Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: AMRAAMs and all that
Message-ID: <3305@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 89 05:14:58 GMT
References: <3205@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 44
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3205@cbnews.ATT.COM> attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.UU.NET writes:
>
>Ho ho.  The early Sparrow did pretty well on the test ranges too.  AMRAAM
>is basically an unmitigated disaster:  far more complex than Sparrow (and
>hence likely to be far less reliable, and definitely far more expensive),
>with range not much better than a late-model Sidewinder.
>

As with almost all new hi-tech weapons, the AMRAAM will have bugs. How
serious they are, how long it takes to correct them (if it's possible
to correct them in the first place), we won't know until it is really
used in combat. 

It was my impression that the AMRAAM could have flown much earlier,
except it was too big for anything except F-14s and F-15s. Making it
smaller, caused it to escalate in price dramatically and pushed the
whole program back some years.

>
>It continues to amaze me that nobody is able to figure out that with
>closing speeds of at least 1000 knots and often 2000+ -- equating to a
>mile every 2-3 seconds -- a beyond-visual-range AAM needs a range more
>like 100 miles than 10.  Why fire a $300,000 AMRAAM if you're going to
>get within range for a $20,000 Sidewinder anyway?  Especially when the
>Sidewinder is more reliable and more accurate.
>

I hope you are wrong about the range. I have heard a higher range
figure of about 40 miles, but of course it's not an authoritative
figure. (Standard caveats about firing envelope versus range apply
here.) 

>
>Also, note that an F-14 cannot carry six Phoenixes without being in
>"overload" condition, in which most performance specs (including, as I
>recall, carrier landings) are void.
>

I believe the maximum non "overload" configuration is 4 Phoenixes.
Ted Kim					ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department	UUCP:    ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3804C Boelter Hall			PHONE:	(213) 206-8696
Los Angeles, CA 90024			ESPnet:	tek@ouija.board