Question about weapon integration / testing on fighter aircraft. . .

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:


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)

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:

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:

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:

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
news
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
news
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:


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.