avon1944

I will stand by my point, that when pilot Mike Dozer fired his first Slammer he was ten miles away from the MiG-29. Now I don't know exactly what the "Rtr Range" of the Slammer but, ten miles away against a head-on aspect target, should be a high percentage shot.
A high percentage shot does not mean 100% certainty the target will be killed.

The last production run authorized by Congress, the price quotes was $45M apiece.

I would like to see the price of the F-35 series "if", the program had not benefited so much from R&D of the F-22 program?

Adrian

JA Boomer

Quoted recently by your SecDef as $77 mil per airframe. Keep in mind he said at the same time that the F-22A was $140 mil per airframe, which is, shall we say...debatable?

Shuttlecat

Well, they are both meant for different roles, so this poll isn't really worth it.

GGTharos

I don't recall if it was a head-on shot, but it was likely not an Rtr shot. Rtr for the AMRAAM is about 8nm head-on at a low/medium altitude, and likely quite a bit more at higher altitudes. There's certainly the possibility that a missile will suffer a mechanical or electronic failure and miss, or the pilot will complete a fairly good and violent evasion maneuver, but after that the follow up will get him.

Edit: Ah, I just went back to read more because I really did forget what this was all about
The AMRAAM has much better 'use as intended' qualities ... some missiles are chaff/flare eaters, the AMRAAM isn't. Some weapons have poor look-down performance. The point is that you can use the AMRAAM 'as intended' in many more situations than you can do with other weapons. This is why overall it is a better weapon. It knows how to retain its energy better, it knows how to hold a lock on its target better, and all that good stuff. The slammer is a very high-pk missile 'all around'. It's in a class all of its own right now when it comes to AAMs.