More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 08:20
by popcorn
This missile is BAD..

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... le-382670/

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system.

According to a company product card being distributed at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida, the weapon is a medium range air-to-air missile with a multi-mode seeker.

"Cuda is a highly lethal interceptor that defeats targets by direct body-to-body impact," Lockheed says. "At impact, Cuda sweeps its mass directly through the target at a selected point of vulnerability."

The company claims the Cuda will be a low cost weapon that will support "360° coverage", expand beyond visual range engagement zones and improve within visual range no-escape zones. It will also have extremely high-g maneuverability, Lockheed claims
.

The company says the weapon will be effective against enemy warplanes, unmanned aircraft and other air threats. The Lockheed product card seems to indicate that the weapon might have some air-to-surface and anti-ship applications in addition to its air combat role.

With a length of 70 inches (1.78m), fifth-generation fighters like the Lockheed F-22 Raptor or F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be able to potentially double or triple their air-to-air missile load-outs. That means, Lockheed claims, US and allied forces would be able to achieve air superiority "at a substantially lower cost per sortie."

F-22 pilots in particular have been asking for greater beyond visual range weapons capacity since the Raptor first entered operational testing about a decade ago.

RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 08:27
by KamenRiderBlade
I like the physical design of the missile, very simple and elegant

RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 09:48
by maus92
Hmm, small fins. TV?

Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 10:14
by popcorn
maus92 wrote:Hmm, small fins. TV?

Presumably via attitude control motors i.e. those round dots below the nose,section. The same arrangement employed on LM's PAC-3.

RE: Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 10:59
by gtx
It will be interesting to see the performance specs, even the unclassified ones.

RE: Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 12:21
by uclass
Awesome. Very important development for the F-35. Any word on range?

Re: RE: Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 13:38
by aceshigh
uclass wrote:Awesome. Very important development for the F-35. Any word on range?


They already said it could reach beyond visual range. Somewhere between the AIM-9 and the AIM-120? It would be incredible if it could mach the AIM-120 but how realistic is that?, new propulsion technology?

Very exiting and promising indeed. Good for the F-35, more firepower while maintaing stealth 8)

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 14:38
by popcorn
Sgt. Mac did an analysis of CUDA and came to a conclusion that CUDA could very well approximate the range of AMRAAM. Just scroll down his blog till his 11Dec2012 entry.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 14:43
by count_to_10
What I like most about this is the possibility that you could mix-and-match A2A and A2G weapons on the SDB quad racks.

Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 14:56
by hobo
maus92 wrote:Hmm, small fins. TV?


The small fins are to reduce drag. Like a Patriot PAC-3 CUDE uses solid fuel thrusters near the nose of the missile to execute high-G maneuvers.


[quote=uclass] Awesome. Very important development for the F-35. Any word on range? [/quote]

AMRAAM class...

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 14:58
by aceshigh
popcorn wrote:Sgt. Mac did an analysis of CUDA and came to a conclusion that CUDA could very well approximate the range of AMRAAM. Just scroll down his blog till his 11Dec2012 entry.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/


Great info, thanks!

RE: Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 15:02
by hobo
With CUDA, loadout options are also greatly expanded.

The obvious loadouts would be 12 CUDA or 4 CUDA and 2 2000lb bombs.

You could also hypothetically go with 3 Meteor (2 in one bay, one on the air to air station in the other) and 4 CUDA. (7 total missiles)

... or you could go with 2 Meteor (air to air stations) and 8 CUDA. (10 total missiles)

Anyway, it is a big step forward.

Re: RE: Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 15:06
by bigjku
aceshigh wrote:
uclass wrote:Awesome. Very important development for the F-35. Any word on range?


They already said it could reach beyond visual range. Somewhere between the AIM-9 and the AIM-120? It would be incredible if it could mach the AIM-120 but how realistic is that?, new propulsion technology?

Very exiting and promising indeed. Good for the F-35, more firepower while maintaing stealth 8)


You could do it with a very fancy motor (ie some sort of high thrust, mutli-pulse rocket engine). Use the first pulse to kick the thing into a ballistic trajectory. Have another pulse to keep it at altitude and moving and then a final pulse to provide energy in the end game.

Of course if you have that kind of motor an AIM-120 being bigger could have even more range if you upgraded its back end. The question is how much range can you practically use and do you need to have to leverage the capabilities of the F-35 and F-22. By the look of most things both aircraft should be fairly safe at 50-60 miles out. So if CUDA is highly effective at that range then it will be more than good enough.

My guess is they won't go to the cost of building a fancy motor and trying to beat AIM-120 in terms of range. The goal will be the best NEZ they can get at a range of around 70 miles.

Re: RE: Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 15:52
by uclass
Image

Image

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 17:21
by popcorn
I can't wait to see how APA reacts to CUDA.

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 17:37
by count_to_10
Well, it probably isn't going to punch through tank or warship armor, but it will probably make a nice big hole in a missile boat or light vehicle. If you can aim it precisely enough, you could trigger some fairly devastating secondaries.

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 19:06
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' asked: "I can't wait to see how APA reacts to CUDA." Go here:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... arket.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 19:39
by gtx
Translation: "It isn't true...it can't be true...arrrggghhh!!!!" :lol:

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 19:45
by gtx
It is interesting to also note that it is Cuda rather then CUDA. Small observation. :D

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 20:06
by KamenRiderBlade
Cuda as in Barracuda?

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 20:10
by marksengineer
Well, it makes more sense to me now. A multi-purpose missile to engage a variety of targets. Could not see where you would need a 10 missile loadout just for air to air. Stealth fighters are expensive for everyone. Don't see hoards of stealth fighters from near-peer competitiors. If our learning curve is indicative of what it takes to bring one to service they will have more difficulties as they haven't gone thru the experience we did with the F-117 and B-2. Would imagine their in service rates would be lower than ours.

With proper cueing in the upper hemisphere wonder if CUDA could have some anti-TBM capability?

So how is this missile going to happen? Don't see DOD handing L-M money for a single source development project with the budget being what it is.

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 20:20
by gtx
kamenriderblade wrote:Cuda as in Barracuda?


That's what I have thought since it first came out. Would make sense given the fish.

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 20:41
by KamenRiderBlade
So if they make a another HTK "Hit To Kill" missile that is 1/3 the size of the AIM-120D, would they call it a Piranha?

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 21:06
by gtx
:lmao:

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 21:48
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' asked: "I can't wait to see how APA reacts to CUDA." Go here:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... arket.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeR6uYxU50 :lmao:

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 22:03
by hobo
I can't wait to see how APA reacts to CUDA.



Lets just say it will be completely different from how they react to rumored Russian missiles....

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 23:30
by haavarla
marksengineer wrote:Well, it makes more sense to me now. A multi-purpose missile to engage a variety of targets. Could not see where you would need a 10 missile loadout just for air to air. Stealth fighters are expensive for everyone. Don't see hoards of stealth fighters from near-peer competitiors. If our learning curve is indicative of what it takes to bring one to service they will have more difficulties as they haven't gone thru the experience we did with the F-117 and B-2. Would imagine their in service rates would be lower than ours.

With proper cueing in the upper hemisphere wonder if CUDA could have some anti-TBM capability?

So how is this missile going to happen? Don't see DOD handing L-M money for a single source development project with the budget being what it is.


Don't wanna rain on anyones parade here.
But following ealier DoD funding of AIM-120D and the fact that Pentagon is now broke, any future funding of this Cuda thing is probably not gonna happend.
Oh and that developing cost prospect i read about.. good luck with that. Better throw in some reality figures like twice the cost figure and then some.. :wink:

Re: RE: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 23:39
by batu731
If CUDA has a thrust motor similar to the PAC3's warhead, it will a game changer in air warfare.

