F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 61 Status: Offline

Hello - greeting! this fewbie just has an odd question to ask here:

AviationWeekly recently reported that the tactics USAF is developing for F-22A Raptor are electronic attack capability and anti-cruise missile tactics.

What would it take for a fighter aircraft (a 4th-5th generation one, i imagine) to successfully tract and knock out a flight of incoming cruise missiles? With the proliferation of cruise missiles worldwide, this seems like a possible scenario in foreseeable future, or doesn't it? this newbie posted this Q in a F-35 thread b/c i kind of hope JSF will eventually possess such capability, rather than just the few but capable Raptors alone. Thanks in advance for any input. Cheer~

F-16.net Sponsor

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

F-22 with super cruise has a better chance at doing this against sub sonics however any super sonic cruise may be a problem. An example given by the head of the Super Hornet program who is an ex F-14 guy (important as F-14 was fleet defense, Phoenix missile and all) said that if the intercept was 10 points off of either side of your nose, you weren't going to intercept them. So F-22 might have a slight advantage with some super cruise and when super cruising at high altitude the energy can throw an AMRAAM 50% further than anyone else. F-22 and Super Hornet Block II (both AESA) claim excellent ability to pick up cruise missile sized targets on their radar. JSF AESA and upgraded F-15s with AESA should be good too.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 61 Status: Offline

Can non-supercruising fighters like Saab JAS39 equipped with AESA/NORA and high kinetic/agility missiles like AIM-120D/Meteor/AIM-9X/IRIS-T and good data-link system also likely to get the job done? Provided that they didn’t have JHMCS/AIM9/AIM120 back then, can other modified & data-linked legacy fighters today do it? Perhaps we don’t need to fire at the cruise missiles head-on with Mach N closure rate, but rather from their 3/9 o’clock or even from behind (speaking purely in speculation rather than from experience) and let the missiles finish the chase? thanks man

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 14, 2006 Posts: 505

@ 1min 37 sec, at an air show in this fighter shot a missile (target drone) then shot it down with a sidewinder. Wink

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JdigmXo5qhk

The range and aspect is not that impressive unless you consider it was year 1959

ELP posted the video in this thread
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9142.html

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 80 Status: Offline

Beagle79 wrote:

Can non-supercruising fighters like Saab JAS39 equipped with AESA/NORA and high kinetic/agility missiles like AIM-120D/Meteor/AIM-9X/IRIS-T and good data-link system also likely to get the job done? Provided that they didn’t have JHMCS/AIM9/AIM120 back then, can other modified & data-linked legacy fighters today do it? Perhaps we don’t need to fire at the cruise missiles head-on with Mach N closure rate, but rather from their 3/9 o’clock or even from behind (speaking purely in speculation rather than from experience) and let the missiles finish the chase? thanks man

Any modernish fighter can shoot down a cruise missile, the question is how well it can achieve this goal. The whole scenario is reliant upon the interceptors radar capability, the range of the AAM, the interceptors top speed and altitude, not counting the kinematics of the ASM/SSM . All of these things are important because they dictate the kinematics of the AAM when the intercept occurs. The reason the F22 is going to be so good in this scenario is because it fly's so damn high, so damn fast, and has the APG 77 which (when it evolves to the same state as the APG 79) will be the most capable fighter sized radar ever to be put into an interceptor, and will be able to detect stealthy cruise missiles at very long ranges in high clutter environments. Basically it can see further, get to launch points faster, has longer ranged missiles due to its speed and altitude.

Can a grippen perform this role with a decent BVRAAM? Sure. The problem of its small radar aperture can be offset by networking with off-board sensors such as an AEW&C platform. However due to line of sight limitations, the interceptors radar capability will still be vital, even when working in a highly networked battle-space, so this may hurt Grippen somewhat. As far as the F35, the APG 81 is an excellent radar system and it will allow a JSF to detect cruise missiles at long range's. But its top speed and altitude ceiling are in the ballpark (AFAIK i'm pretty sure that stuff is classified) of legacy platforms so its not apt to be as good a performer as the F22 in the interceptor role, especially against super-sonic cruise missiles.

As far as the actual intercept of the SSM/ASM by the AMRAAM, head on aspect will always have the highest chance of success. Trying to intercept a supersonic target on its 3 O'Clock is always going to have the least chance of sucsess, simply because on the kinematics evolved. The AMRAAM is going to have to bleed off energy trying to stay on an intercept track. From a head on aspect the AMRAAM has the most energy to play with so its allways the preferable intercept vector. You dont have to get within sight of the missile to kill it, the point is to detect the missile, and then get to the most advantageous launch position in order to give your BVRAAM the best chance (kenimatically) of killing the target. So you would never lauch a missile at a SSM with a heading 90 degree's off yours unless you had to. launching at the missiles '6 may have a better chance, however this dramatically reduces your maximum lauch range because you have to lauch with the No Escape Volume. Anyway i cant think of any realistic scenario were a fighter was trying to intercept a cruise missle from its '6.

