ER would be so sensitive as to require separate storage bunkers. I think there has to be something interesting about the shape or configuration.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Hard to imagine that SLAMRAAM-ER would be so sensitive as to require separate storage bunkers. I think there has to be something interesting about the shape or configuration.
I wonder if the requirement is driven by internal or external characteristics. If the latter I wonder if we'd ever see it carried externally.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
I wonder if SLAMRAAM-ER is "AIM-260"

View attachment 677073


I'd still prefer a 2nd-stage:

View attachment 677074

I'd like to think that the new missile isn't just a warmed over AIM-120. I think there is a lot of room for improvement compared to the state of the art. Isn't the PL-15 AESA guided? Also if they are sticking to a rocket vice ramjet I hope they at least use a dual pulse. I feel those two things would be the bare minimum for increased no escape/range and increased lethality. Multi mode seeker or more exotic propulsion preferred.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
Hard to imagine that SLAMRAAM-ER would be so sensitive as to require separate storage bunkers. I think there has to be something interesting about the shape or configuration.
I wonder if the requirement is driven by internal or external characteristics. If the latter I wonder if we'd ever see it carried externally.

I wonder if it is an issue of security or if storage of the new missile actually has new physical safety requirements.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Hard to imagine that SLAMRAAM-ER would be so sensitive as to require separate storage bunkers. I think there has to be something interesting about the shape or configuration.
I wonder if the requirement is driven by internal or external characteristics. If the latter I wonder if we'd ever see it carried externally.

I wonder if it is an issue of security or if storage of the new missile actually has new physical safety requirements.

The justification reads:

Because of the classified nature of this program, AIM 260A JATM assets cannot be housed in shared facilities with legacy munitions; and must be supported by a facility designed to meet specific operational requirements, and the stricter Special Access Program Facility security requirements.

So, it's a SAP, and that suggests the issue is security-, not safety-, related. It seems to be sight-sensitive, implying the shape or appearance alone would reveal something important.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
I am so not used to the USAF being secretive again...
Given the horse is not only out of the barn but through the glue factory, I don't know what good it's going to do now. Better than nothing I suppose. Now if we can get contractors to do the same.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
366
Reaction score
505
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu

Auto GCAS has saved 11 F-16 pilots and in 2020 saved an F-22 pilot who became spatially disoriented. Two other possible saves in 2016 and 2021. Better late than never, and I can think of two other mishaps, Edwards in 2009 and Alaska in 2010 when this could have saved the pilots.

I do find it odd that the auto GCAS implementation in the F-22 is more static and simplistic than in the F-16 and F-35. Integrated avionics, perhaps?
 
Last edited:

BDF

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
203
Reaction score
134

Some interesting developments for the Raptor. Including a new external tank design that will seemingly enable full LO signature once punched off. Apparently the current tank + pylons are somewhat compromised in this regard.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,281
Reaction score
470

Some interesting developments for the Raptor. Including a new external tank design that will seemingly enable full LO signature once punched off. Apparently the current tank + pylons are somewhat compromised in this regard.

The low drag tank and pylon have been in development for a long time, and (off the top of my head) began flight tests in 2017.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430

Some interesting developments for the Raptor. Including a new external tank design that will seemingly enable full LO signature once punched off. Apparently the current tank + pylons are somewhat compromised in this regard.
Hmm Wonder if you can use that for missiles as well.

Perferable in a Have Dash stealthy A2A design to reduce the ON signature.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
5,472
Reaction score
5,219
Wouldn't "Baby Raptor" refers to a smaller flying article? (I am thinking at that patch with a raptor imprint inside a similar shape, inside an other vehicle ). Wouldn't it be logical to imagine a Baby Raptor squadron backed by a Raptor one, just like A-7 did with the F-117? Wouldn't that explain the sudden phasing-out of the 33?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Wouldn't "Baby Raptor" refers to a smaller flying article? (I am thinking at that patch with a raptor imprint inside a similar shape, inside an other vehicle ). Wouldn't it be logical to imagine a Baby Raptor squadron backed by a Raptor one, just like A-7 did with the F-117? Wouldn't that explain the sudden phasing-out of the 33?

It's more likely just someone talking about the evolution of the Raptor from its early days (Baby Raptor) to the current state.

It is also the single weirdest paragraph I've ever read in a finished budget document, ever. It was clearly written with the expectation that someone else in the process would edit it back out. I mean, I've included snide remarks and in-jokes in some of my own draft products too, just to see if the reviewers are really reading what I write. But I always make a note to go back and out of no one else flags them first.
 

