Yes/No. AIM-120C-7 is good enough. Some people here have talked about an AIM-120D version of AMRAAM in development. Personally, I'm not familiar with that version, but supposedly it would be even longer ranged than the C-7. As a practical matter, the answer is no we are not outranged by anyone in air-to-air combat. I don't know the availability of the AIM-120C-7 in the fleet, but I will assume some are out there. Technically, if matched up against each other, the MiG-31/AA-9 combo may be able to take shots that outrange an F-18E/AIM-120C-7 combo or F-15C/AIM-120C-7 combo by several miles, and I'd guess could likely outrange by many miles any other U.S. combo of fighters and earlier AMRAAM versions. There are some other Red and some Blue fighter/radar/missile combinations that can match our longest ranged pairing of fighter and AMRAAM. Realistically, going against MiG-31s is highly unlikely as about the only scenario that happens in is a U.S. airstrike against Russia, and why would we do that? The Blue systems that can roughly equal our range aren't widely proliferated yet, so that's not a very likely threat for now, either. Then for more practical reasons, even the systems out there that can match our range theoretically, are unlikely to do so due to doctrinal training reasons (air forces normally train NOT to launch at Rmax, but at some range significantly less in order to increase the Pk) and due to situational awareness reasons (rarely will our likely opponents detect, track, identify, receive permission, and launch at longer ranges than we will be able to). Also remember that active radar guided missiles (AMRAAM, AA-12) have a significant advantage over semi-active radar guided missiles (AA-10, AIM-7) in that the aircraft can drop tracking on the target and completely turn away once the missile has gone active. This can translate in a head-to-head encounter at long range into several miles of effective range as the maneuvering fighter can turn away and extend the apparent range-to-target that the enemy's semi-active radar guided missile must fly while the enemy aircraft must continue flying generally toward the active radar guided missile in order to maintain tracking on the fleeing fighter. When this "A-pole" maneuver is performed, an active radar guided missile with a 25 mile kinematic range that goes active the last 10 miles might easily "outrange" a semi-active radar guided missile with a 30 mile kinematic range. Displacedjim

Thanks that helped alot, what's the range for the AIM-120C-7

Range on C variant is, quote, 20+ miles..

Considering merely just how far can the missile go from the point it was launched is significantly dependent on launch altitude and speed. However as a practical matter, whether the missile has the energy to arrive at the targat is also significantly dependent on the target altitude, speed, and heading relative to the missile flight path. Forexample, In a head-to-head engagement, a missile launched at M0.9 and 5000ft at a co-altitude, co-speed target might be able to hit the target if initially launched from 10miles away (before loosing so much momentum it has dropped to only several hundred knots and is falling from the sky). However, when launched at M0.9 and 20,000ft at a co-altitude, co-speed target the same missile might be able to hit a target if initially launched from 18miles, and at M0.9 and 35,000ft (same target conditions) from 30miles. However, if all these initial conditions are the same, except the target is flying away instead of closing, then probably cut the launch distances in half. Similarly, if the target is above you that will increase your maximum launch distance than if co-altitude, but if the target is below you that will decrease your maximum launch distance than if co-altitude. That whole air density/drag thing really messes with the range of the missiles. Also if you and/or your target is flying faster that will somewhat increase your maximum launch distance: The above missile might gain 3 to 5 miles maximum distance at a 35,000ft co-altitude target if launched at M1.2 instead of M0.9. Now you should be able to appreciate why being able to turn away after launching an active radar missile like AMRAAM can be a significant maneuver. You've just turned his engagement geometry into a tail chase scenario, which just cut the effective range of his missile in half (roughly). Meanwhile he has to keep flying mostly toward your AMRAAM while supporting his semi-active radar missile shot against you, and so your AMRAAM has a much longer range than his. Since most shots aren't taken at maximum range, this advantage translates into the most important consideration: you missile hits him before his missile can hit you. Since his is semi-active radar guided, as soon as the radar on his jet stops working, his missile loses lock on you. Range of the missile is most important until you get within range. Once there, the more important consideration is how long does it take for your missile to hit him compared to how long it takes for his to hit you? This is when things like F-Pole/A-Pole and deceleration post-launch maneuvers come into consideration. Displacedjim

Neither the AIM-120C-7, nor the follown AIM-120D versions are in production yet...