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 23:53
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' asked: "I can't wait to see how APA reacts to CUDA." Go here:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... arket.html


Pathetic, a bad day for those who live in the ABJSF Universe.
Still, the first but necessary step in the 5-stage process of dealing with grief:
Should be interesting watching the cycle progress..
DENIAL

This first stage of grieving helps us to survive the loss. In this stage, the world becomes meaningless and overwhelming. Life makes no sense. We are in a state of shock and denial. We go numb. We wonder how we can go on, if we can go on, why we should go on. We try to find a way to simply get through each day. Denial and shock help us to cope and make survival possible. Denial helps us to pace our feelings of grief. There is a grace in denial. It is nature’s way of letting in only as much as we can handle.

ANGER
BARGAINING
DEPRESSION
ACCEPTANCE

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 00:17
by spazsinbad
"ACCEPTANE"? I want to be on that drug - wheredoyagedditt? :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 00:29
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:"ACCEPTANE"? I want to be on that drug - wheredoyagedditt? :D


LOL.. fixed it..

It does have a nice ring to it though, maybe have it trademarked? Probably be a bitter tasting tonic and tough to swallow .. :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 00:43
by Conan
haavarla wrote:
marksengineer wrote:Well, it makes more sense to me now. A multi-purpose missile to engage a variety of targets. Could not see where you would need a 10 missile loadout just for air to air. Stealth fighters are expensive for everyone. Don't see hoards of stealth fighters from near-peer competitiors. If our learning curve is indicative of what it takes to bring one to service they will have more difficulties as they haven't gone thru the experience we did with the F-117 and B-2. Would imagine their in service rates would be lower than ours.

With proper cueing in the upper hemisphere wonder if CUDA could have some anti-TBM capability?

So how is this missile going to happen? Don't see DOD handing L-M money for a single source development project with the budget being what it is.


Don't wanna rain on anyones parade here.
But following ealier DoD funding of AIM-120D and the fact that Pentagon is now broke, any future funding of this Cuda thing is probably not gonna happend.
Oh and that developing cost prospect i read about.. good luck with that. Better throw in some reality figures like twice the cost figure and then some.. :wink:


What's the US budget for this financial year? $500 Billion? Yeah sounds pretty "broke" to me...

Ironic what is now taken as "broke"...

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 07:05
by lookieloo
haavarla wrote:Don't wanna rain on anyones parade here.
But following ealier DoD funding of AIM-120D and the fact that Pentagon is now broke, any future funding of this Cuda thing is probably not gonna happend.
Oh and that developing cost prospect i read about.. good luck with that. Better throw in some reality figures like twice the cost figure and then some.. :wink:
:roll: :roll:

Image

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 12:49
by popcorn
Cramming 12 X CUDA in a F-35 is apparent but how do you do it in a F-22?

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 15:03
by haavarla
Conan wrote:
haavarla wrote:
marksengineer wrote:Well, it makes more sense to me now. A multi-purpose missile to engage a variety of targets. Could not see where you would need a 10 missile loadout just for air to air. Stealth fighters are expensive for everyone. Don't see hoards of stealth fighters from near-peer competitiors. If our learning curve is indicative of what it takes to bring one to service they will have more difficulties as they haven't gone thru the experience we did with the F-117 and B-2. Would imagine their in service rates would be lower than ours.

With proper cueing in the upper hemisphere wonder if CUDA could have some anti-TBM capability?

So how is this missile going to happen? Don't see DOD handing L-M money for a single source development project with the budget being what it is.


Don't wanna rain on anyones parade here.
But following ealier DoD funding of AIM-120D and the fact that Pentagon is now broke, any future funding of this Cuda thing is probably not gonna happend.
Oh and that developing cost prospect i read about.. good luck with that. Better throw in some reality figures like twice the cost figure and then some.. :wink:


What's the US budget for this financial year? $500 Billion? Yeah sounds pretty "broke" to me...

Ironic what is now taken as "broke"...


Lol!
That is completly beside the point here.
Take a look at other programs like the USAF T-X.. tell me, what do you see?
Lack of funding.
The point here is how much funding is aviable AFTER those $500 Billion has been deligated around their different branches and other priority programs.

Come on you guys.. the LM Cudas Adv looks good, no argueing there. But LM and Low Cost!? Right..

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 15:18
by Conan
haavarla wrote:
Lol!
That is completly beside the point here.


Wow, how easy it is to casually dismiss a $500B per year budget and tell us all what they can and can't afford...

Take a look at other programs like the USAF T-X.. tell me, what do you see?
Lack of funding.


Yep, all the USAF can afford is a measly 350x T-X trainers... If that doesn't suggest "broke" what does?

The point here is how much funding is aviable AFTER those $500 Billion has been deligated around their different branches and other priority programs.


No, you are completely correct. The USAF launched the T-X project without any funding available for it at all.

Damn they're stupid...

Come on you guys.. the LM Cudas Adv looks good, no argueing there. But LM and Low Cost!? Right..


Yep! spot on. Hence why L-M consistently loses defence contracts (besides F-35).

Oh, wait...

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 16:20
by spazsinbad
Tried to make a better graphic - nope.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 17:06
by hobo
haavarla wrote:
Conan wrote:
haavarla wrote:
marksengineer wrote:Well, it makes more sense to me now. A multi-purpose missile to engage a variety of targets. Could not see where you would need a 10 missile loadout just for air to air. Stealth fighters are expensive for everyone. Don't see hoards of stealth fighters from near-peer competitiors. If our learning curve is indicative of what it takes to bring one to service they will have more difficulties as they haven't gone thru the experience we did with the F-117 and B-2. Would imagine their in service rates would be lower than ours.

With proper cueing in the upper hemisphere wonder if CUDA could have some anti-TBM capability?

So how is this missile going to happen? Don't see DOD handing L-M money for a single source development project with the budget being what it is.


Don't wanna rain on anyones parade here.
But following ealier DoD funding of AIM-120D and the fact that Pentagon is now broke, any future funding of this Cuda thing is probably not gonna happend.
Oh and that developing cost prospect i read about.. good luck with that. Better throw in some reality figures like twice the cost figure and then some.. :wink:


What's the US budget for this financial year? $500 Billion? Yeah sounds pretty "broke" to me...

Ironic what is now taken as "broke"...


Lol!
That is completly beside the point here.
Take a look at other programs like the USAF T-X.. tell me, what do you see?
Lack of funding.
The point here is how much funding is aviable AFTER those $500 Billion has been deligated around their different branches and other priority programs.

Come on you guys.. the LM Cudas Adv looks good, no argueing there. But LM and Low Cost!? Right..



The US can afford anything it decides is a priority. Programs like T-X, the new tankers, F-35, etc are going to get funded. If Cuda is made a priority then it will be funded as well.

It really is kind of hilarious to see how big the gap between perception and reality is when it comes to internet types.

350 new trainers, what percentage of the world market do you think that is?

What about 180 new tankers... how many tankers do you think the rest of the world combined will procure in that same timeframe?

Oh, but no funding is available for a missile.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 18:46
by marksengineer
I seriously doubt that at this point in time the AF would go to Congress and ask for funds for a single source program of which to date (to my knowledge) there has been no requirement for. Can see some congressman or senator asking why do we now need CUDA for the F-35. F22. etc.?
If nothing else they would receive challenges from the other defense contractors and their lobbyists.