Dreamfighter

'Senior Something'
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
268
Reaction score
136
Wouldn't "Baby Raptor" refers to a smaller flying article? (I am thinking at that patch with a raptor imprint inside a similar shape, inside an other vehicle ). Wouldn't it be logical to imagine a Baby Raptor squadron backed by a Raptor one, just like A-7 did with the F-117? Wouldn't that explain the sudden phasing-out of the 33?

It's more likely just someone talking about the evolution of the Raptor from its early days (Baby Raptor) to the current state.

It is also the single weirdest paragraph I've ever read in a finished budget document, ever. It was clearly written with the expectation that someone else in the process would edit it back out. I mean, I've included snide remarks and in-jokes in some of my own draft products too, just to see if the reviewers are really reading what I write. But I always make a note to go back and out of no one else flags them first.

Hmm... quite bizar. I´m tending to agree with TomcatViP: 'Baby Raptor' is written like a name one would (un)officially give to an aircraft, like e.g. 'Strike Eagle' or 'Super Hornet' or 'Viper', and the phrase is referring to the F-22´s design, development, service life career and sustainment, not just to it´s infancy days... I´m now thinking... maybe there is some kind of black, small FB-22 'Mommy Raptor' squadron around after all?? But maybe it just implies there is a novel and bigger (NGAD) platform around (the corner)...
(Otherwise I would rather regard the KF-21 as being the 'Baby Raptor', even if it was born a whole while after the F-22.)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
However strangely it's written, the line "since it began flying 25 years ago" is clearly a reference to the original, full-size F-22.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
440
Reaction score
296
Aim-260 is supposed to have the same form factor as AIM-120.
Where did you see that?
Traveling for Easter and on a cell phone but I’ll look it up when I get home. My understanding was that AIM-260 is limited to AIM-120 dimensions to be compatible with internal carriage and launchers in the F-22/35 fleets.there'
I should hope so, or they are wasting money on a missile for barely 200 f15s
The US has over 400 Eagles as well as MANY F-16s, F/A-18s. And both the F-22 and F-35 can carry weapons externally.
The strike eagle pilots barely train for A2A and the remaining eagles aren't fit for the boneyard. There's about 170 eagles that actually train for A2A. What's the point of developing a missile for 170 Eagles whose lifespan is one incident at like the longeron issue from permanent grounding... What's the point of hanging missiles on stealth aircraft. The 16 is not suited for anything bigger than amraam without penalties on fight performance and range. there's no point in developing a missile that to use it you have to give to negate the billions and billions spent to field stealth and the billions yet to be spent by the usaf and Navy. They're not going to develop a amraam successor that negates the weapons bays of 2000 f35s yet to be built. Hell they're still improving on the 22s LO and they're doing that to hang missiles under the wings to ruin its stealth, speed and range? i don't buy it. I would imagine that 260 will have a dual mode seeker and will eliminate the warhead and be hit to kill with thrust vectoring in the final moments before impact and have all the same mounting footprint and hardware as amraam to make the transition as cheap as possible
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
The strike eagle pilots barely train for A2A and the remaining eagles aren't fit for the boneyard.

How much A2A training do you need to do to be a missile truck? As for the remaining Eagles are you saying they're grounded? No? Then they need better missiles don't they?

There's about 170 eagles that actually train for A2A. What's the point of developing a missile for 170 Eagles whose lifespan is one incident at like the longeron issue from permanent grounding.

To reiterrate: "The US has over 400 Eagles as well as MANY F-16s, F/A-18s. And both the F-22 and F-35 can carry weapons externally."

What's the point of hanging missiles on stealth aircraft.

I'm sorry, what? Is your claim that neither the F-22 or F-35 is setup for external carriage of AAMs?

The 16 is not suited for anything bigger than amraam without penalties on fight performance and range.

How does it manage to carry 2,000lb bombs?

there's no point in developing a missile that to use it you have to give to negate the billions and billions spent to field stealth and the billions yet to be spent by the usaf and Navy.

You mean like the AIM-9X?

They're not going to develop a amraam successor that negates the weapons bays of 2000 f35s yet to be built.

Show me an F-35 carrying the AIM-9X internally.

Hell they're still improving on the 22s LO and they're doing that to hang missiles under the wings to ruin its stealth, speed and range? i don't buy it.

rap1-F-22-with-external-weapons-pylons.jpg
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
Folks, do keep in mind that the Extended Range AMRAAM (AMRAAM + ESSM) is claimed to fit inside the F-35A's weapons bays. If they can have an AL version of the AMRAAM ER then it also becomes an option on the 80 F-15EX's the USAF plans to field and will fit well into their concept of operations, making them quite useful beyond the homeland defense role.

