Forum: Technology

This Secretprojects link has a lot of info an pictures on the AIM-152 GD Proposal.

It clearly shows (on page 2) that the launch tubes were to be carried on wing stations (triple launcher shown below).

They would simply bolt the tube to the launch rail and the tube would remain after launch.

Even on legacy AC, we would be able to carry more Smile

.

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Very interesting, thank you for the link. Smile

That would solve the carriage on legacy aircraft indeed.

They could also make a VLO external pod for like 3-4 missiles. The pod could be dropped with the pylon once emtpy.

For the side bays, I checked as carefully as I could from many pictures, and it seems that the side bay is in fact about 11' long, not 10.

Continuing on what I said in my previous post, the side bay would have to be stretched by 1'-1.5' to carry 4 SDBs. Maybe it would be possible to modify the existing fleet I don't know. There would be no need for JDRARM-LITE.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

tank_top wrote:

Off topic a bit, but could you attach a HARM seeker to a SDB? Could really help open a freeway for legacy planes following F-22's. Have a pre-programmed secondary target and have one F-22 "drop" 4-6 at 70k feet within 80-100 miles of suspected radar sites. Have SDB's fly to vicinity. But perhaps the real AF has better tactics then me.

That could be a good idea, but I'm not sure the seeker would fit in the SDB. The SDB is a 7'' weapons vs 10 for the HARM.

Wouldn't you be better off using an SDB-II or SMACM?

The SDB II will be capable of detecting and classifying targets with its tri-mode seeker. The SMACM is likely to be even better because it is powered and has a significant loiter time. The SDB II and SMACM are designed to be ejectable from the BRU-61.

Against high value radars the F-22s/F-35s will have the JDRARM anti-radar capability with a much faster reaction time than an SDB.

(Imagine an F-22 with stretched side bays.. 2 JDRARMs in one side bay plus 4 SDB-II in the other side bay, plus 4 SMACMs and 8 SDB Is in the main bays.. )

Gates will most likely cancel further F-22s.... so I think any F-22B w/stretched side bays is a non-starter.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Yeah it's probably not possible to modify the aircraft, but maybe they could make a slightly shorter SDB with maybe a less pointy nose.

Wouldn't it be possible to do something like that for the missile.. the main missile half recessed inside the booster. That would enable to have a much bigger booster, and at the same time the attachement points for the rail would be on the booster.

There would be 2 types of boosters, one for the JDRARM, one for the JDRARM-LITE. The JDRARM-LITE booster would have much more propellant.

The COG would not be exactly aligned with the exhaust and would move slightly as the propellant gets used, but if the exhaust is a thrust vectoring nozzle it could compensate for that.

The missile would be heavier, but they could use the JDRARM-LITE if it's too heavy for some stations, like on F-16's wingtip stations..

BTW it would even be possible to make an longer booster, like 1' longer because:
- the F-22 main bay is 13' long. Now the missiles are staggered because of the wings/fins, but with foldable wings they wouldn't have to be staggered. However, the missiles on the sides have to be shorter because of the design of the bay, but if there are 2 rows of missiles it should be fine for the second row. The first row would have 2 normal JDRARMs in the sides and 1 13' JDRARM in the middle. The second row would have 2 13' JDRARMs.
- for the F-35, I am not sure that the rotaty station could carry a 13' JDRARM, but the a/g stations certainly could. With a special rack for the main station, it could even carry like 3 13' JDRARM.

That's the advantage of the booster.. they can use the basic missile, and mount the booster they want on it depending on the situation.

One main question you have to ask is.... why?

The GD AIM-52 AAAM proposal was a 200+ km missile 25+ years ago. Combine that with smaller advanced guidance systems, better rocket fuels, and a combined seeker & fuse and you get a 300+ km missile.

What threat will the F-22 be facing in the foreseeable future that needs more than a 300+ km standoff range?

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Why not hit to kill vehicles with these boosters?

Mmh.. I don't know if they're a good choice against aircraft or small targets like cruise missiles.

The booster could carry several KKV in tandem. each KKV could attack a different target. The KKVs would have no rocket and would be manoeuvered with fins and lateral fuses.

The KKVs could have a very good speed for say less than 200km so the duration of the flight would be shorter.They would be less lethal at very long range but still.

With maybe a ABM capability.

For anti-radar attacks the missile would have a shorter reaction time.

On this page:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kew-htk.htm

it says:

Quote:

A kinetic kill vehicle is a lightweight vehicle weighing 40 to 300 pounds.

Quote:

Further, and perhaps more significantly, there is an ongoing effort to demonstrate the feasibility of a further reduction in the size and weight of KKVs by at least one order of magnitude. These devices are envisioned as being on the order of 4-10 pounds in weight. A significant reduction in the weight of each KKV would significantly reduce the cost of placing these devices in orbit. To achieve mission objectives, that is, to provide guidance for the KKV to the above-noted degree of accuracy, with a ring laser gyro, would be somewhat problematic. The current state of the art in ring laser gyro fabrication is such that it does not appear to be possible presently to fabricate IMUs small enough to permit the desired reduction in size and weight.

Looks like KKVs are becoming smaller and smaller.

It could look like that..

I came across the JDRADM Dev Timeline on page 4 of this MAy 2009 budget doc

Just to review:

MR ROKM is the warhead tech
SITES is the seeker
DRADM-T is propulsion and airframe tech

I picked this off a Boeing Farnborough 08 Presentation, on page 4.

Since it is a new missile, I think that it is Boeing's plan for JDRADM.

Just dug this up RE: JDRADM from
http://crai.com/uploadedFiles/RELATING_ ... ograms.pdf

Quote:

SDD award ~2015
LRIP award ~2020

SpudmanWP wrote:

Just dug this up RE: JDRADM from
http://crai.com/uploadedFiles/RELATING_ ... ograms.pdf

Quote:

SDD award ~2015
LRIP award ~2020

Should be in service well before the shambles that is the Meteor missile then.

(yes, i'm well aware Metoer is meant to be ready by 2015 but it ain't gonna happen, the things more delayed and badly managed than the PAK-FA, which is really saying something

hehe... personally., I think the US should accelerate the dev of the JDRADM. That would be the one "stimulous" project I would get behind.

SpudmanWP wrote:

hehe... personally., I think the US should accelerate the dev of the JDRADM. That would be the one "stimulous" project I would get behind.

Sounds like a damned good idea! Certainly better than alot of the nonsense I hear the Messiah and gang have got your money going on.

deleted

I was looking around for any new JDRADM info and I came across Boeing's JDRADM backgrounder document.

http://www.boeing.com/bds/mediakit/2010/afa/pdf/bkgd_jdradm_%200210.pdf

Not much new here until I zoomed into the picture. It is there that I noticed a small TVC jet exiting from the side of the motor.

Forum: Technology

Perfect JDRADM Missile