What would work is if L-M developed the missile to the point of a few guided launches aganist the target set they say it can cover and present a working system to the AF ready for developmental and operational testing. Much like the business model General Atomic used on the Predator and Reaper.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 18:58
by bigjku
marksengineer wrote:I seriously doubt that at this point in time the AF would go to Congress and ask for funds for a single source program of which to date (to my knowledge) there has been no requirement for. Can see some congressman or senator asking why do we now need CUDA for the F-35. F22. etc.?
If nothing else they would receive challenges from the other defense contractors and their lobbyists.

What would work is if L-M developed the missile to the point of a few guided launches aganist the target set they say it can cover and present a working system to the AF ready for developmental and operational testing. Much like the business model General Atomic used on the Predator and Reaper.


Yup, if LM wants to sell it they will develop it themselves. Which I think they probably will. It is not just a big potential market in the US but globally. And it won't be that expensive for them to develop if they are the ones setting the design goals in house. They are not dumb. You develop version A which is ready to sell at a reasonable price. Then once the government gets a taste you let them put out specs for version B and milk them for money.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 19:29
by count_to_10
Somehow, "reduce, reuse, recycle" works for this.
The Cuda is a reduced size missile, reusing recycled components from completed projects. If there isn't a requirement for an A2A missile that can fit in place of a SDB, there should be.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 20:05
by sferrin
bigjku wrote:
marksengineer wrote:I seriously doubt that at this point in time the AF would go to Congress and ask for funds for a single source program of which to date (to my knowledge) there has been no requirement for. Can see some congressman or senator asking why do we now need CUDA for the F-35. F22. etc.?
If nothing else they would receive challenges from the other defense contractors and their lobbyists.

What would work is if L-M developed the missile to the point of a few guided launches aganist the target set they say it can cover and present a working system to the AF ready for developmental and operational testing. Much like the business model General Atomic used on the Predator and Reaper.


Yup, if LM wants to sell it they will develop it themselves. Which I think they probably will. It is not just a big potential market in the US but globally. And it won't be that expensive for them to develop if they are the ones setting the design goals in house. They are not dumb. You develop version A which is ready to sell at a reasonable price. Then once the government gets a taste you let them put out specs for version B and milk them for money.


I would not be at all surprised if other F-35 customers jumped on the Cuda bandwagon if LM did the development on its own dime.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 20:16
by haavarla
Conan"]
haavarla wrote:
Lol!
That is completly beside the point here.


Wow, how easy it is to casually dismiss a $500B per year budget and tell us all what they can and can't afford...

Take a look at other programs like the USAF T-X.. tell me, what do you see?
Lack of funding.


Yep, all the USAF can afford is a measly 350x T-X trainers... If that doesn't suggest "broke" what does?


So you claim there will be produced 350 new Advanced trainers from Boeing, LM or any other Domestic company??

The point here is how much funding is aviable AFTER those $500 Billion has been deligated around their different branches and other priority programs.


No, you are completely correct. The USAF launched the T-X project without any funding available for it at all.

Damn they're stupid...
[/quote]

Lol, and what did Pentagon find out about USAF requirements for the new Advance trainers(T-X).. Yep, they prove to be too costly to developing from scratch, no bombshell there.. USAF don't give a rats @ss about funding and cost.. well up to now that is. Probably why other Trainers allready on the Market are being reviewed.

Come on you guys.. the LM Cudas Adv looks good, no argueing there. But LM and Low Cost!? Right..


Yep! spot on. Hence why L-M consistently loses defence contracts (besides F-35).

Oh, wait...
[/quote]

How did that AIM-120D program fare again..? Did they hold up their end of the bargin, eh?

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 20:23
by uclass
Will Cuda fit in the F-22's AIM-9 bays?

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 21:12
by hobo
Lol, and what did Pentagon find out about USAF requirements for the new Advance trainers(T-X).. Yep, they prove to be too costly to developing from scratch, no bombshell there.. USAF don't give a rats @ss about funding and cost.. well up to now that is. Probably why other Trainers allready on the Market are being reviewed.


I am really not sure what point you think you are proving. In cases where it makes sense there is no reason not to buy an off the shelf solution. The USAF has been evaluating its options and will pick the one that best meets its needs. Regardless of which platform is selects it will be extensively customized to meet its requirements.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 22:11
by count_to_10
uclass wrote:Will Cuda fit in the F-22's AIM-9 bays?

Probably not without alterations. Also, given that the AIM-9 is shorter than the AMRAAM, there might not be enough length in the bay to fit them in a tandem layout.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 22:18
by sferrin
haavarla wrote:How did that AIM-120D program fare again..? Did they hold up their end of the bargin, eh?


AIM-120D is a Raytheon product.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 22:57
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:Cramming 12 X CUDA in a F-35 is apparent but how do you do it in a F-22?
The same way they do it in the F-35... a 2xCUDA pack will replace each single AMRAAM & a 4Pack of CUDAs go where the SDB/JDAM rack normally goes.

Either that or use a 2xCUDA rack for each AMRAAM and forget the 4xCUDA packs.

They left out any side-bay CUDA loadouts.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 23:43
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
popcorn wrote:Cramming 12 X CUDA in a F-35 is apparent but how do you do it in a F-22?
The same way they do it in the F-35... a 2xCUDA pack will replace each single AMRAAM & a 4Pack of CUDAs go where the SDB/JDAM rack normally goes.

Either that or use a 2xCUDA rack for each AMRAAM and forget the 4xCUDA packs.

They left out any side-bay CUDA loadouts.


So they need to develop a customized AVEL to hold 2 CUDAs in tandem.

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2013, 23:48
by popcorn
Re funding for CUDA, it's not as if the US is going to stop buying AAMs. What I foresee is CUDA eventually taking a bite out of funds intended for future AMRAAM and Sidewinder purchases.

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 01:51
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:So they need to develop a customized AVEL to hold 2 CUDAs in tandem.

If they're smart, they will make a universal tandem launcher with modular adapters for F-35/F-22/F-18(conformal)/pylons/etc. That way the primary expense, the ejector hardware & controllers, can be shared across many platforms.

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 05:02
by Conan
haavarla wrote:Lol, and what did Pentagon find out about USAF requirements for the new Advance trainers(T-X).. Yep, they prove to be too costly to developing from scratch, no bombshell there.. USAF don't give a rats @ss about funding and cost.. well up to now that is. Probably why other Trainers allready on the Market are being reviewed.


So Boeing isn't bidding a clean-sheet design to be built from scratch? Okay... Cause they've said they are...

How did that AIM-120D program fare again..? Did they hold up their end of the bargin, eh?


http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amraam/

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2013, 16:59
by uclass
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:Will Cuda fit in the F-22's AIM-9 bays?

Probably not without alterations. Also, given that the AIM-9 is shorter than the AMRAAM, there might not be enough length in the bay to fit them in a tandem layout.

I was only looking a putting one in each bay.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 01:33
by count_to_10
uclass wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:Will Cuda fit in the F-22's AIM-9 bays?

Probably not without alterations. Also, given that the AIM-9 is shorter than the AMRAAM, there might not be enough length in the bay to fit them in a tandem layout.

I was only looking a putting one in each bay.

Might as well leave the sidewinders in, then.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 02:26
by firstimpulse
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:Will Cuda fit in the F-22's AIM-9 bays?

Probably not without alterations. Also, given that the AIM-9 is shorter than the AMRAAM, there might not be enough length in the bay to fit them in a tandem layout.

I was only looking a putting one in each bay.

