Best Air to Air missiles?

Because it has come up recently and repeatedly that Russia has the most advanced and longest range AAMs, I wish to challenge that with a discussion of it.
The US has had some pretty impressive weapons, including nuclear air to air Genie and Falcon, which are now retired. The AIM-54C had incredable speed and range, longest range AAM, and probably fastest, which we are led to believe the US seems to have surrendered all advantages of with its retirement. Why would the US do so without a replacement in service, and when will the AIM-120 long range (ramjet?) version become operational? Assuming of course that it isn't already operational behind the "Classified" door.
And is the range of the AIM-120 is only 50 km? That doesn't sound right.
The basic AIM-120 design was described with a range of 30 to 40 miles, and that was the first version introduced. Successive models have claimed "motor improvements", and range improvements without stating any numbers which leads me to believe that it is somewhat longer range than the original . The missile has (somewhere I read) a speed of Mach 4.5, or according to other sources Mach 4 plus. The ADDER AA-12 has greater advertised range, and is a somewhat larger missile physically, and about the same advertised speed. I can't help to think that the 'lattice" control surfaces would not cause significant drag, even if it does probably give the missile impressive maneuverablility, but that has got to hurt the range.
So the question is why would the US surrender a superior weapon capability and adapt an inferior ranged weapon, all while seeking the "first shot"? The short answer is that they wouldn't. That doesn't seem consistent or logical given the weapons capabilities of the past and priorities of the present. I personally think we are not being told anything close to the Slammer's capabilities.

America relies too much on stealth and they expect their aircraft's spoofing will be good enough...

the Russian lead with missiles such as the R-27 (A-10 Alamo) and the R-77 (A-12 Adder), if the US doesn't wake up and design some major BVRAAMs, they will have a serious disadvantage on their hands...

The AIM-54 isn't great, it only has a 60% hit probability and they cost a fortune, the Navy retired them...

The Russians had Nuclear AAMs too in the past...

the US and Russia had nuclear EVERYTHING back in the cold war...even man-launched nukes...it was nuts...

Ground,

Using stealth is the very BEST way to reduce the threat of missiles in the present. With missile tech developing as fast as it is, AND being significantly cheaper than matching aircraft, its a forgone conclusion that anything targetted by a high end air to air today is going to get hit. So, if thats equel for both sides, wouldnt it be prudent to develope tech that reduces the chances of getting targeted? Stealth tech isnt to confuse an already fired missile, its designed to avoid getting targeted in the first place.

So, in my opinion stealth is the only way. From and air to air perspective that is. If you cant see me and I can see you, im going to win 100% every time. No matter how amazing your missile is.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
America relies too much on stealth and they expect their aircraft's spoofing will be good enough...

That is debatable. Both a Sukhoi and an F-15 could duke it out like they are now but if we where to fight a better opponent then the F-15 would start showing the need for stealth. Also, what is wrong with us using technology we developed?

the Russian lead with missiles such as the R-27 (A-10 Alamo) and the R-77 (A-12 Adder), if the US doesn't wake up and design some major BVRAAMs, they will have a serious disadvantage on their hands...

This statement is too true. We are developing improved AIM-120s and are partially going to rely on the F/A-22s high maintainable speeds to give the SLAMMER ~%50 greater range. We are getting development breakthroughs in the field of lasers. We will see what happens�

The AIM-54 isn't great, it only has a 60% hit probability and they cost a fortune, the Navy retired them...

Was it even a 60% kill ratio? The AIM-54 should have had a big fragmentation warhead or have been nuclear tipped.

the US and Russia had nuclear EVERYTHING back in the cold war...even man-launched nukes...it was nuts...

Hahah! I wonder how the manpad nuke could work out if ever used?!



In the end it looks like the Russian counterparts have a slight advantage but the newest SLAMMERs true collors have yet to be seen...

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
America relies too much on stealth and they expect their aircraft's spoofing will be good enough...

the Russian lead with missiles such as the R-27 (A-10 Alamo) and the R-77 (A-12 Adder), if the US doesn't wake up and design some major BVRAAMs, they will have a serious disadvantage on their hands...

The AIM-54 isn't great, it only has a 60% hit probability and they cost a fortune, the Navy retired them...

The Russians had Nuclear AAMs too in the past...

the US and Russia had nuclear EVERYTHING back in the cold war...even man-launched nukes...it was nuts...

I'm sure Russia has good AAMs but to say that the US only relies on stealth is so wrong. As you can see
here

This missile is similar to the A-11 Archer, they saw that their Sidewinders were inferior to the A-11 and they had to improve upon their AIM-9's...