AIM-260 is the successor to the AIM-120 and as such will first find its way into the bay of the F-22. It will likely share similar dimensions to the AMRAAM but just have better kinematics, and resistance to counter measures (and likely improved LO target performance)

 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Folks, do keep in mind that the Extended Range AMRAAM (AMRAAM + ESSM) is claimed to fit inside the F-35A's weapons bays. If they can have an AL version of the AMRAAM ER then it also becomes an option on the 80 F-15EX's the USAF plans to field and will fit well into their concept of operations, making them quite useful beyond the homeland defense role.

AIM-260 is the successor to the AIM-120 and as such will first find its way into the bay of the F-22. It will likely share similar dimensions to the AMRAAM but just have better kinematics, and resistance to counter measures (and likely improved LO target performance)

"AMRAAM-ER is about 16in (40.6cm) longer than the 12ft (3.7m) conventional AMRAAM, Steve Dickman, Raytheon’s senior director for air dominance, said on 19 May."

Interesting. I'd have though they'd have done like ESSM and kept the same length.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Folks, do keep in mind that the Extended Range AMRAAM (AMRAAM + ESSM) is claimed to fit inside the F-35A's weapons bays. If they can have an AL version of the AMRAAM ER then it also becomes an option on the 80 F-15EX's the USAF plans to field and will fit well into their concept of operations, making them quite useful beyond the homeland defense role.

AIM-260 is the successor to the AIM-120 and as such will first find its way into the bay of the F-22. It will likely share similar dimensions to the AMRAAM but just have better kinematics, and resistance to counter measures (and likely improved LO target performance)

"AMRAAM-ER is about 16in (40.6cm) longer than the 12ft (3.7m) conventional AMRAAM, Steve Dickman, Raytheon’s senior director for air dominance, said on 19 May."

Interesting. I'd have though they'd have done like ESSM and kept the same length.

Probably this is just what happens when you do a minimum-change combination of AMRAAM front end plus ESSM back end. Aircraft compatibility seems to have been secondary -- remember that AMRAAM-ER was developed first and foremost for surface launch.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
I think it is worth keeping in mind that the AIM-260 is only one of a couple (several?) of programs underway currently. Isn't the Long Range Engagement Weapon still active? I believe that will be the external, oversized weapon used for *very* long ranges, with AIM-260 being a more incremental improvement over the AIM-120D in range. I'm expecting dual pulse motor and hit to kill (or at least reduced size warhead) for more range, along with a dual band seeker.

In the far flung future I highly suspect HACM will be given an A2A mode against large slow aircraft (tankers, AEW, etc) the same way ASALM was intended to have this capability; the range and short flight time would make it a natural fit against that target set.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
There are no other known A2A programs that are slated to enter production besides the JATM. Rest are all S&T or concept development efforts whereas JATM is a full fledged program which will eventually replace the AMRAAM in terms of AF and Navy annual acquisition by the early 2030s .
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
There are no other known A2A programs that are slated to enter production besides the JATM. Rest are all S&T or concept development efforts whereas JATM is a full fledged program which will eventually replace the AMRAAM in terms of AF and Navy annual acquisition by the early 2030s .
LREW is a research/demonstration effort then?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
1,243
LREW doesn’t appear to be much beyond just a study given how little was marked to be spent on it. Beyond buying AMRAAMs through the early 2030s and transitioning the JATM into production in the coming years there does not appear to be any other missile that will make it to production this decade. Some in the media are hearing that JATM is in a bit of a mess at the moment but that hasn’t yet moved to something they are confident enough on to publish (yet).
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Looks like the USAF is actively pursuing sensor pods and low observable external fuel tanks. That said, I’m a bit disappointed if they’re not pursuing an internal sensor fairing.

Also, that missile isn't AMRAAM. JATM?
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,281
Reaction score
470

Some interesting developments for the Raptor. Including a new external tank design that will seemingly enable full LO signature once punched off. Apparently the current tank + pylons are somewhat compromised in this regard.

The low drag tank and pylon have been in development for a long time, and (off the top of my head) began flight tests in 2017.

 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
545
Reaction score
327
Interesting fuel tanks, I've been wondering why it hasn't been done already.
It seems to me the most logical thing to do, so I've been building something like it for my models ----
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Looks like the USAF is actively pursuing sensor pods and low observable external fuel tanks. That said, I’m a bit disappointed if they’re not pursuing an internal sensor fairing.

Fuel tanks or weapon pods?
 

Similar threads

Top