Might as well leave the sidewinders in, then.


You'd get more range out of the Cudas though.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 06:44
by wrightwing
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
uclass wrote:Will Cuda fit in the F-22's AIM-9 bays?

Probably not without alterations. Also, given that the AIM-9 is shorter than the AMRAAM, there might not be enough length in the bay to fit them in a tandem layout.

I was only looking a putting one in each bay.

Might as well leave the sidewinders in, then.


The Cuda sounds like it offers more capability, than even the latest Sidewinders.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 08:29
by geogen
How much time realistically would be required to bring this initial concept stage missile to production phase? 6-7, maybe 8 years? It would be a pretty complex clean-sheet missile to develop and bring to maturity, given it's miniaturized body, incorporated systems and the fairly high performance and capability specs being floated.

It's not a bad concept though, even it could only end up accomplishing some of what it's currently being implied to perform. It would certainly boost load-out flexibility and force-multiplication to existing legacy platforms too, as well as future UCAV vehicles. Hopefully LM will put some money behind their faith on this one and get started on the design process. Perhaps some partners would step up to help accelerate the process even, if the concept looked promising and economical.

In the meantime however, you'd think they (developers, engineers and Program managers et al) could get the dang ASRAAM to fit in the darn F-35 internal bay -- just talking one shot per bay! Ironic really, that such a no-brainer requirement such as an internally mounted existing AIM-9x or ASRAAM is too expensive and complex to successfully conduct integration on yet slapping in 12x clean-sheet whiz bang mini-missiles into the F-35 is being so highly speculated on and accounted for.

Put me in the camp to encourage and fund game-changing 'next-generation' innovation... but first ensure that bridging requirements and evolved modern capabilities utilizing off-the-shelf systems can be proven and employed first.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 15:34
by SpudmanWP
Or maybe they decided that having 4 internal BVR missiles is better than having 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles. Also remember that the ASRAAM has no datalink.

On the internal ASRAAM issues, while it may not be part of Blk3, it is still in the works.

Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 16:06
by VprWzl
. . . at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium . . . Lockheed Martin also displayed its new Cuda missile, a multi-application hittile suitable for air-to-air or air-to-ground targets. Lockheed Martin officials said the Cuda is competitive in performance with the AMRAAM in the air-to-air mode; but because of Cuda's 70-inch length, 12 of them could fit inside the weapons bays of the F-22 and F-35, doubling and tripling, respectively, the airplanes' internal air-to-air loadout. Cuda is designed to achieve high maneuverability at heavy G loads, according to the company.
—John A. Tirpak

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/HomePage.aspx

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 16:40
by uclass
SpudmanWP wrote:Or maybe they decided that having 4 internal BVR missiles is better than having 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles. Also remember that the ASRAAM has no datalink.

Both the ASRAAM and MICA have datalinks AFAIK, hence the LOAL capability.

The CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile) is based on the same missile. Forgive me for linking wiki but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Ant ... ar_Missile

LOAL really doesn't work without a datalink because aircraft are constantly moving.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 17:59
by SpudmanWP
Nope, ASRAAM does not have a datalink and only uses directional queues to achieve LOAL.

The Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) recently demonstrated the capability of an F/A-18 fighter aircraft 'over the shoulder', engaging targets chasing it from behind, employing Advanced short-range air-to-air missile (ASRAAM) in a rarely used 'Lock On After Launch' engagement mode. In this mode of operation, the missile's seeker receives the target's general location prior to launch, but actual target acquisition, and 'lock on' is performed autonomously by the missile, without pilot intervention.

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309 ... 30309.html

For close-in combat the aircraft sensors can give target positional data to the missile beyond the seeker off-boresight limits of +/- 90 degrees. This gives the pilot the additional ability to fire an “over-the-shoulder” shot using the “lock after launch” capability of the missile. In this scenario, the pilot can locate targets behind the aircraft using, for example, the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) or third party targeting. In this case the missile will launch and fly onto the vector provided by the aircraft, and the seeker will acquire the target, engage and destroy it

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... ground.pdf

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 20:03
by uclass
Neither link states specifically that it doesn't have datalink and I have heard from people in the game that it does. If you think it through it's not really much use without it. You fire a missile, aircraft breaks hard, missile is heading to the wrong place, no LOAL.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... ica_ds.pdf

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... 558589.pdf

I guess it could be argued that with 100deg OBS performance, it will just see the enemy anyway, unless the enemy goes from behind you to infront of you within the launch interval. Maybe it doesn't, who knows. Probably doesn't need it.


Will Cuda have HOBS and IR seeker as well as radar? It doesn't appear to have IR from the mock-up.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 21:13
by SpudmanWP
Given that the two datasheets from MBDA about CAAM and MICA both say their respective missiles have a datalink and the ASRAAM datasheet does not.... it speaks volumes.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... AAM_ds.pdf

btw, HOBS is a function, not a seeker. HOBS means High Off Bore Sight and refers to the missile's ability to attack targets outside its FOV while on the rail. It has nothing to do with the type of seeker, rather it refers to the missile's INS and maneuverability to attack targets outside its launching FOV.

To answer your question, yes it's designed for HOBS engagements.

As to IR, not likely.

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2013, 22:43
by Gums
Salute!

Spud has a point.

Back when the Earth was still cooling, we had the AIMVAL/ACEVAL thingie, and several of the original Viper cadre were participants. The result of the program were the specs for the AIM-9L and AMRAAM. A later program which we participated in was in sims and refined the AMRAAM requirements.

Problem in those days was the LOAL mode for the Slammer, as the Lima had the lock on before we hit the button ( not trigger, same button as for bombs). Hence, we had the data link mid-course updates.

So we demanded one mode akin to "boresight", where you pointed across the circle and put the sight on the tgt and hosed. No mid-course updates and no anything - 'twas like an AIM-9, and way better than the Sparrow. Only scenario for the really long range shot was the one requiring mid-course data link.

Fifteen or twenty years later ( figure early 90's), we had advanced strapdown INU's for the Slammer that allowed way off boresight launches and pre-launch predictions of tgt location. This reduced the mid-course corrections substantially. For example, the Wind Corrected Dispenser could hit within a few dozen meters a minute after drop with zero GPS updates, simply inertial data from the jet and tgt coords in the same inertial reference frame. Wow!

So the problem with LOAL and high off-boresight is a reasonable geometry that can be fed into the missile and a good inertial to get "close" before the final acquisition, tracking and homing phase. Hope you're not in a furball, heh heh.

Ideally, you could fire with a tgt 150 degrees off-boresight, and maybe the helmet sight or other onboard sensors could provide help with updates. Otherwise, I would take my chances with zero updates if the bandit and friends were the only ones at my six. How about you?

We have now had beacoup experience with the JDAM and friends. Figure ten years. So nice to drop and then haul butt away from the tgt and threats, I gotta tell ya. But the A2A scenarios are more dynamic, so we may have to slow down and implement what is clearly possible, while still developing the magic systems.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 01:19
by popcorn
CUDA is said to use a multimode seeker. Is this to be interpreted as a RF seeker capable of boresight, SARH and Active modes? Or is some other portion of the EM spectrum involved?

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 04:48
by geogen
To popcorn -

Vs a maneuvering, agile tgt, it would probably be more effective for an actual future CUDA missile to utilize some form of active mode or IIR-terminal enhancer to enable more reliable 'Hit-to-Kill' abilities. Especially in a BVR engagement, when the reflection of RF signal to a tiny semi-active homer on the tip of said HTK missile would probably be weaker and more aptly prone to unlocking or spoofing.