This missile is mainly for existing NATO aircraft rather than the F/A-22 which will rely heavilly on MRAAMs...

Is it true that the US is considdering using the ASRAAM as well?

Anyway, Russia is well underway, if not already there to be able to succesfully detect stealth aircraft....the next big thing will be visual stealth...

the US definitly leads in technology, but I think it's a shame they don't develop a new BVRAAM like the AIM-54...

the AIM-54 has a 60% hit probability because it's not a very manauverable missile IIRC, and the enemy can detect it as soon as it's in range and deploy counter measures...

Originally posted by ChrisRT

the US and Russia had nuclear EVERYTHING back in the cold war...even man-launched nukes...it was nuts...

Hahah! I wonder how the manpad nuke could work out if ever used?!

The US man launched nuke was the Davy Crockett they also had Atomic Demolition Munitions. The Davy was about four times as powerful as the bomb which destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Both did make a nuclear version of just about everything torpedos,mines,artillery shells you name it they likely tried to put a nuke in it.



www.brook.edu...

The new long range AIM-120C7 will come out in a few years. It will have a range of 120km-150km. It with the F/A-18 E/F with AESA radar shoul dprove to be a good replacement for the F-14/AIM-54C combo. You also have to remeber that the F-35 will be entering the Navy with the capacity to carry 6 AIM-120 missiles.

Originally posted by jetsetter
The new long range AIM-120C7 will come out in a few years. It will have a range of 120km-150km. It with the F/A-18 E/F with AESA radar shoul dprove to be a good replacement for the F-14/AIM-54C combo. You also have to remeber that the F-35 will be entering the Navy with the capacity to carry 6 AIM-120 missiles.

It's the AIM-120C-8, also known as the AIM-120D.

And zero, if anyone thinks russian built AAM's are superior to US built ones, then you are telling yourself a horrible, horrible lie.

The R-77 Adder is untested, and the R-27 Alamos has only a 5% kill ratio (20 missiles filed, 1 hit), and all the R-73 varaiants (R-73AE, R-73E) have only hit fleeing (non-maneuvering) targets.

You are wrong

The AIM-120C-7 (P3I Phase 3), development of which has begun in 1998, incorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range. The latter feature was specifically requested by the U.S. Navy to get a (somewhat) suitable replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile, which was then planned to be retired together with the F-14D Tomcat around 2007 (actual official retirement was already in Spetember 2004). The AIM-120C-7 was successfully tested against combat-realistic targets in August and September 2003, and IOC was then planned for 2004. Equivalent to the -120A/B, there are also CATM-120C and JAIM-120C non-tactical variants of the AIM-120C.
From www.designation-systems.net...

Originally posted by jetsetter
You are wrong

The AIM-120C-7 (P3I Phase 3), development of which has begun in 1998, incorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range. The latter feature was specifically requested by the U.S. Navy to get a (somewhat) suitable replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile, which was then planned to be retired together with the F-14D Tomcat around 2007 (actual official retirement was already in Spetember 2004). The AIM-120C-7 was successfully tested against combat-realistic targets in August and September 2003, and IOC was then planned for 2004. Equivalent to the -120A/B, there are also CATM-120C and JAIM-120C non-tactical variants of the AIM-120C.
From www.designation-systems.net...

From the same site:

The designation AIM-120D refers to a projected version of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation, an expanded no-escape envelope and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and current plans call for an IOC on the F/A-18E/F in FY2008.

www.janes.com...

-=GrOuNd_ZeRo=- wrote:
Hey Maestro! good to see you again...

Maestro, about the Kh-31, is this info true?
www.softwar.net...

A Boeing Engineer claimed the same, but I don't buy this...16 miles is pathatic...
.

This is his response:

It is the range of Kh-31 that being sold to US

This guy does his homework, I have tried to proof him wrong many times but with no avail, he is from Indonesia and eerie enough, he predicted 9/11 1 day before it happened...he is a good guy though.

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Was it even a 60% kill ratio? The AIM-54 should have had a big fragmentation warhead or have been nuclear tipped.

It does have a fragmentation warhead.

The Phoenix is fitted with a 132 lb annular blast fragmentation warhead and can be fitted with a impact fuse, proximity fuse, or a IR fuse.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
the AIM-54 has a 60% hit probability because it's not a very manauverable missile IIRC, and the enemy can detect it as soon as it's in range and deploy counter measures...

Wrong, the AIM-54C had a better fusing system which allowed it to take down manuevering targets ie supersonic anti-ship missiles.


As for jamming or countermeasures:

In 1977, development of the significantly improved AIM-54C began. The AIM-54C features completely new digital WGU-11/B guidance and WCU-7/B control sections. The missile incorporates a programmable digital signal processor, and the autopilot now uses a strap-down inertial navigation system. One very important feature of the AIM-54C is its vastly improved ECCM capability. Improvements in the rocket motor increase speed and range, and the new DSU-28/B target detection device improves fuzing accuracy in high-clutter environments and for small and low-altitude targets.

First of all, you don't have to be so rude and immediatly say: Wrong...

That's f@$&ing harsh man...

Cruise missiles are not very manauverable targets, they are essentially like fast UAVs and is less of a challenge to shoot down than aircraft banking away and deploying counter measures...common sense.

Speed is not much of an issue if they fly in straight lines which cruise missiles often do, they head toward their target heading and from there fly in a straight line, perhaps occasionally avoiding terrain...

But the AIM-54C is phased out now for a good reason...

Get real, not even America makes the perfect weapon...

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Get real, not even America makes the perfect weapon...

\

We soon may

www.globalsecurity.org...

turning radius better than an AIM-9 with a range greater than an Aim-120, sounds great to me!

Yeah, but it's only short range, still impressive though...

The missile looks like BAe's ASRAAM...curious...

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
First of all, you don't have to be so rude and immediatly say: Wrong...

Well, you were.

That's f@$&ing harsh man...

To each his own.

Cruise missiles are not very manauverable targets, they are essentially like fast UAVs and is less of a challenge to shoot down than aircraft banking away and deploying counter measures...common sense.

You base that on what????

You are aware that cruise missles employ both nap of the earth flying and ECM in order to arrive at their target, right? They also present a significantly smaller RCS than an aircraft (unless the aircraft is stealthy). Those factors combined make for difficult interceptions.

Speed is not much of an issue if they fly in straight lines which cruise missiles often do, they head toward their target heading and from there fly in a straight line, perhaps occasionally avoiding terrain...

The first generation ones did. Todays cruise missiles employ random maneuvering and terminal manuevers in order to defeat attempts to shoot them down.

But the AIM-54C is phased out now for a good reason...

Yeah, the only platform that can shoot it is being phased out. What is the point of having a missile that none of your aircraft can use?

Get real, not even America makes the perfect weapon...

I never claimed we did, though we are working on them.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
First of all, you don't have to be so rude and immediatly say: Wrong...

Well, you were.
Well, you could have been more considderate, I know I am only a stranger to you but I am sensitive to what others say to me, I try my best to get to know the truth, I do admit when someone is right, but I do defend my views.

That's f@$&ing harsh man...

To each his own.

Maybe so

Cruise missiles are not very manauverable targets, they are essentially like fast UAVs and is less of a challenge to shoot down than aircraft banking away and deploying counter measures...common sense.

You base that on what????

Common sense

You are aware that cruise missles employ both nap of the earth flying and ECM in order to arrive at their target, right? They also present a significantly smaller RCS than an aircraft (unless the aircraft is stealthy). Those factors combined make for difficult interceptions.

Currently, the only widely fielded and dedicated land attack CM is the Tomahawk, what other CM's was the AIM-54C ever proven on? was it ever proven to work? or does it work jsut as great as the PAC-3?

Speed is not much of an issue if they fly in straight lines which cruise missiles often do, they head toward their target heading and from there fly in a straight line, perhaps occasionally avoiding terrain...

The first generation ones did. Todays cruise missiles employ random maneuvering and terminal manuevers in order to defeat attempts to shoot them down.

and you claim the AIM-54 can hit that? it's based on 1950's technology...

But the AIM-54C is phased out now for a good reason...

Yeah, the only platform that can shoot it is being phased out. What is the point of having a missile that none of your aircraft can use?

Other than that, they are too expensive and they DO only hit 60% of the time

why is it that every time anyone criticises American technology they get mass-bashed? why is Russian tech alway based?

next thing you guys are gonna say is that a AN-94 can't hit a target from 50 yards!

Get real, not even America makes the perfect weapon...

I never claimed we did, though we are working on them.

Maybe so, but you still make it sound like you guys are better than Russia, this is not true, both have their strengths, Russia's strength is missiles.

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567


From the same site:

The designation AIM-120D refers to a projected version of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation, an expanded no-escape envelope and a 50% increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and current plans call for an IOC on the F/A-18E/F in FY2008.

www.janes.com...

You said AIM-120C8