F-16.net

Northrop-Grumman, ATK and Lockheed-Martin forms JDRADM team to develop a missile that replaces both the AMRAAM and the HARM/AARGM. Presumably, L-M will be the lead, ATK for propulsion with its advanced rocket motors and N-G with its AESA sensors.

Given historical practices of having two teams bid on major missile contracts, my guess is that there will be a second team. Baring any overlaps, which is highly unlikely, the likely team formed from the remaining entities within the US aerospace industry with the right focus ought to be Boeing, Aerojet and Raytheon. Boeing having been the JDRADM technology maturation contract recipent and purveyor of sensor integrated fusing as lead, Aejoet being the only vendor for VFDR motors in the US for propulsion and Raytheon -- the second AESA fighter radar vendor -- for sensors.

Looks like this is shaping up to be quite a contest...

N-G, ATK, L-M -- probably advanced rocket based

vs

Boeing, Aerojet, Raytheon. -- probably VFDR based

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/atk-lockheed-martin-northrop-grumman/story.aspx?guid=%7B8F285E92-2170-4AEB-90E9-87BB8AAB8092%7D&dist=hppr

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Dwight, what is your opinion on alternative seekers, such as IIR for example, for such air-dominance ranged missiles? Or will active radar seekers be better? Thanks for any input.

geogen wrote:

Dwight, what is your opinion on alternative seekers, such as IIR for example, for such air-dominance ranged missiles? Or will active radar seekers be better? Thanks for any input.

The US is definitely trending towards multi-band sensors. The question is whether they will go with Radar + IIR or Radar + Radar.

Radar + IR provides the best terminal countermeasures resistance -- good luck trying to spoof a double lock with an x-band radar and a imaging IR seeker. The IR seeker also provides image grade resolution for terminal guidance precision. However, the IR seeker difficult to integrate with a radar seeker given that it typically needs a spherical window in the nose of the missile smack right in the middle of the LOS of a radar seeker. This is even tougher given that this missile probably also needs a broadband passive RF receiver to accomplish its HARM mission. The IR seeker can be moved to the side of the missile with a periscoping window (ala SM2-MR Block IIIB) but this will mean that the IIR seeker is not gimballed and will not be high off bore sight). No matter how you cut it, a radar + IR missile is harder to make happen and will probably have a small aerodynamics disadvantage.

Radar + Radar will use a lower band seeker (eg L-band or C-band) for superior acquisition range given the same radiated power, in conjunction with a millimeter wave seeker (Ka band) for terminal target imaging and precise guidance. It is a lot easier to integrate two AESA antennas (at the wave form level) behind the typical spitzer oglive nose of the missile.

A IIR + AESA would be the best option.

A gimbled IIR head would be placed in the center position several inched in front of the radar.

The radar would be AESA and be doughnut shaped transceiver and could steer around the IIR seeker.

One other thought though.... as an AMRAAM replacement, it is by definition, not a dogfighting missile thereby negating the need for high off-bore seekers.

Dwight,

I wonder if it were possible to make a transparent thin film transistor(TFT) that was both the window for the IIR seeker and Tx/Rx for the AESA. Or if the nose was shaped more like a hollow point with the IIR window protruding out a bit and the AESA being a curved conformal array.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... G_1382.jpg

See the area between the yellow band sloping toward the transparency? Make that into a conformal array and have the transparency protrude out just a bit more.

-DA

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1012 Status: Offline

I know I've posted this at least once. Check out the front end, and that was nearly 20 years ago. I imagine they've made an advancement or two since then. Sadly, this would have even fit the internal bays of the F-22.

AESA should be able to act as passive RF receiver as well, so that shouldn't be a problem. The German ARMIGER project featured a dual seeker head with IIR and passive RF.
Shouldn't be such a great deal as HOBS isn't required. The donut solution suggested before is interesting as well.

Really, a very interesting concept when you think about..........talk about thinking out of the box. One missile could change from a AA or AG Mission at a flix of a switch!

PAckaging is always an issue with Radar + IR. The JCM and now JAGM has a tri-mode seeker -- Millimeter wave radar + IIR + Semi-active laser. But this has a Hellfire style spherical nose and a full diameter window. The SM-2 Block IIIB has a fixed IIR seeker on the side of the missile body. The old AAAM concept from Westinghouse uses a spherical nose covered by a jettisonable pointed fairing which is ejected prior to terminal homing. Unfortunately, there is no convenient solution for IIR + Radar.

Sorry if I'm the guy posting here with absolutely no clue as to what I'm talking about, but I love to learn and appreciate the various insights. Perhaps my gut is next wondering (as someone else suggested) why not write off the need for HOBS IIR seeker in an Intercept missile then, and just attach to side.

Or perhaps.. why do US AIM-120 replacement missiles have to be only one type seeker? Couldn't an A model be radar + radar, fired in conjunction with a B model 'pure IIR' with maybe only mid-course data-link update guidance to area? Maybe that would be a simplified and less expensive means to combining the strengths of multiple seeker modes? Thanks...

geogen wrote:

Sorry if I'm the guy posting here with absolutely no clue as to what I'm talking about, but I love to learn and appreciate the various insights. Perhaps my gut is next wondering (as someone else suggested) why not write off the need for HOBS IIR seeker in an Intercept missile then, and just attach to side.

Or perhaps.. why do US AIM-120 replacement missiles have to be only one type seeker? Couldn't an A model be radar + radar, fired in conjunction with a B model 'pure IIR' with maybe only mid-course data-link update guidance to area? Maybe that would be a simplified and less expensive means to combining the strengths of multiple seeker modes? Thanks...

A BVR IR missile has been tried by the Russians and the French. In general they don't work very well. Acquisition baskets is a lot worse than with an active seeker. Also, when used in a fire and forget mode at longer ranges, the lack of distance information from the seeker leads to lousy and inefficient intercept maneuvers. Also, unless you are resigned to firing two missiles at every target you tend to have to make a load out choice. Having two types in the inventory is more trouble than its worth.

All in all, a fixed (forward staring) IR seeker might not be bad for a BVR missile. A MMW active seeker for terminal image recognition homing paired with a long range active radar seeker operating at a lower frequency isn't bad either.

Anyone want to start the JDRADM IOC date pool?

2025, if they're lucky.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1012 Status: Offline

LowObservable wrote:

Anyone want to start the JDRADM IOC date pool?

2025, if they're lucky.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's actually quite pathetic how long it takes to get anything done these days. It's almost like they sit around having meetings trying to figure out how to waste as much time and money as possible. Mad

sferrin wrote:

LowObservable wrote:

Anyone want to start the JDRADM IOC date pool?

2025, if they're lucky.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's actually quite pathetic how long it takes to get anything done these days. It's almost like they sit around having meetings trying to figure out how to waste as much time and money as possible. Mad

Perhaps a joint-venture with the Swedes then? Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1012 Status: Offline

geogen wrote:

sferrin wrote:

LowObservable wrote:

Anyone want to start the JDRADM IOC date pool?

2025, if they're lucky.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's actually quite pathetic how long it takes to get anything done these days. It's almost like they sit around having meetings trying to figure out how to waste as much time and money as possible. Mad

Perhaps a joint-venture with the Swedes then? Wink

Why would we want to do that? Question

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Alliances formed for Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile