Why doesn't the USA build a better AMRAAM?

[TBLackey]

I'm still adjusting to the new BVR missile profiles...

AIM-120D has burn time of 10 seconds, far less than missiles such as the Meteor and the R-37.

Which begs the question...why did the vaunted USA military-industrial complex build such a crappy missile? I presume building a missile with more fuel can be done, because other nations have done so.

The only answer I can think of is the USA air-to-air combat strategy is to use stealth aircraft such as F-22 and F-35 to sneak up close from behind, then fire the AMRAAM point blank, rather than actually firing a 'BVR' missile from Beyond Visual Range. Is this correct, or am I not understanding the nuance of the situation?

[AKar]

I'd say that being a "crappy missile" is... a bit of a statement. The AMRAAM has been around since the nineties, when no similar capabilities existed at all, and is still generally considered to be highly successful and effective weapon.

Just a few points to consider.

First, the Meteor achieves its advantages by using rather different motor technology, kind of like a ram jet, instead of simply slapping more fuel into a fairly conventional boost-sustainer rocket as used in AIM-120 series. It is apparently a very capable design. But perhaps as its sales have been into what could be considered 'allied', or at least 'not-likely-enemy' countries from US point-of-view, they did not see a need procure any themselves. Note that the Meteor has only been around for less than a decade.

Second, while the R-37 does apparently use a conventional rocket motor ("more fuel"), it appears to have rather questionable probability of kill against maneuvering targets in combat. Which should not come as a surprise to anyone, as it is one massive thing of 400 kg of launch mass and is well over 4 meters in length. That alone limits its launch platforms into few very specific ones, and also limits the number of missiles carried by said launch platforms. None of which utilize internal bays, btw.

Third, the vaunted US military-industrial complex is doing precisely that, developing a more capable next generation missile, the AIM-260. At least according to Wiki, the development of the AIM-260 began just after when Meteor began to enter service. But rather little of AIM-260 is known in public.

Which brings us up to the final point: all the stats in the CMO are based on what is publicly available or, I presume, on educated guesses where no information exists. This, arguably, may give undue advantage to singular specs, whereas in reality, the missiles of similar technological generations tend to gain advantage in some parameter by compromising somewhere else. The performance of any real system in real combat depends just about as much of factors outside the brochure specs than what the supposed numbers say.

[thewood1]

They did build one...

Screenshot 2023-06-14 063809.jpg (417.01 KiB) Viewed 4629 times

Some of it is priorities and cost. There are very few Meteors built because they are very expensive.

Meteor is $3.5M
AIM-120 is $800k-900k depending on model. I think the D is just about $1M
JATM is just over $1M in high volume production, but procurement right now is around $1.3M

The JATM is using a lot of existing components from the AIM-9, AIM-120, and AIM-88 programs. In fact, its designed to use a lot of the development of the AIM-88G (ER). That has kept the cost relatively low. Whereas the Meteor is a completely new design with a new TDR engine. The Meteor's main weakness is its seeker, which seems less advanced that the JATM. The game-changer might be Japan joining Meteor development for a new seeker that will be significantly more advanced than current systems.

The short of it is that The US took an evolutionary approach of a significant incremental step, whereas the Meteor is almost evolutionary in its propulsion. Hence the 3X cost being a factor.

[TBLackey]

Thanks to both of you for replying!

Is it fair to say that, in today's world of air combat, the AIM-120D is rapidly becoming obsolete, hence the reason that this JATM is being developed?

[thewood1]

The AIM-120D is far from obsolete. Its still a top AAM by any measure. Its very dependent on mission and platform. Even after the AIM-120 was introduced, a number of loadouts existed for Sparrows and mixed loadouts. Just like PLAAF, which doesn't carry all PL-15s.

[Dimitris]

Is it fair to say that, in today's world of air combat, the AIM-120D is rapidly becoming obsolete, hence the reason that this JATM is being developed?

AIM-120D-3 says hello: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 00951.html

[thewood1]

The D-3 is a SW and electronics upgrade. Its most likely a countermeasures, counter-CM, and guidance SW upgrade. Probably won't do much for the range and flight profile. But it does show the continuing need for the AIM-120.

[Dimitris]

I'm still adjusting to the new BVR missile profiles...

AIM-120D has burn time of 10 seconds, far less than missiles such as the Meteor and the R-37.

That's not the value I see being auto-calculated in the current official release, with DB3000 v499:


On a more general note, AAM "quality" (whatever that means) is not just about nominal range or boost-burn time. The Phoenix was by far the longest-range AAM for decades and yet no-one in his right mind would describe it as the overall "best" AAM in the world.

[TBLackey]

Very strange. Is it possible I'm looking at an earlier version of AIM-120D? The scenario is from 2022, so fairly current. Will post a screenshot when I can.

[thewood1]

Its not the scenario, its the time listed in the DB. But there should only be 1 AIM-120D in the DB. I'm wondering if its an old scenario built on an old DB.

[AKar]

One more thing to consider, just one, that I forgot to mention is indeed that of the expected mission. While things such as R-37 are likely capable of being serious threat to less-maneuvering targets at very long distances, and perhaps forcing more maneuverable targets defensive as well, they do lack in comparative maneuverability, in quantity available, and probably in allowable launch parameters too when things get more up close. Out-ranging your opponent helps a little when they have easily dodged the few of your massive slugs you were carrying and are thereafter closing in, slinging at you some more nimble and accurate missiles. To me, an analogy for the R-37 is somewhat akin to an anti-materiel rifle. It simply makes no sense, unless it very specifically makes sense.

The above would not automatically discuss the Meteor, which is very impressive design on the paper. However, having not delved into it much at all, I still presume a possibility exists that its long-range capabilities are allowed by compromising in its initial acceleration and maneuverability right off-the-rail at very close ranges in comparison to AMRAAM.

[TBLackey]

Its not the scenario, its the time listed in the DB. But there should only be 1 AIM-120D in the DB. I'm wondering if its an old scenario built on an old DB.

TIL about old database versions, and how to update an author's scenario to the current version. Dmitri is correct, as he usually is.

That's a big change though - AIM-120D goes from 10 seconds to 79 seconds of aviation fuel.

[Mickeys91]

I'm curious, Russia and China both fuel their war machine with propaganda. Just as the Russia said their "hypersonic" missiles could not be intercepted, now have been by US patriot sites (with proof). Also that Russia could steam roll half of Europe if war broke out but is still bogged down in the 10% of Ukraine they captured over a year ago. China also has 0 show for their weapons.

So what sources exactly are you basing off the Americans missiles being "outdated and crappy"? I understand if you are asking a question but you seem pretty convinced this is a factual.

[SeaQueen]

Which begs the question...why did the vaunted USA military-industrial complex build such a crappy missile? I presume building a missile with more fuel can be done, because other nations have done so.

1)Don't believe everything you see in the public domain. Much about US missiles is not out there.
2) You're partially right.

It has to do with engagement timelines. You don't need a missile that's as long if the bad guy's sensors can't pick you up and guide a weapon at their weapon's range. In the world of 5th gen aircraft, you're not going to be seen until much shorter distances, especially in the forward quarter when missile kinematics are best. In that case you don't really need as long of a missile, because they can't shoot at you, and you're going to get better Pks anyhow from closing the distance. That means the name of the game is about managing distance. If you get too close, you're vulnerable. If you're too far away, then the missile won't have the energy for a good endgame Pk.

I can happily say that in the current version of CMO, I routinely shoot down the FLANKER variant of your choice without them having even seen the shooter or fired back. That's ideal. I also frequently tell my aircraft to avoid the merge. Unless it's advantageous, why would I accept a merge? That stinks. Especially in a world of off-boresight all aspect missiles. The only winning move is not to play. I don't want to get shot in the face. Even if it takes a few missiles per kill, if they're not shooting back, that's how I want to fight a war.

[TBLackey]

So what sources exactly are you basing off the Americans missiles being "outdated and crappy"? I understand if you are asking a question but you seem pretty convinced this is a factual.

Based off the CMO database a few iterations back, when the AMRAAM was indeed crappy. It seems to have been an error that has since been fixed.