AIM-120 AMRAAM

[Jschmus]

In Dale Brown's books, they refer to the AIM-120 as Scorpion, but I don't think the Air Force ever got 'round to naming it, which is a shame.

Edit: I just looked at the "official" pages on the Navy and Air Force sites, and both list the missile as "AIM-120 AMRAAM".  However, several independent sites name it the "Slammer".  I don't know if this is a pilot nickname or what.  Given that they are starting to deploy the Harpoon-derived SLAM-ER, I would think that this would be a source of confusion.

[Jschmus]

Are there different versions of the AIM-120 AMRAAM?  I've looked on several sites online, and all of them seem to indicate that all of the variants look alike.  Yet, I found a photo of an F-16 on airliners.net, with two different-looking missiles on each wingtip.

Right wing



Left wing


See?  The fins are different.  What's the reason?

[dy031101]

The one on the right is an earlier model AIM-120A/B; the one on the left is an AIM-120C, designed with compact carriage within the weapons bays of the F-22 and F-35 in mind, hence the clipped wings and fins.

[tinlail]

There is a surface launched version of the AMRAAM creatively designated SL-AMRAAM which might also be referred to a slammer in some places.

[rickshaw]

I wonder, would it be worthwhile fitting a booster to the AIM-120 so that it could gain that extra range?  It'd be a cheaper alternative to creating a new missile or retaining the aged 1960s technology of the AIM-54.

[Shasper]

I read an article some time back that Raytheon was looking at a gel-motor powered 120, that would give it some reach . . . 'course we could always go the Meteor route.

[elmayerle]

I wonder, would it be worthwhile fitting a booster to the AIM-120 so that it could gain that extra range?  It'd be a cheaper alternative to creating a new missile or retaining the aged 1960s technology of the AIM-54.

It's too bad Hughes competitor to Vought's LVRJ testbed wasn't pursued, it was the same idea, but applied to a Phoenix airframe.  With upgraded/replaced avionics and this engine, it would've given new meaning to the old long distance phone service theme, "Reach out, reach out and touch some one".

[Devil_505]

I wonder, would it be worthwhile fitting a booster to the AIM-120 so that it could gain that extra range?  It'd be a cheaper alternative to creating a new missile or retaining the aged 1960s technology of the AIM-54.

The AIM-120D is to have a longer range than the Phoenix.  Otherwise, you could wait and see how the Dual Role Air Dominance Missile project progresses.

[elmayerle]

Shasper,

I read an article some time back that Raytheon was looking at a gel-motor powered 120, that would give it some reach . . . 'course we could always go the Meteor route.

How much extra range would you guess would have been added by using a gel-fuel?  How much more efficient would this gel be over regular fuel?

Well, if gel -fuel allowed you to do away with certain aspects of casting solid-fuel motors, I could see a 10-20% increase in range as quite reasonable, perhaps more.

[DarrenP]

was wondering if any other countries than Norway have gone down the line of the surface to air AMRAAM?

[Just call me Ray]

There is a surface launched version of the AMRAAM creatively designated SL-AMRAAM which might also be referred to a slammer in some places.

"Slammer" is sometimes used as a nickname for the AMRAAM in general. Whether or not this is applied in error I do not know, but I have to admit it's less cumbersome for newbies at least.

[rickshaw]

was wondering if any other countries than Norway have gone down the line of the surface to air AMRAAM?

Yes.  The US has.  They have since 11 September several batteries guarding Washington DC at last report.  I've seen pictures of them located around the city.  Apparently they move them fairly frequently.  They are mounted on the rear of Hummers.

[GTX]

Officially, Raytheon still refer to it as AMRAAM, though I too have heard Slammer used.  See here for probably the best overview.  Re the USA's ground based versions (as opposed to the Norwegian NASAMS system), I know they were trialled by both the US Army and USMC bu I didn't believe any entered service.  I believe Australia has also looked at the systems under Project Land 19.

Regards,

Greg

[Talos]

Re the USA's ground based versions (as opposed to the Norwegian NASAMS system), I know they were trialled by both the US Army and USMC bu I didn't believe any entered service.  

This got me curious as to the current status of the program, so I looked it up in the print copy of US Army Weapon Systems 2010, an annual publication put out by the US Army detailed current programs, that I got in my office (I work for another US Army procurement and development program as a civilian USAAC worker.)

Anyway, SLAMRAAM is listed as the following for the Army.

PROGRAM STATUS
• 2QFY09: Long lead decision
• 2QFY09: Begin developmental
testing/limited user testing

PROJECTED ACTIVITIES
• 1QFY10: Completion of
developmental testing/limited user
testing
• 1QFY10: Milestone C decision for
low-rate initial production
• 1QFY10: Low-rate initial production
• 1QFY11: Begin initial operational
test and evaluation (IOTE)
• 2QFY11 Complete IOTE

[rickshaw]

Officially, Raytheon still refer to it as AMRAAM, though I too have heard Slammer used.  See here for probably the best overview.  Re the USA's ground based versions (as opposed to the Norwegian NASAMS system), I know they were trialled by both the US Army and USMC bu I didn't believe any entered service.  I believe Australia has also looked at the systems under Project Land 19.

Regards,

Greg

Until we get a real threat developing, it will largely remain out there in long-lead-time land.