Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: scott@bigbang.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: AMRAAM Message-ID: <1991Apr11.033504.4302@amd.com> Date: 10 Apr 91 10:28:59 GMT References: <1991Apr10.024102.20311@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: ucb Lines: 80 Approved: military@amd.com From: scott@bigbang.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) sdragoo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P Dragoo) writes: > Can someone explain to me why the DoD thought that designing AMRAAM was such > a great idea? > Putting it in a missile smaller than Sparrow is ridiculous. Sparrows weigh in at 500lbs a piece. Pilots can actually feel that weight on the airplane when they are maneuvering ... especially if the Sparrow is on the outer wing hardpoints where it contributes significantly to rotational intertia (degrades roll-rate) and increases drag. The cross-sectional area is especially significant when the aircraft is flying at trans-sonic speed. > If they weren't able to do it in an 8inch diameter missile, how are they > gonna do it in a 7inch diameter missile? You must certainly be aware of the fact that significant technological gains have been made since the original development of the Sparrow (something like 20 to 25 years ago)?! Why would it not be more feasible now to decrease the size of a missile using more modern technology? I realize that the military is somewhat behind current private sector technology, but still ... > Better to try to update a Sparrow, Update the Sparrow? It's already been updated. It still only has an effective range of 10nm or so. Basically, to fulfill the Amraam requirements, it needs a new seeker and a new engine. The original Sparrow is heavy, smokey, sluggish, short-ranged, inaccurate, susceptible to countermeasures, and is totally incapable of tracking targets on it's own. Really, it's a good weapon, don't get me wrong ;^) It's just that the Amraam is supposed to be a LOT better. To meet the Amraam requirements, everything would need to be redesigned. Essentially, that means we need to start from scratch. You can't just take the existing Sparrow design and "tweak" it a little to give it a terminal active homing seeker or give it a 4-fold increase in it's effective range! > or better yet, build one a little larger--say, 10inches in diameter. Bigger, therefore better? ... No way! ... I already attempted to address the weight issue. > Even better, > update the Phoenix so that you don't need the AWG-9 system, and make it > cheaper. Outrageous, the Phoenix is so heavy a Tomcat can't even land with a full load of them. How do you propose to make it cheaper by doing more work on it so it can use a variety of weaker fire-control systems? You mean, start from a $1,000,000 missile and turn it into a similarly capable $100,000 missile?! (I know, ... Amraam is up there around $700 to $900k each, but it was SUPPOSED to be $100k) Also, remember that this missile has got to be a standard ... Ideally, it is supposed to be used on just about any platform with radar (NATO included). I think there are even plans for an unmanned AWACS drone that is supposed to be able to carry 10+ Amraams. Can you imagine it with a cheapo Phoenix derivative? > They don't care if it really works, as long as it's something new and > expensive. Of course, THEY don't care (we ALWAYS do). THEY don't give a damn about effectiveness ... all THEY want to do is throw away lots of money. > Personally, I think a longer range IR seeker would do the job. I would think that the Sidewinder is already pretty sensitive. However, someone has already speculated about a terminal active IR guidance system with command updates from the launching platform. I think this is the most promissing way of improving the effective range of IR missiles. Unfortunately, this would require a significant new fire-control upgrade on a lot of existing platforms. -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu