View Single Post
Old 4th Jun 2017, 10:43
  #15 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,009
We are looking at the mid-flight cruise and terminal component of the ground based missile. The question being how much, if any, range is lost by replacing the boost motor with the kinetic energy provided by the launch aircraft height and speed.

If you half the weight by eliminating the warhead and shrinking the size of the missile, but keep the same fuel load, do you double the range over a similar missile - or does reducing the overall drag give you even more range? If I remember correctly, for every pound of primary structure saved the overall weight of an aircraft or missile can be reduced by around 10 pounds. The weight of the equivalent AIM-120 WDU-33 warhead is 50lbs, out of a total weight of 335lbs. Lots of room for additional fuel.

Of interest in the article I link to above which suggests that the smaller size of the Stunner and its lock after launch make it a match for the F-35, with 6-8 being able to be carried internally, doubling its air-to-air payload.

Last edited by ORAC; 4th Jun 2017 at 11:11.
ORAC is offline