To Gums -

Interesting insight as always, sir.

With respect to your final point of "implementing what is more possible, until the magic systems finally become mature and functional", I'm curious as to your input and opinion... if a 'back-seater' might possibly better enable such 'cueing' and 'updating' potency while in VHOBS scenarios, and especially when in chaotic maneuvering WVR engagements and/or in potentially confusing night-time or poor-weather scenarios?

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 11:10
by uclass
SpudmanWP wrote:Given that the two datasheets from MBDA about CAAM and MICA both say their respective missiles have a datalink and the ASRAAM datasheet does not.... it speaks volumes.

Not saying you're definitely wrong though. I just don't see why a data-link would be specially fitted to a turret-mounted surface-to-air version of the same missile that's never going to perform an over-the-shoulder shot.

SpudmanWP wrote:btw, HOBS is a function, not a seeker. HOBS means High Off Bore Sight and refers to the missile's ability to attack targets outside its FOV while on the rail. It has nothing to do with the type of seeker, rather it refers to the missile's INS and maneuverability to attack targets outside its launching FOV.

As I understand it, it's both. It's one of the features of a staring array.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 15:06
by sferrin
geogen wrote:To popcorn -

Vs a maneuvering, agile tgt, it would probably be more effective for an actual future CUDA missile to utilize some form of active mode or IIR-terminal enhancer to enable more reliable 'Hit-to-Kill' abilities. Especially in a BVR engagement, when the reflection of RF signal to a tiny semi-active homer on the tip of said HTK missile would probably be weaker and more aptly prone to unlocking or spoofing.


I can't imagine anybody even considering SARH for a modern AAM.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 15:24
by bigjku
uclass wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Given that the two datasheets from MBDA about CAAM and MICA both say their respective missiles have a datalink and the ASRAAM datasheet does not.... it speaks volumes.

Not saying you're definitely wrong though. I just don't see why a data-link would be specially fitted to a turret-mounted surface-to-air version of the same missile that's never going to perform an over-the-shoulder shot.

SpudmanWP wrote:btw, HOBS is a function, not a seeker. HOBS means High Off Bore Sight and refers to the missile's ability to attack targets outside its FOV while on the rail. It has nothing to do with the type of seeker, rather it refers to the missile's INS and maneuverability to attack targets outside its launching FOV.

As I understand it, it's both. It's one of the features of a staring array.


CAMM is a further development of ASRAAM and has to have a data link to accept cuing from a ships radar. ASRAAM was never really designed to make use of radar for targeting in its air to air mode. CAMM has to make use of such cuing and will have a data link added to it. It could not function without it.

When ASRAAM was put into service data-links were not all that common (and ASRAAM was a long program so the ideas into it are even older than its in service date) on any missiles. They could go back and add that to it I suppose but I would guess they don't. ASRAAM has pretty small build numbers and tinkering with those already in service would be a waste of cash the UK MOD does not have.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 16:06
by SpudmanWP
@Popcorn: One thing I postulated a while back was a SARH mode based on 360 MADL transmissions for WVR guidance.

@UClass:
Not saying you're definitely wrong though. I just don't see why a data-link would be specially fitted to a turret-mounted surface-to-air version of the same missile that's never going to perform an over-the-shoulder shot.
CAMM came from ASRAAM, not the other way around. One thing to keep in mind is that the “C” in “CAMM” stands for common which means that since CAMM got a datalink for A2A shots, the other versions of CAMM get it for commonality reasons. It’s likely too expensive of a cost/benefit ratio to take it out of surface launched versions when you consider that the software would have to be rewritten, circuit boards redesigned, etc.

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2013, 16:12
by uclass
@Spudman - Cheers

Found this information on configurations for the UK F-35:

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065928225

The UK has made a significant change to its weapons fit plans for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised to include two internal and two external weapons instead.

The configuration change was agreed with the JSF Program Office in the United States late last year and was shown in public for the first time during the Singapore Airshow in February. The external ASRAAM fit will be common across all three JSF variants and could therefore attract interest from other international customers, who will otherwise be tied to Raytheon's AIM-9X Sidewinder.

The new ASRAAM plan is a 'work swap' that does away with the requirement to clear the ASRAAM on the F-35's two internal air-to-ground weapon stations. The integration team now has the more straightforward task of providing underwing carriage on stations 1 and 11. The ASRAAM is a rail-launched missile and internal weapons must be carried on a trapeze that swings down clear of the F-35's weapon bay before they can be launched.

It has always been a credo of the JSF programme that external weapons carriage fundamentally compromises the aircraft's very low observable (VLO) design. Speaking at the Singapore Airshow, George Stanridge, Lockheed Martin's vice president of F-35 Business Development, noted that, in general, "if you see something hanging on the aircraft it means you are not a VLO airplane". A new 'stealthy' pylon has been developed for the external ASRAAM and MBDA notes that the finless missile already has a tiny radar cross-section.

Carrying the ASRAAM outside the weapons bay brings several advantages, primarily in allowing passive long-range - beyond-visual-range (BVR) - engagements cued by the missile's seeker or the F-35's infrared search and track sensor.


Image

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2013, 00:51
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:@Popcorn: One thing I postulated a while back was a SARH mode based on 360 MADL transmissions for WVR guidance.

@UClass:
Not saying you're definitely wrong though. I just don't see why a data-link would be specially fitted to a turret-mounted surface-to-air version of the same missile that's never going to perform an over-the-shoulder shot.
CAMM came from ASRAAM, not the other way around. One thing to keep in mind is that the “C” in “CAMM” stands for common which means that since CAMM got a datalink for A2A shots, the other versions of CAMM get it for commonality reasons. It’s likely too expensive of a cost/benefit ratio to take it out of surface launched versions when you consider that the software would have to be rewritten, circuit boards redesigned, etc.

Besides, with a data link, you can launch it VLS, and forgo a missile turret.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 01:15
by arkadyrenko
First of all, I agree with those that say that the Cuda will only be developed if LM puts significant money behind it. Cuda fills a need, get more missiles into the fighter's weapon bays, but with the AIM-9X still not fully integrated with F-22 and with the AIM-120D underway, and with DARPA's on and off again T-3 program, Cuda won't get the time of day.

What I think is more interesting is how it'll fit into the missile range and capability spectrum.

If we take AIM-9X as short range and AIM-120D as long range, Cuda fills the range formerly occupied by the initial AMRAAM missiles. With the Cuda missile, the USAF / USN could push the AIM-120D and eventual AIM-120E into full long range missiles, think Phoenix range or further, knowing that they'll have short range missiles to handle the load and provide back up numbers. In that situation, the AIM-120E could be fully designed for the long range mission, surrendering the short range maneuverability requirements for longer range capability.

The weapon list becomes
AIM-9X
Cuda
AIM-120D and eventual E.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 02:22
by count_to_10
I feel like there is a need for a repackaged sidewinder that can fit in place of a SDB like the Cuda, and eject from an internal bay.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 21:32
by wrightwing
arkadyrenko wrote:First of all, I agree with those that say that the Cuda will only be developed if LM puts significant money behind it. Cuda fills a need, get more missiles into the fighter's weapon bays, but with the AIM-9X still not fully integrated with F-22 and with the AIM-120D underway, and with DARPA's on and off again T-3 program, Cuda won't get the time of day.

What I think is more interesting is how it'll fit into the missile range and capability spectrum.

