Basement Dweller Butthurt.

[boogieman]

Yes with a weapon that could stay undetected until the sprint stage kicked in it makes more sense, but he was describing a weapon that would be strictly turbofan powered and just meander after its targets for long periods of time. pK would rarely be very good methinks...

[marauder2048]

Yes with a weapon that could stay undetected until the sprint stage kicked in it makes more sense, but he was describing a weapon that would be strictly turbofan powered and just meander after its targets for long periods of time. pK would rarely be very good methinks...

I've seen the case made for these weapons before. Basically, JP-10's greater energy density permits the
fighter-like turbojet SAM to make multiple passes and outlast the target fighter in a close-in
ACM-style engagement.

[boogieman]

Yes with a weapon that could stay undetected until the sprint stage kicked in it makes more sense, but he was describing a weapon that would be strictly turbofan powered and just meander after its targets for long periods of time. pK would rarely be very good methinks...

I've seen the case made for these weapons before. Basically, JP-10's greater energy density permits the
fighter-like turbojet SAM to make multiple passes and outlast the target fighter in a close-in
ACM-style engagement.

Same, but I am still extremely skeptical. It would put tremendous pressure on engagement geometry to get the weapon close enough (nose hot bandits only?) and guidance/seeker performance. Such a slow missile would give some countermeasures an awfully long time to work their magic. Adding a terminal sprint stage may solve this problem, but only if the weapon remained undetected during the lower speed cruise stage.

[madrat]

Yes with a weapon that could stay undetected until the sprint stage kicked in it makes more sense, but he was describing a weapon that would be strictly turbofan powered and just meander after its targets for long periods of time. pK would rarely be very good methinks...

Sounds about as brilliant as equipping Hawk trainers as front-line fighter reserves...

[marauder2048]

Same, but I am still extremely skeptical. It would put tremendous pressure on engagement geometry to get the weapon close enough (nose hot bandits only?) and guidance/seeker performance. Such a slow missile would give some countermeasures an awfully long time to work their magic. Adding a terminal sprint stage may solve this problem, but only if the weapon remained undetected during the lower speed cruise stage.

I guess it depends on how predictable your target is during the long flyout.

With a slower missile there's more time for the seeker (imaging infrared in this case) to discriminate.
The missile can throttle back if it's decoyed, reverse and make another pass.

And a lot of countermeasures are premised on causing break lock just long enough to get the protected
asset out of the FOV of the seeker which when combined with the typical high mach of the missile
tends to ensure that the seeker is not going to be able to re-acquire.

But it's a fair point about detectability given how good MLDs will continue to get.

[boogieman]

Same, but I am still extremely skeptical. It would put tremendous pressure on engagement geometry to get the weapon close enough (nose hot bandits only?) and guidance/seeker performance. Such a slow missile would give some countermeasures an awfully long time to work their magic. Adding a terminal sprint stage may solve this problem, but only if the weapon remained undetected during the lower speed cruise stage.

I guess it depends on how predictable your target is during the long flyout.

With a slower missile there's more time for the seeker (imaging infrared in this case) to discriminate.
The missile can throttle back if it's decoyed, reverse and make another pass.

And a lot of countermeasures are premised on causing break lock just long enough to get the protected
asset out of the FOV of the seeker which when combined with the typical high mach of the missile
tends to ensure that the seeker is not going to be able to re-acquire.

But it's a fair point about detectability given how good MLDs will continue to get.

Yeah, I think at best you might be looking at a niche weapon that might be adequate for targets with limited kinematic and self defence capabilities like tankers or ISR aircraft. Against 5th gen fighters you are going to have problems sneaking that weapon in close enough, when detection + a simple change of course to flank or extend is going to ruin the missile's pK. At extended range you're going to need some sort of RF/INS/mid-course datalink until the IIR seeker takes over, leaving the bandit with plenty of time to go to work with EA from its onboard AESA or any other EW tricks it may have up its sleeve.

In the absence of an AAM design stealthy enough to elude the current gen of fighter sensors + MAWS, I think the ideal AAM is one that is actually as fast as possible while still providing onboard (and possibly offboard) sensors enough time to sort decoys, clutter etc from the desired target.

[lbk000]

I've seen the case made for these weapons before. Basically, JP-10's greater energy density permits the
fighter-like turbojet SAM to make multiple passes and outlast the target fighter in a close-in
ACM-style engagement.

So... just... walk away? Just literally fly away dude, whats the missile going to do, accelerate past Mach 1? LOL

Definitely one of those ideas formulated by the worst sort of armchair combatants.

[marauder2048]

I've seen the case made for these weapons before. Basically, JP-10's greater energy density permits the
fighter-like turbojet SAM to make multiple passes and outlast the target fighter in a close-in
ACM-style engagement.

So... just... walk away? Just literally fly away dude, whats the missile going to do, accelerate past Mach 1? LOL

Definitely one of those ideas formulated by the worst sort of armchair combatants.

If the missile forces the enemy aircraft to run away that's kind of a desirable outcome.
The missile will just pursue until one of them runs out of fuel.

[lbk000]

Well, you'll need to saturate the air with what are effectively aerial mines because they're not intercepting anything that isn't flying into them, but that's where ignoring the cost benefit analysis comes into play...

[marauder2048]

Yeah, I think at best you might be looking at a niche weapon that might be adequate for targets with limited kinematic and self defence capabilities like tankers or ISR aircraft. Against 5th gen fighters you are going to have problems sneaking that weapon in close enough, when detection + a simple change of course to flank or extend is going to ruin the missile's pK. At extended range you're going to need some sort of RF/INS/mid-course datalink until the IIR seeker takes over, leaving the bandit with plenty of time to go to work with EA from its onboard AESA or any other EW tricks it may have up its sleeve.

In the absence of an AAM design stealthy enough to elude the current gen of fighter sensors + MAWS, I think the ideal AAM is one that is actually as fast as possible while still providing onboard (and possibly offboard) sensors enough time to sort decoys, clutter etc from the desired target.

Given that all modern A2A missiles are dependent on datalinks and INS I'm not sure why
that's anymore of a limitation for a MALI-style round than anything else.
Given typical closure rates we are still talking about engagement times in single digit minutes.

LCI/MALI were premised on being cheaper and to a degree smaller and lighter than AMRAAM so if
Blue needs to pattern fire 2 against a target to bracket it that's potentially still a win at range.

If Red has to evade or needs to expend missiles in its defense Blue is still ahead for a follow-up.
And getting below 0.01 m^2 is pretty straight forward for a weapon like this.

It's by no-means a war winner but it is a way for Blue to get:

a. magazine depth
b. very long range shots
c. low cost per shot

So it can't be dismissed out of hand.

[marauder2048]

Well, you'll need to saturate the air with what are effectively aerial mines because they're not intercepting anything that isn't flying into them, but that's where ignoring the cost benefit analysis comes into play...

Given that the smaller, lighter LCI was premised on a cost < 1/4th that of the contemporary
AMRAAM that doesn't strike me as an issue from a cost perspective.

[boogieman]

Yeah, I think at best you might be looking at a niche weapon that might be adequate for targets with limited kinematic and self defence capabilities like tankers or ISR aircraft. Against 5th gen fighters you are going to have problems sneaking that weapon in close enough, when detection + a simple change of course to flank or extend is going to ruin the missile's pK. At extended range you're going to need some sort of RF/INS/mid-course datalink until the IIR seeker takes over, leaving the bandit with plenty of time to go to work with EA from its onboard AESA or any other EW tricks it may have up its sleeve.