Annother interesting possibility for moders AESA equiped fighters (APG 79, '77, & '81) may be able to utilise an electronic attack to dissable the missile at significant ranges. This has plenty of advantages over an AAM, infinate magazine (within reason) and only limited by range and LOS, i.e. no energy problems. Anyways hope i was of some help.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Good point on the electronic attack. Welcome to the forum Ozzy Blizzard !.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 14, 2006 Posts: 505

The subject was already kind of discussed
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 803#109803

JHPSSL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9JZSjsgWm0
Possibly might be incorporated into a future version of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) F-35
Joint High Power Solid-State Laser (JHPSSL) Program Northrop Grumman

Designed to accelerate solid-state laser technology for military uses, the JHPSSL program is funded by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, Ala; Office of the Secretary of Defense - Joint Technology Office, Albuquerque; Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.; and the Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Va.

Under the current phase (Phase 3), the program's goal is for a laser system to reach 100 kW, setting the stage for a variety of force protection and strike missions such as shipboard defense against cruise missiles; wide-area, ground-based defense against rockets, artillery, and mortars; and precision strike missions for airborne platforms.

Northrop Grumman surpassed a critical milestone on the JHPSSL 2 program when it demonstrated a laser system with a total power of greater than 27 kW with a run time of 350 seconds.

Northrop Grumman's approach utilizes amplifier chains assembled with multiple high-power gain modules. The company's JHPSSL demonstrator used two chains to demonstrate the 27 kW level achieved during Phase 2. Avoiding the need for new physics or scaling, the company's 100 kW architecture uses eight chains, very similar to those used in its 27 kW device.

JHPSSL Phase 1 addressed risk reduction of the technologies necessary to obtain high power and beam quality simultaneously. Phase 2 took these technologies and scaled them to greater than 25 kW, and showed further scalability to 100 kW and beyond.

JHPSSL
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capab ... hpssl.html

Other possible versions
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capab ... asers.html

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 80 Status: Offline

Thats kind of a long shot at the minet. Anyway you would need a whole new version f the F35 to house the system, a CTOL F35B, and i dont see that happening for a long time if ever. Anyway this sort of thing would be more usefull for presision strike and self defence against AAM's, not cruise missiles on the deck 100nm's out. Missiles are still the weapon of choice for an intercept mission.

@elp..

Thanks for the greeting. Havent seen you arround DT in a while??? Very Happy

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 61 Status: Offline

Thanks all for the contributions. Allow me recap a bit: the following elements are important (in theory, at least) to increase an air group’s chance of intercepting a flight of cruise missiles:

* good radar apparatus, preferably AESA: to track down small size missiles in vast sky
* maneuverability & preferably super cruise: to get into a preferable shooting position
* interceptor, preferably a high-kinetic missile to finish the intercept
* electronic attack capability: perhaps an alternate way to bring down a cruise missile in future
* data-link to increase situational awareness SA in an event of multiple cruise missiles in the air

Direct-energy weaponry carried by a fighter jet does seem bit far-fetched at this time. (Look at the size of the turret on the ABL; it probably won’t be ready for fighters for at least 10 years. Besides, unless carried in a pod there’s no room to carry the reactants needed for the chemical laser shots.) Thanks Ozzy Blizzard and thanks again, folks!

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1152

Beagle79 wrote:

(Look at the size of the turret on the ABL; it probably won’t be ready for fighters for at least 10 years. Besides, unless carried in a pod there’s no room to carry the reactants needed for the chemical laser shots.)

The turret is nothing, the laser modules take up a significant portion of the 747's fuselage. The turret at the nose is just directing the laser energy.

Guysmiley wrote:

Beagle79 wrote:

(Look at the size of the turret on the ABL; it probably won’t be ready for fighters for at least 10 years. Besides, unless carried in a pod there’s no room to carry the reactants needed for the chemical laser shots.)

The turret is nothing, the laser modules take up a significant portion of the 747's fuselage. The turret at the nose is just directing the laser energy.

Plus, the concept laser for the JSF will be a solid state laser driven by the engine, not a chemical laser driven by chemical reactions. No need for the reactant tanks as on the ABL.

The thing I like about the ABL is that is can be used to work out the how-to part of directed energy fighting before solid state lasers take over. Imagine the ABL's system replaced by a solid state laser driven by the aircraft's generators; or even a 5th engine in the rear fuselage only driving a massive generator for the laser's use.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 61 Status: Offline

You are right, sir: the laser apparatus does make up the majority of the ABL in length. Turret size, however, is proportional to the energy of the laser being fired. We can’t expect Sniper/EOTS-sized turret (at least not yet) to fire energy pulses powerful enough to knock out cruise missiles, as depicted in many laser-armed-JSF artist impressions. ABL holds the world record of having the largest airborne turret for that and other reasons. F-35’s EOTS and other targeting systems would be valuable assets to track down and lock on airborne targets (cruise missiles included?) though.

Air-borne laser also faces cooling, reload/logistics and other issues. Before the size and other technical issues can be resolved/tested/fielded, having a good early-warning system, a good battle management system and enough well-located, -trained and -equipped fighter squadrons on alert makes more sense (just seems more comprehensive and practical….). OR doesn't it?

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 JSF and anti-cruise missle tactics