If we take AIM-9X as short range and AIM-120D as long range, Cuda fills the range formerly occupied by the initial AMRAAM missiles. With the Cuda missile, the USAF / USN could push the AIM-120D and eventual AIM-120E into full long range missiles, think Phoenix range or further, knowing that they'll have short range missiles to handle the load and provide back up numbers. In that situation, the AIM-120E could be fully designed for the long range mission, surrendering the short range maneuverability requirements for longer range capability.

The weapon list becomes
AIM-9X
Cuda
AIM-120D and eventual E.


I think that the selling point of the Cuda, is that it can handle short or long range profiles, while providing a high capacity at the same time.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 01:01
by popcorn
I've seen estimates of CUDA's weight hovering around 180lbs. This is substantially lower than the -9X, let alone the -120D. They all use similar hi-tech components e.g. electronics, rocket engines, seekers, etc. and labor so if their respective cost per pound are similar, then CUDA may be a bargain. :)

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 01:28
by arkadyrenko
popcorn - lower weight with same or higher capability probably means higher costs. You're packing in more tech into a smaller area.

As for range, I'd be surprised if it goes into the long range arena. Lockheed says beyond visual range, that could mean at the lowest 20nm. If Lockheed does get long range from the Cuda, then it is a giant leap forward in missile technology and one which you'd expect Lockheed to broadcast widely.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 01:47
by popcorn
arkadyrenko wrote:popcorn - lower weight with same or higher capability probably means higher costs. You're packing in more tech into a smaller area.

As for range, I'd be surprised if it goes into the long range arena. Lockheed says beyond visual range, that could mean at the lowest 20nm. If Lockheed does get long range from the Cuda, then it is a giant leap forward in missile technology and one which you'd expect Lockheed to broadcast widely.


Or, like cellphones, advancing tech makes advanced capabilities affordable. E.g. moore's law, etc. It's not just up to LM to toot their own horn. The AF has been vetting all public disclosures, noteworthy for what is supposed to be a private initiative. Methinks the AF has some skin in the game.. in any case NEED TO KNOW applies.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 03:55
by wrightwing
arkadyrenko wrote:popcorn - lower weight with same or higher capability probably means higher costs. You're packing in more tech into a smaller area.

As for range, I'd be surprised if it goes into the long range arena. Lockheed says beyond visual range, that could mean at the lowest 20nm. If Lockheed does get long range from the Cuda, then it is a giant leap forward in missile technology and one which you'd expect Lockheed to broadcast widely.


Well they did say that it had comparable range to the AMRAAM, which is much better than 20nm. That's why it's such an interesting prospect. It wouldn't make much sense to pack 12 AIM-9X class weapons internally.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 12:25
by uclass
They could mean an AMRAAM A. I see it being around 70km in range realistically, which is still a lot for a missile 1.78m long. Most missiles 3m long don't have that range.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 13:05
by hobo
What the brochure actually said was : "Expands BVR engagement zones."

It also describes it as "medium range."


Image

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2013, 14:27
by wrightwing
uclass wrote:They could mean an AMRAAM A. I see it being around 70km in range realistically, which is still a lot for a missile 1.78m long. Most missiles 3m long don't have that range.



It's already been discussed here, but the missile has a high fuel fraction. Without sacrificing fuel capacity, to make room for a warhead, there's a much better ratio, than in a typical AAM.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2013, 04:11
by Corsair1963
Any updates???

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2013, 10:07
by KamenRiderBlade
What is LM's definition of Medium Range?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2013, 14:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
look at it this way, at half the weight/length of an AMRAAM with the same fuel load, it would take greatly reduced thrust to maintain the same flight profile (speed/altitude/loft) meaning that the same fuel load lasts much longer with a slower burning motor, so yes I see it as having tremendous range. Also, the endgame agility should be absurd as it has increased fin area (but not span, keeping drag down) and, once the fuel is burnt up, very very very little weight.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2013, 00:25
by count_to_10
Endgame agility is handled by the array of solid rocket attitude control thrusters.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2013, 23:29
by castlebravo
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:look at it this way, at half the weight/length of an AMRAAM with the same fuel load, it would take greatly reduced thrust to maintain the same flight profile (speed/altitude/loft) meaning that the same fuel load lasts much longer with a slower burning motor, so yes I see it as having tremendous range. Also, the endgame agility should be absurd as it has increased fin area (but not span, keeping drag down) and, once the fuel is burnt up, very very very little weight.


Being half the mass of an AMRAAM, it will take less fuel to accelerate to high speed, but unless it has significantly less drag it will require similar thrust to maintain it. It will also shed energy much faster than AMRAAM once the motor burns out since it has less kinetic energy.

I wonder what kind of performance you would get out of a two-stage CUDA with a booster attached...

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 01:17
by count_to_10
castlebravo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:look at it this way, at half the weight/length of an AMRAAM with the same fuel load, it would take greatly reduced thrust to maintain the same flight profile (speed/altitude/loft) meaning that the same fuel load lasts much longer with a slower burning motor, so yes I see it as having tremendous range. Also, the endgame agility should be absurd as it has increased fin area (but not span, keeping drag down) and, once the fuel is burnt up, very very very little weight.


Being half the mass of an AMRAAM, it will take less fuel to accelerate to high speed, but unless it has significantly less drag it will require similar thrust to maintain it. It will also shed energy much faster than AMRAAM once the motor burns out since it has less kinetic energy.

I wonder what kind of performance you would get out of a two-stage CUDA with a booster attached...

Probably somewhere between "overkill" and "insane".

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 01:32
by popcorn
castlebravo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:look at it this way, at half the weight/length of an AMRAAM with the same fuel load, it would take greatly reduced thrust to maintain the same flight profile (speed/altitude/loft) meaning that the same fuel load lasts much longer with a slower burning motor, so yes I see it as having tremendous range. Also, the endgame agility should be absurd as it has increased fin area (but not span, keeping drag down) and, once the fuel is burnt up, very very very little weight.


Being half the mass of an AMRAAM, it will take less fuel to accelerate to high speed, but unless it has significantly less drag it will require similar thrust to maintain it. It will also shed energy much faster than AMRAAM once the motor burns out since it has less kinetic energy.

I wonder what kind of performance you would get out of a two-stage CUDA with a booster attached...


Nice tradeoff though, With it's current dimensions, you get significant range and performance andwill be able to cram 12 of them into the internal weapons bay. increase the length by a fraction to add more propellant and you cut your internal weapons load by half.
Maybe part of LM's motivation in coming up with the CUDA concept was the satisfaction of shutting up those who question the jet's prospects in the A2A regime. :D

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 04:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Best sensor suite ever with 12 missiles with full BVR range and 360 degree engagement sphere?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 19:06
by southernphantom
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Best sensor suite ever with 12 missiles with full BVR range and 360 degree engagement sphere?


Complemented by the best AESA, RWR, kinematics, and RCS ever with same. Beat that, PLAAF 8) 8)

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2013, 18:38
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Reveals New Air-Launched Missile Concepts 17 Sep 2013 Bill Sweetman
..."On show for the first time at AFA is a model of Lockheed Martin’s Cuda, a so-called “Halfraam” weapon about half as long as an Amraam and compact enough to fit six missiles into each bay of the F-35 or F-22. Cuda draws on the hit-to-kill technology used on the PAC-3 missile, is designed to have a radar seeker and has both movable tails and forward attitude control motors for high agility. The company is not disclosing Cuda’s design range, but one variation of the concept is a two-stage missile with a similar total length to Amraam, presumably with the goal of covering a wide range envelope with a single missile design.