In the absence of an AAM design stealthy enough to elude the current gen of fighter sensors + MAWS, I think the ideal AAM is one that is actually as fast as possible while still providing onboard (and possibly offboard) sensors enough time to sort decoys, clutter etc from the desired target.

Given that all modern A2A missiles are dependent on datalinks and INS I'm not sure why
that's anymore of a limitation for a MALI-style round than anything else.
Given typical closure rates we are still talking about engagement times in single digit minutes.

LCI/MALI were premised on being cheaper and to a degree smaller and lighter than AMRAAM so if
Blue needs to pattern fire 2 against a target to bracket it that's potentially still a win at range.

If Red has to evade or needs to expend missiles in its defense Blue is still ahead for a follow-up.
And getting below 0.01 m^2 is pretty straight forward for a weapon like this.

It's by no-means a war winner but it is a way for Blue to get:

a. magazine depth
b. very long range shots
c. low cost per shot

So it can't be dismissed out of hand.

Still not sold. Single-digit minutes is an eternity at the business end of an air to air engagement where events measured in seconds (or less) can have a significant effect on the outcome. This gets even worse when you factor in a target set that includes LO (supercruising?) 5th gen aircraft using modern EW. I'd posit that they are likely to offer you heavily time-restricted engagement windows that favour a much quicker weapon. Especially so when J20/31 with EODAS-ski probably make sneaking the weapon in undetected unlikely.

I'd add that bracketing your bandits still provides you with next to no ability to kill them from the rear hemisphere and leaves you vulnerable when said bandits simply fly around/over your lumbering AAM(s) and carry on with the task of killing you (with a much quicker weapon no less). To my mind we are discussing the air combat equivalent of this:

[commisar]

What a wonderful TWITTER thread, many thanks for this 'eye-opener'. I like that headlines could contradict the story.

The National Interest Complaint
David Axe 06 May 2020

"As a journalist with nearly 20 years on the military news beat

So he's writing comedy now?

Journalism is tough racket these days. it turns out theres plenty of people who just write on the internet for free, and with more accurate information and knowledge as well

Axe and Rogoaway are both lying sensationalist clickbait types.


back in the old days of the chain smoking editor, the demands for proof were much higher, and they relied on sources.

There was a certain hitpiece on the F-35 and I just picked up the phone and called a buddy out in Yuma. in 5 seconds he said "we don't do that! LOL where did you hear that?" So an entire story could have been written truthfully if they had a source.

These guys aren't doing journalism. Theyre taking a series of things they read and twisting it to fit a narrative. at almost no point do they actually talk to anyone with knowledge beyond the regular PR people and flag ranks-- and thats often not direct but taken from someone else story.

not surprisingly copy paste journalism doesn't pay well

look at little old me without any training in journalism touching 2 buttons on my phone and having a more accurate picture than 2 "journalists" combined.



they can screw themselves with a cactus. theres a reason Fake News is a very real phrase. Fred Reed has written extensively about how journalist have never been that great at covering the military, but the 21st century version is even worse, and thats absolutely terrible because accuracy has never been more important. Thats why I hate them so badly. They've tainted an entire generation with clickbait substituting for reality. misinformation travels and spreads at rates unprecedented in human history. Theyre contribution is "hot fuel trucks!" and "can't dogfight!"

and lastly Axe should know better than to call out an ex employer like that and over 1800? he must be hurting if they never pay him a dime, he's earned it.




the reason Global Trumpism has taken hold is people figured out they were being lied to. Trump was smart enough to point this out and go to war with them. They blew the biggest story of 2016. Which subsequently meant they blew the biggest stories from 2008-2016. Several scandals that would have absolutely rocked the previous administration were set quietly by the wayside and not given any airtime or actively covered up. the irony is the press further gaslighting the public and calling Trump Divisive and cynical, for pointing out they were partisan and biased liars.

