Re: AIM-9X




"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
2011."


SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
-9Ms.

Would have to do a little research on this one, but I'll start with a
guess...

The interface with the aircraft may have changed from a 'vanilla' missile
umbilical to the more advanced 1760 interface (such as used with AIM-120).
The internal aircraft wiring associated with the 'smart' interface may have
not been accounted for in the initial design (the short-range missile bays
were dedicated to the AIM-9). That said, I'd be surprised that the "Group
A" provisions (wiring) was not included as a 'hedge' against down the road
changes such as this one...

Another aspect to all of this could be the associated software code for
proper interface between aircraft and missile and calculation/display of
in/out of missile engagement zone for the missile.

Since I saw the post thought I'd offer up some possibilities, subject to
major correction of course by someone who knows something for sure....

Cheers

Mark


"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Re: AIM-9X
>
>
>
>
> "Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
> requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
> until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
> 2011."
>
>
> SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
> -9Ms.

"Mark" > wrote in message
. com...
> Would have to do a little research on this one, but I'll start with a
> guess...
>
> The interface with the aircraft may have changed from a 'vanilla' missile
> umbilical to the more advanced 1760 interface (such as used with AIM-120).
> The internal aircraft wiring associated with the 'smart' interface may
have
> not been accounted for in the initial design (the short-range missile bays
> were dedicated to the AIM-9). That said, I'd be surprised that the "Group
> A" provisions (wiring) was not included as a 'hedge' against down the road
> changes such as this one...
>
> Another aspect to all of this could be the associated software code for
> proper interface between aircraft and missile and calculation/display of
> in/out of missile engagement zone for the missile.
>
> Since I saw the post thought I'd offer up some possibilities, subject to
> major correction of course by someone who knows something for sure....

It all reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where the conductor walks
down the aisle calling, "Willoughby, next stop Willoughby ...".


> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Re: AIM-9X
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
> > requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
> > until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
> > 2011."
> >
> >
> > SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
> > -9Ms.
>
>

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>
>Re: AIM-9X
>
>
>
>
>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
>2011."
>
>
>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
>-9Ms.

AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:33:30 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Re: AIM-9X
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
>>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
>>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
>>2011."
>>
>>
>>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
>>-9Ms.
>
>AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.


Yeah, I understand all that but seven years? Doesn't that seem a tad
excessive?






>
>Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
>USAF Flight Tester
>(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:28:47 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Mark" > wrote in message
. com...
>> Would have to do a little research on this one, but I'll start with a
>> guess...
>>
>> The interface with the aircraft may have changed from a 'vanilla' missile
>> umbilical to the more advanced 1760 interface (such as used with AIM-120).
>> The internal aircraft wiring associated with the 'smart' interface may
>have
>> not been accounted for in the initial design (the short-range missile bays
>> were dedicated to the AIM-9). That said, I'd be surprised that the "Group
>> A" provisions (wiring) was not included as a 'hedge' against down the road
>> changes such as this one...
>>
>> Another aspect to all of this could be the associated software code for
>> proper interface between aircraft and missile and calculation/display of
>> in/out of missile engagement zone for the missile.
>>
>> Since I saw the post thought I'd offer up some possibilities, subject to
>> major correction of course by someone who knows something for sure....
>
>It all reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where the conductor walks
>down the aisle calling, "Willoughby, next stop Willoughby ...".


I imagine you're quite familiar with that.

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:33:30 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Re: AIM-9X
> >>
> >>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
> >>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
> >>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
> >>2011."
> >>
> >>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
> >>-9Ms.
> >
> >AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.
>
> Yeah, I understand all that but seven years? Doesn't that seem a tad
> excessive?

Due to the smaller fin size of the -9X, the F-22 should be able to carry
two per side, instead of the one per side with the previous Sidewinders.
Which means they're going to have to redesign the outside missile bays
to *carry* two of them along with the hardware and software controls for
the bays and missiles (two ejectors per side instead of one, or a double
rack on a single ejector).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:20:41 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:33:30 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Re: AIM-9X
>> >>
>> >>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
>> >>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
>> >>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
>> >>2011."
>> >>
>> >>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
>> >>-9Ms.
>> >
>> >AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.
>>
>> Yeah, I understand all that but seven years? Doesn't that seem a tad
>> excessive?
>
>Due to the smaller fin size of the -9X, the F-22 should be able to carry
>two per side, instead of the one per side with the previous Sidewinders.
>Which means they're going to have to redesign the outside missile bays
>to *carry* two of them along with the hardware and software controls for
>the bays and missiles (two ejectors per side instead of one, or a double
>rack on a single ejector).


Are you just speculating or is that in fact what they are going to do?
I've posed the question here several times about the 2 -9X fit thing
but all it ever was was speculation.

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:20:41 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Scott Ferrin > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:33:30 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Re: AIM-9X
> >> >>
> >> >>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
> >> >>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
> >> >>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
> >> >>2011."
> >> >>
> >> >>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
> >> >>-9Ms.
> >> >
> >> >AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I understand all that but seven years? Doesn't that seem a tad
> >> excessive?
> >
> >Due to the smaller fin size of the -9X, the F-22 should be able to carry
> >two per side, instead of the one per side with the previous Sidewinders.
> >Which means they're going to have to redesign the outside missile bays
> >to *carry* two of them along with the hardware and software controls for
> >the bays and missiles (two ejectors per side instead of one, or a double
> >rack on a single ejector).
>
> Are you just speculating or is that in fact what they are going to do?
> I've posed the question here several times about the 2 -9X fit thing
> but all it ever was was speculation.

I've read on several sites that that was the idea with the -9X.

If not, then there's no particular reason for it to take much longer
than qualifying it with the current model Sidewinder, since they use the
same rails and connections.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:33:30 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
> >>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
> >>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
> >>2011."
> >>
> >>
> >>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
> >>-9Ms.
> >
> >AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.
>
>
> Yeah, I understand all that but seven years? Doesn't that seem a tad
> excessive?

I suspect that represents a fair amount of time before budgeting
any time or money to the effort. The base capability of the F-22
vs all-comers should be suitably impressive for the next decade
to allow the delay.

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 19:33:30 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:23:33 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Re: AIM-9X
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Integration of the missile on the Lockheed Martin F/A-22, which
> >>requires internal carriage of the missile, has been delayed at least
> >>until the spiral three (developmental) stage of the program around
> >>2011."
> >>
> >>
> >>SEVEN Y-E-A-R-S???? What's the holdup? They've already fired guided
> >>-9Ms.
> >
> >AIM-9X is a whole new animal with it's High off boresight capability.
>
>
> Yeah, I understand all that but seven years? Doesn't that seem a tad
> excessive?

It may just be a priority issue. Currently, air to mud is more important
that air to air in terms of threats and missions. The off-axis AAMs are here
now but AIM-120 is thought to meet most requirements and we don't currently
have an opponent with both the aircraft and weapons to stress that solution.
China may be a position to do so in 8-10 years but not now. Russia has the
technology and may recover economically in 10-15 years but not now.