Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

ww - no, ESSM is not the highly effective/maneuverable close-in Sparrow, ok? It's an entirely different 10" booster with low-drag skid-to-turn (and initial TVC for WVR, or over-the-shoulder) airframe - rated @ 50-60 max G - enabling superior range + AESA-capable mid-course updating built-in. And whichever enhancement the AMRAAM D has built-in, software wise, to better exploit lofting, one could conjecture such a similar capability on the overall farther ranged ESSM missile. imho. (should have been in dev for a couple yrs by now imho, and IOC in at least one variant by 2015-2016 as a high-end complement). Respects-

F-16.net Sponsor

SCUDs shot down by Aegis?

http://blog.usni.org/2011/08/31/unique- ... -conflict/

geogen wrote:

ww - no, ESSM is not the highly effective/maneuverable close-in Sparrow, ok? It's an entirely different 10" booster with low-drag skid-to-turn (and initial TVC for WVR, or over-the-shoulder) airframe - rated @ 50-60 max G - enabling superior range + AESA-capable mid-course updating built-in. And whichever enhancement the AMRAAM D has built-in, software wise, to better exploit lofting, one could conjecture such a similar capability on the overall farther ranged ESSM missile. imho. (should have been in dev for a couple yrs by now imho, and IOC in at least one variant by 2015-2016 as a high-end complement). Respects-

The point is that the booster may provide good initial acceleration, as the ESSM is designed to defend against fast moving incoming targets, but..... for a long range AAM, you want a sustainer type motor. This means that an off the shelf ESSM, in the AAM role wouldn't necessarily offer a range advantage of a purpose built design. You'd also have to change the guidance system on the ESSM, so that the launching fighter could maneuver after launch. Another thing to factor is that smaller, lighter missiles have less adverse effect on the host aircraft's performance, and carrying capacity. What you're talking about is basically a brand new missile using the ESSM shell. The D+ AMRAAM will have a new motor for even greater capability. You're still offering an answer in search of a problem. The D/D+ won't be outmatched, before the JDRADM comes online.

Thanks for your reply WW- but I'd argue you're actually making some pretty chunky assumptions yourself (probably some which defense planners/intel analysts wouldn't assume(?)) in that the 'D' line of missile which itself is delayed in development and apparently not being procured in FY12 due to backlog, will have no superior or equal counter-parts (in the air combat and air intercept arena) until 2020 or so.. (assuming JDRADM is reliable, effective and affordable).

And... as for when an hypothetical air-launched, SCUD-launch-intercepting-capable ESSM-derivative could become mature and delivered, of course there would be a need for modifying the actual RIM-162. Hence, the mere argument would be that AIM-162 would be mature (in an initial single seeker variant, (e.g. with NCADE's IIR seeker, or AMRAAM RF), Before JDRADM and at a cheaper development cost and possibly cheaper unit cost).

To your points about effectiveness of AIM-162x launched from say, a Super Hornet, F-15E, or F-15 Golden Eagle e.g., and intercepting a SCUD or supersonic cm... It would be a high-end munition no doubt, so perhaps 2X Aim-162 + 2X AMRAAM loadout. Compare to a JSOW loadout vs JDAM, if you wish, depending on the strategic requirement, whathaveyou. One might furthermore point to Israeli comments that the AIM-120D will not be good enough for them.

Some other possibly relevant technical points:

RIM-162 apparently has about 2.5x the range as RIM-7 sea sparrow and about 2x the range of SLAMRAAM.
AIM-7 is quoted having an operational range out to 30nm.
Raytheon is apparently marketing SL-AMRAAM-ER, which would have range similar to ESSM RIM-162.
AIM-7 and RIM-7 apparently use the same rocket motor?
True, an air launched AIM-162 might require a modified MK 143 motor Mod - quite possible.
If they (raytheon) can derive RIM-7 and SLAMRAAM/ER variants in rapid fashion, I'm sure they culd do it with AIM-162.
The same would apply to an air-launched RIM-174 derivative enabling serious anti-Scud launch/cm intercept capability.

It could in theory be an interim to both NCADE and JDRADM and even a poor man's alternative in case budgets get real tight or other technical issues arrive during other said systems' developments. imho.

edit: I realize this topic is probaby merging into the technology or air power forums. I'll make any further specific essm related reply in PM.

For all we know the pilot actually shot down the scud's fuel tank while the warhead went on it's merry way, completely unaffected by the intercepting missiles.
Just like the Scuds that were "shot down" by the Patriot missiles back during DS.

grinner, any theoretical future 'intercept' achieved by a tactical platform would probably best be conducted in the boost phase. Unless they configured future F-15s (in the case of USAF employment) to carry a modified air-launched SM-3 or even -6 ERAM variant, etc for more of a mid-course intercept which could be feasible.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Can this be true.. (NATO aircraft shoots down a SCUD!)