Rather cynical to point out how i lie to people

Exactly, could not STAND "War is boring", hell, even the title made it sound like it was written by a pasty, flabby, Colombia University Journalism grad who couldn't be assed to do any research on the military topics he was being paid to write about.... Oh wait, Mr. Axe kinda fits here. I love how he bigs up himself as a SUPER JOURNALIST who braves super scary warzones... He's no Marie Colvin. Rogoway is ALMOST as insufferable, but he comes of more as an overly caffeinated nerd and Boeing fanboy. Also add in the other exceptionally insufferable writer "The War Nerd".

[boogieman]

Ok team, I’ve got one here that has me scratching my head. I was reading up on PrSM and the future roadmap for it. At ~4m long and ~30cm diameter it has similar dimensions to AARGM-ER. Here is the head scratcher:

AARGM-ER - an air to surface weapon that benefits from being launched at speed & altitude - is supposed to have a range somewhere in the order of 300km.

PrSM - a surface to surface weapon with a larger warhead - is supposed to reach twice that far (with planned growth out to 800km).

So, how is this possible?

In my reading I had thought that new propellants might be in the mix for the PrSM, but then I came across comments like this:

“'that's bunk' due to the hijacking R&D budgets for nonsensical marketing memes both the USN propulsion and warhead technology budgets for advanced compounds were effectively zeroed”

“There is NO new propellant which may provide 50% more range. The Navy's advanced energetics program was killed more than a decade ago by DoD management because of pouring the R&D money into lasers and railguns. Small money were still provided for 6.1 research in the universities, but 6.2 and 6.3 were effectively drained out. Today, after failure of the most promises made by railgun marketeers, there is an attempt to revive the energetics research in the Navy, but it's still lacking the funding”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/arm ... hips-sams/

So I leave this one to the F16.net brains trust – why the massive discrepancy in range between AARGM-ER and PrSM? Why is it that the former has less range, despite the fact that it enjoys more favourable kinematic launch conditions? And finally, is it true that budgets for new propellants were slashed, or has propellant R&D continued elsewhere?

A quick google search would seem to cast at least some doubt over the claims about energetics research:

The successful Phase II Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Technology for Tactical Missiles program will serve to provide a performance enhancing capability to increase the propulsive energy of next generation envelope constrained tactical solid rocket motorsby approximately 20 percent.The technology of this program provides the rocket motor design and development community a totally new tool to be used in the design of next generation of tactical solid propellant rocket motors.

https://www.sbir.gov/node/666918

[marauder2048]

Ok team, I’ve got one here that has me scratching my head. I was reading up on PrSM and the future roadmap for it. At ~4m long and ~30cm diameter it has similar dimensions to AARGM-ER. Here is the head scratcher:

AARGM-ER - an air to surface weapon that benefits from being launched at speed & altitude - is supposed to have a range somewhere in the order of 300km.

PrSM - a surface to surface weapon with a larger warhead - is supposed to reach twice that far (with planned growth out to 800km).

So, how is this possible?

In my reading I had thought that new propellants might be in the mix for the PrSM, but then I came across comments like this:

“'that's bunk' due to the hijacking R&D budgets for nonsensical marketing memes both the USN propulsion and warhead technology budgets for advanced compounds were effectively zeroed”

“There is NO new propellant which may provide 50% more range. The Navy's advanced energetics program was killed more than a decade ago by DoD management because of pouring the R&D money into lasers and railguns. Small money were still provided for 6.1 research in the universities, but 6.2 and 6.3 were effectively drained out. Today, after failure of the most promises made by railgun marketeers, there is an attempt to revive the energetics research in the Navy, but it's still lacking the funding”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/arm ... hips-sams/

So I leave this one to the F16.net brains trust – why the massive discrepancy in range between AARGM-ER and PrSM? Why is it that the former has less range, despite the fact that it enjoys more favourable kinematic launch conditions? And finally, is it true that budgets for new propellants were slashed, or has propellant R&D continued elsewhere?

PrSM is like 16 - 18 inches in diameter.