Please see the following article from AvWeek...

Amraam C7, D Delayed 15 Months
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/25/2006, page 49

Amy Butler
Eglin AFB, Fla.

Fielding of the AIM-120 C7 and D slips, but developers expect increased performance

Printed headline: New Amraams

Officials claim that the new AIM-120 variants, once fielded, will provide significant improvement over current versions. But development of the Pentagon's new advanced air-to-air missile has slipped 15 months.

Raytheon's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam)--the AIM-120--has been the preeminent missile in its class and a cash cow for the company, with sales to at least 32 countries. It was introduced into the field more than a decade ago. Amraam is a beyond-visual-range weapon. Initial and mid-course guidance is provided by the launch aircraft, while Amraam's radar provides target acquisition and terminal guidance. Because airborne threats--aircraft and cruise missiles--continue to become more sophisticated and employ increasingly complicated countermeasures, the U.S. and its allies find themselves playing catch-up in a technological game of cat and mouse. Airborne targets also continue to have smaller radar cross sections.

Using round electronics cards, engineers opened up space on the Amraam C7 missile. That hole will be filled with a GPS/IMU unit in the D version, currently being developed.

In the meantime, China is developing the PL-12 active medium-range air-to-air missile. And Russia is working on technology for its R-77 (AA-12 Adder).

The Pentagon is continuing early production of the AIM-120C7 after some recent snags in operational testing. Forging ahead, the Air Force has already started to fund its follow-up, the AIM-120D. Officials here were limited in what they were willing to discuss about Amraam's ongoing development efforts.

The AIM-120C7 is estimated to cost about $700,000 per missile. It will use modern electronics on round--not longitudinal--cards in a hockey puck configuration, opening up space on the missile for upgrades to be added to the D-variant. The C7 also has a new, more robust and maintainable radar seeker, according to Lt. Col. Michael Schmidt, Amraam program manager here.

Schmidt says the Air Force "underestimated" the amount of time needed by Raytheon to build the first C7s. Operational testing was to be complete by March 2006, but additional time was needed to test software fixes for the missile. "We've encountered some things we didn't expect in operational testing, and we had to reshoot the missile," Schmidt says.

Baseline operational testing continues in parallel, but a fielding decision is not expected until the C7's Software Upgrade Program is fully tested.

Operational testing should wrap up next spring, with a fielding decision likely in June 2007. Already, more than 250 of the weapons have been produced and are in storage. The Air Force and Navy C7 buy was to be 900, but that number is going up--including 70 additional C7s this year--to compensate for the delay in the D's availability. None of the required fixes for the C7 have prompted officials to rescope work for the D variant.

Compared to the more substantial changes in the AIM-120D, the C7 is an incremental improvement. The 15-month delay in the C7 has spilled into the D developmental timeline. This summer, the Air Force added $25 million to Raytheon's AIM-120D contract to extend development to June 2008, while officials continue operational testing of some technical fixes to the C7.

The space opened up on the C7 by installing round electronic cards enables developers to install a GPS receiver on the D missile. By using GPS, the missile is directed more accurately toward its target from the moment its motor ignites. The constantly moving target--an aircraft or cruise missile--forces the missile to receive continual course corrections from the launch aircraft, or to self correct, and the GPS guidance unit allows more efficient use of the missile's propulsion.


"Because of the additional computing power and the GPS, we are better at putting the missile on the correct track from the beginning, which saves a lot of energy--it is efficiency," Schmidt says. "The increased battery life allows us to use the guidance section longer and take advantage of the missile's energy longer."

The D will be the first Amraam to have a conformal, one-way antenna on the missile's nose as well as an enhanced, two-way datalink at the back end. The improved communications capability, dubbed the "Enhanced Datalink," is designed to increase the probability of a kill, especially against advance