BVR, Datalink, Aim 120 and Meteor

[element1loop]

RAAF's Project Jericho (transforming RAAF into a 5th-gen enabled Joint-force) implemented a "cooperative engagement" capability ...

We are definitely talking of mid course updates relayed using data from E7A? In any case older missiles probably did not have a need for such ability.

The test was to demonstrate an initial capability that's intended for use with F-35A and whatever BVR missiles it will carry.

[marauder2048]

RAAF's Project Jericho (transforming RAAF into a 5th-gen enabled Joint-force) implemented a "cooperative engagement" capability ...

We are definitely talking of mid course updates relayed using data from E7A? In any case older missiles probably did not have a need for such ability.

And so many of the third party targeting concepts and experiments have been and are
directed against the cruise missile threat where the targets are not necessarily kinematically challenging
or even reactive to illumination by radars. The max effective range for the interceptor
goes up as a consequence.

The desire is to use older missiles wherever possible in the counter cruise-missile role for cost reasons.

[element1loop]

And so many of the third party targeting concepts and experiments have been and are
directed against the cruise missile threat where the targets are not necessarily kinematically challenging
or even reactive to illumination by radars. The max effective range for the interceptor
goes up as a consequence. The desire is to use older missiles wherever possible in the counter cruise-missile role for cost reasons.

The E7-A's radar is a MESA (M = Multi-function AESA = A2A, A2G and A2S) combined with precision ESM targeting, plus off-board data from the entire network, thus can support cooperative weapon use against ground and surface targets, or else support another networked Joint platform doing so.

i.e. AAM for A2G even, etc., etc.

[marsavian]

So the logical consequence of mid course updates being given via FCR is that the launcher has to point its nose towards the missile and the target (roughly). Turning back whilst providing mid course updates is therefore not an option unless you were to install a rear facing transmitter.

With most aircraft you can crank i.e. turn 60 degrees away and still update the missle through the FCR. With Su-35/Gripen E/Typhoon with Captor-E you can actually beam/notch i.e. turn 90 degrees away, or even turn back slightly as their PESA/AESA are on a swivel plate giving their FCR over 200 degree FOV compared to the normal 120-140.

[brumby]

A. I'm pretty sure all current air to air missiles with data links get the data from launcher aircraft or possibly from wingman. AFAIK, all such data links use somewhat directional antennas looking back towards the launcher and are not omnidirectional. So that alone restricts how updates to the missile can be transmitted. This method makes it more difficult to detect and jam the data link though and allows using lower power levels. "Real" data links need too big and heavy hardware (terminal, radios, antenna) and need too much power for air to air missile use at least currently. Link 16 especially also has large latencies which makes it poor choice against fast moving targets like aircraft. Air to ground munitions are getting Link 16 networking capabilities

In the overall conversation about using off board data for targeting solution I have increasingly seen the notion of using targeting data from AWACS because of their longer detection range. However I am sceptical of its technical feasibility given their typical frequency bands associated primarily with volume search. Is there someway this can be reconciled as a feasible idea?

[wrightwing]

So the logical consequence of mid course updates being given via FCR is that the launcher has to point its nose towards the missile and the target (roughly). Turning back whilst providing mid course updates is therefore not an option unless you were to install a rear facing transmitter.

With most aircraft you can crank i.e. turn 60 degrees away and still update the missle through the FCR. With Su-35/Gripen E/Typhoon with Captor-E you can actually beam/notch i.e. turn 90 degrees away, or even turn back slightly as their PESA/AESA are on a swivel plate giving their FCR over 200 degree FOV compared to the normal 120-140.

Or use 3rd party targeting, launch and immediately turn away, while another trailing aircraft guides the missile(s).

[element1loop]

So the logical consequence of mid course updates being given via FCR is that the launcher has to point its nose towards the missile and the target (roughly). Turning back whilst providing mid course updates is therefore not an option unless you were to install a rear facing transmitter.

With most aircraft you can crank i.e. turn 60 degrees away and still update the missle through the FCR. With Su-35/Gripen E/Typhoon with Captor-E you can actually beam/notch i.e. turn 90 degrees away, or even turn back slightly as their PESA/AESA are on a swivel plate giving their FCR over 200 degree FOV compared to the normal 120-140.

Or use 3rd party targeting, launch and immediately turn away, while another trailing aircraft guides the missile(s).

AWAC relays data about a time-sensitive high-priority target to F-35s orbiting between it and the fight, to protect the AWAC. This data is relayed in near real-time via MADL to all F-35s in theater. The nearest fusion-engine with the best geometry and vector gets tasked with the cues for launching their best (auto-targeted) AAM or else AGM, at a PID-ed priority pop-up. Then it supports the missile with AWAC data alone, and resumes its mission.

Multiple F-35s could seamlessly support the missile to terminal-homing with automated updates as the flight geometry requires. The F-35 that fired it would not need to abandon or postpone its mission, as it remains VLO and not tracked thereafter.

Plus the bearings to the multiple F-35s supporting with AWAC data relays to the missile keeps dynamically changing direction during the missile's flight. So defensive maneuvers may not even be necessary by the firing aircraft.

If you learn that way from the beginning, train for it, simulator fight in that way, exercise that way, I see no problem with making that work smoothly in practice. Nor a problem with not using AWAC data, and just using the F-35 fleet's shared data, or naval data, and seamlessly auto-supporting each other's A2A, A2G or A2Su weapons, as relative geometries change.

Thus no one needs to be excessively exposed if or when a first missile fails/misses. Rinse and repeat.

Plus all other F-35 pilots in theater have MDF cues to keep them out of the detection footprint of the targeted aircraft, or else a targeted ground sensor pop-up.

To pop-up is to die.