Both Cuda and SSTRR are being supported by independent research and development money and are being pushed as concepts of interest under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Air Dominance Initiative project...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 617260.xml

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2013, 23:04
by count_to_10
The company is not disclosing Cuda’s design range, but one variation of the concept is a two-stage missile with a similar total length to Amraam, presumably with the goal of covering a wide range envelope with a single missile design.

Now that's what I'm talking about. I was wondering why there were so few two stage A2A missiles out there. Lots of interesting (and sneaky) things you can do with them, and you can pretty much kiss your tail goodby if you are depending on outmaneuvering one.
On the other hand, does this means they are worried bout the maneuverability of the PAK-FA?

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2013, 23:44
by SpudmanWP
Just swap the NCADE front end with the CUDA missile wham, bam, thank you mam.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2013, 00:16
by cantaz
count_to_10 wrote:On the other hand, does this means they are worried bout the maneuverability of the PAK-FA?


How so? If the idea is to have a standard CUDA with range roughly equal to the AMRAAM, then point of a boosted CUDA-ER is to explore the same expanded envelop that a hypothetical ramjet-powered AMRAAM (or existing Meteor) would explore. CUDA's endgame would remain the same in either config.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2013, 00:51
by popcorn
A CUDA-ER would appear to address the need for a boost/ ascent-phase BMD capability originally driving NCADE. The NCADE IR seeker had been proven to work vs. a BM surrogate years ago so maybe that's another possibility. The F-35's 360-deg. spherical SA, specially in tandem with high-flying supercruising Raptors, would be great.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2013, 02:25
by Corsair1963
Plus, even if the Cuda couldn't match the longer ranges of larger missiles like the AMRAAM or Meteor. (for example) The F-35 can clearly carry a mix of Air to Air Missiles. So, maybe one bay would carry 3-AMRAAM's (again for example) and the other bay with several Cuda's. It's not like it's either or.....

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 00:02
by count_to_10
cantaz wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:On the other hand, does this means they are worried bout the maneuverability of the PAK-FA?


How so? If the idea is to have a standard CUDA with range roughly equal to the AMRAAM, then point of a boosted CUDA-ER is to explore the same expanded envelop that a hypothetical ramjet-powered AMRAAM (or existing Meteor) would explore. CUDA's endgame would remain the same in either config.

The problem with single stage missiles is that they have very little energy at the extremes of their ranges. The AMRAAM, for instance, can get out to something like a hundred miles, but it's No Escape Zone is fairly close in. The Russians are "betting" on the T-50 being able to exploit that to evade BVR shots. A two-stage missile can be lobbed out to that range, and then fire it's second stage when it gets within the NEZ of the target.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 11:24
by uclass
Is the DACT system separate to both stages?

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2014, 01:29
by SpudmanWP
I found the roots of CUDA, and it was not in the depths of LM.

The earliest info that I could find (don’t worry, it will all tie together in the end) is from Feb2011:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011PSA_Annual ... sFinal.pdf
On page 14 there is a vague entry titled “Small Advanced Capabilities Missile” with production in the “far term”. No other info in the PDF talks about it.

Next up is another PDF from later in Sep2011 (page 24):
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/arc ... mp2011.pdf
No detailed info but it does show SACM (1st use of the acronym) being used on both the F-35 and an AWACS. Not only does it show it shooting at a fighter, but also at in inbound missile (even from the AWACS).

Image

Not much else was found till April 2014 (page8):
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014SET/Wilcox.pdf
This is what it said about the goals of SACM
• Flexible hyper-agile airframes, high impulse propulsion, affordable wide field of view seeker, anti-jam guidance integrated fuze, aim-able kinetic and non-kinetic effects
• Increased A/C loadout ---> increased sortie effectiveness
• Increased Pwe with kinematic advantage & increased lethality

Finally, there is another PDF from Nov 2014 (page 18) where the tie to CUDA and the DARPA ADI (Air Dominance Initiative) program is made.
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/arc ... AS2014.pdf
Here is what it said
•  High Load-Out
•  AMRAAM Complement
•  Counter 4th /5th Gen A/C & Cruise Missiles
•  Low Cost
•  Working Collaboration with DARPA under ADI
There is a CGI graphic on page 18 showing what is a dead-ringer of the CUDA in the bay of the F-35.

Image

Now it makes sense where the Dec2013 AW Article LM said:
"Both Cuda and SSTRR are being supported by independent research and development money and are being pushed as concepts of interest under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Air Dominance Initiative project."

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2014, 01:59
by popcorn
Good sleuthing SWP.
Private industry recognized the tightening fiscal environment years back and has been more willing to fund internal and collaborative R&D initiatives. CUDA looks to deal with a variety of threats. Interesting concept providing otherwise vulnerable high-value assets with a self-defense capability vs. HARMs/SAM's.
I wonder how feasible it would-be adapt it to the DEAD/DEAD mission to help fill devoid created by the JDRADM cancellation? Would be nice but would probably pushing things... I.e.mission creep
Fingers crossed that CUDA materializes eventually with LM backing.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2014, 03:28
by SpudmanWP
It's a good thing they did not call it the Small Capable Advanced Missile.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2014, 03:42
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:It's a good thing they did not call it the Small Capable Advanced Missile.

LOL..
Downloaded the linked presentation and worth noting the continuing work on HVPW to increase velocity to 4000fps for enhanced lethality...also an intriguing ALCM for internal carriage with 400nm range. Also noticed the have a J-20 in lieu of Flanker or PAK-FA as representative opponent.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2014, 05:15
by spazsinbad
Great stuff - thanks all - from 08 April 2014 Wilcox PDF: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014SET/Wilcox.pdf (2Mb)

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2015, 07:44
by jimmer
The Aim 9 block 3 is cancelled in the FY 16 budget. Maybe because of progress on Cuda? Or maybe just sequestration. Who knows.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2015, 14:36
by bring_it_on
jimmer wrote:The Aim 9 block 3 is cancelled in the FY 16 budget. Maybe because of progress on Cuda? Or maybe just sequestration. Who knows.


The latter..The CUDA cannot deliver a weapon around those time-lines and apparently the case for the AIm-9X Blk III was that the Navy required a rapid capability around the early 2020's.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 03:57
by spazsinbad
Raytheon awarded research contract for their version of CUDA
22 Jan 2016 Alert5

"The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory has awarded Raytheon a $14 million contract to research on two concepts for next-generation, air-launched, tactical missiles.

The Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM) concept will enable future fighters to have high air-to-air load-out using a small size air frame. The project is similar to Lockheed Martin’s CUDA program which will double the number air-to-air missiles carried by the company’s two stealth fighters using a shorter missile.

Raytheon is now the third company to work on the Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM) program with the award of this contract. The MSDM aims to give fighters a self-defense capability against incoming missiles by destroying it with a direct hit using the munition."

Source: http://alert5.com/2016/01/23/raytheon-a ... more-48048

Raytheon Awarded Air Force Missile Contract
21 Jan 2016 Jake Meister

"Raytheon has been awarded a $14 million Air Force contract for research and development intended to improve the military’s state-of-the-art air-launched, tactical missiles.

Under the agreement, which was announced Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Defense, Raytheon will attempt to improve upon the number of missiles that can be held on a single excursion. The company will also work to improve both the impact of each missile, and the platform survivability against any threat that would arise in an anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environment.

Two research concepts will help to achieve the improvements: the Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM) and Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM).

“The SACM will support affordable, highly lethal, small size and weight ordnance with advanced air frame design and synergistic control capabilities for air dominance enabling high air-to-air load-out,” the DoD said. “The MSDM will support miniaturized weapon capabilities for air superiority by enabling close-in platform self-defense and penetration into contested A2AD environment with little to no impact to payload capacity.”

Raytheon was one of four companies to submit a bid for the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity cost contract. The labor will be conducted in Tucson, Ariz., and should be finished by Jan. 19, 2021...."

Source: http://www.pddnet.com/news/2016/01/rayt ... e-contract

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 05:09
by charlielima223
Miniature Self Defense Munition... sounds cool but I am confused :-?

Is it going to be like a pod future aircraft will carry that will dispense a intercepting counter measure or is going to be something integrated into future airframes?

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 07:11
by SpudmanWP
SACM = CUDA, spec and size wise.

MSDM has been described anywhere from 1/3 of an AMRAAM to as small as a Chaff/Flare munition (regular size, not the mini-F-35 ones).

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 14:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote: as small as a Chaff/Flare munition (regular size, not the mini-F-35 ones).


Now were talking. Even if the flight range was 1nm as long as it's guidance and control was HTK 95%pk good then you just changed countermeasures forever. instead of popping CM you pop a MSDM or three and threat neutralized.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 15:41
by basher54321
Please tell us it's going to be called Pye Wacket II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pye_Wacket

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 19:21
by tacf-x
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote: as small as a Chaff/Flare munition (regular size, not the mini-F-35 ones).


Now were talking. Even if the flight range was 1nm as long as it's guidance and control was HTK 95%pk good then you just changed countermeasures forever. instead of popping CM you pop a MSDM or three and threat neutralized.


Couldn't the MSDM also be used to prematurely trigger the enemy missile's proximity fuse as well?

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 20:52
by SpudmanWP
tacf-x wrote:Couldn't the MSDM also be used to prematurely trigger the enemy missile's proximity fuse as well?

That depends on the type of PF they are using. Too many variables to consider. Just HTK and be done with it 8)

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2016, 22:46
by KamenRiderBlade
Gotta love the miniaturization of missile technology

Hopefully, one day we can get to this level of ridiculous missile packing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2016, 04:33
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:SACM = CUDA, spec and size wise.

MSDM has been described anywhere from 1/3 of an AMRAAM to as small as a Chaff/Flare munition (regular size, not the mini-F-35 ones).



Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2016, 23:15
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:SACM = CUDA, spec and size wise.

= SDB = JAGM / Hellfire II (I think) = 1/2 AMRAAM
Moving toward a common weapon form factor. Actually, there are people tossing around the idea of full-on common modular weapon components (guidance, warhead, motor) for ships to provide fully customizable load-outs for their aircraft on demand.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2016, 23:19
by count_to_10
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Gotta love the miniaturization of missile technology

Hopefully, one day we can get to this level of ridiculous missile packing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM

You know, Macros started out reasonable, with missile swarms being generated by entire formations of fighters with normal, under-wing load-outs for each craft.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2016, 23:51
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: AND.... mind control DARPA wetware for the computer control/release of the swarms? :roll: See 'FireFox' 1982 ABOVE....
DARPA wants to build wetware so we can mind control computers
The fully-implantable device would connect with up to a million neurons.
20 Jan 2016 Andrew Tarantola

"Hot damn, our Ghost in the Shell future is getting closer by the day. DARPA announced on Tuesday that it is interested in developing wetware -- implantable brain-machine interfaces (BMI) that will allow their users to control computers with their thoughts. The device, developed as part of the Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) program, would essentially translate the chemical signals in our neurons into digital code. What's more, DARPA expects this interface to be no larger than two nickels stacked atop one another...."

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/darp ... computers/

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 02:02
by KamenRiderBlade
count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Gotta love the miniaturization of missile technology

Hopefully, one day we can get to this level of ridiculous missile packing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM

You know, Macros started out reasonable, with missile swarms being generated by entire formations of fighters with normal, under-wing load-outs for each craft.

That was the original Macross, Macross Frontier is set 47 years after the original SDF Macross.

Veritech fighter technology has improved by a huge margin.

Just watch Macross Plus if you want to see a dramatic re-enactment of the ATF competition with

YF-19 playing the YF-22 role of "Hero Plane"
YF-21 playing the YF-23 role of "Competitor Plane"

They showed HUGE advancements in technologies compared to the original SDF Macross, and that was only 30 years after.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 02:06
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: AND.... mind control DARPA wetware for the computer control/release of the swarms? :roll: See 'FireFox' 1982 ABOVE....
DARPA wants to build wetware so we can mind control computers
The fully-implantable device would connect with up to a million neurons.
20 Jan 2016 Andrew Tarantola

"Hot damn, our Ghost in the Shell future is getting closer by the day. DARPA announced on Tuesday that it is interested in developing wetware -- implantable brain-machine interfaces (BMI) that will allow their users to control computers with their thoughts. The device, developed as part of the Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) program, would essentially translate the chemical signals in our neurons into digital code. What's more, DARPA expects this interface to be no larger than two nickels stacked atop one another...."

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/darp ... computers/


Macross Plus also portrayed that technology very well, see below clip as example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6K1-iKCxuY

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 06:45
by charlielima223
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
Macross Plus also portrayed that technology very well


Macross/Robotech was the first anime I ever watched.

Image

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 07:04
by KamenRiderBlade
charlielima223 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
Macross Plus also portrayed that technology very well


Macross/Robotech was the first anime I ever watched.

Image

It's a good way to get into Anime

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 07:33
by charlielima223
KamenRiderBlade wrote:It's a good way to get into Anime


that and if you're a young "man" going through puberty there were also other reasons to get into anime...
>Faye Valentine
>Major Misato Katsuragi

get the point yet? but this is all :offtopic:

I am guessing such advanced active counter measures in the near future will have to be carried in external pods for current aircraft (F-22 and F-35).

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2016, 18:14
by eloise
would something like MSDN make future missiles evolve to have many small warhead

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 03:50
by Dragon029
I guess it'd depend on the specific capabilities of the MSDM, but I imagine something like a larger version of the Starstreak might be feasible:

https://youtu.be/D9qJg3wecH0?t=85

Basically it works by getting close to the target, then releasing 3 tungsten darts which each have semi-active laser guidance systems. With modern electronics you could probably give them IR seekers.

Or, if you packaged it more like a cruise missile, you could have the main stage of the missile moving subsonic when it gets near the outer engagement envelop of the MSDM, then deploy little boosted-to-Mach 3 darts while the subsonic missile platform provides laser illumination.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 06:27
by sersi
count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:SACM = CUDA, spec and size wise.

= SDB = JAGM / Hellfire II (I think) = 1/2 AMRAAM
Moving toward a common weapon form factor. Actually, there are people tossing around the idea of full-on common modular weapon components (guidance, warhead, motor) for ships to provide fully customizable load-outs for their aircraft on demand.



Indeed. The USAF's AFRL has a GBU-X/AGM-X program where a SBD scale weapon would had the effect of a 500# JDAM. The 1,000# equivalent is same diameter but twice as long so AMRAAM sized. The 2,000# equivalent is a same length as the AMRAAM but diameter is 1-2 inches larger. All with common multi-mode seekers, wing kits and optional turbofan and solid rocket engine options. They've been working on it going back as far as 2002 from what I've seen but the idea is to replace most ordinance with this new family.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 06:49
by sersi
On the Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM) I wonder just how small they will be. Lockheed's Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program seems similar.

These interceptors are very small and highly agile rockets, only 69 cm (27 in) in length, about 3.8 cm (1.5 in) in diameter (not counting the fins), and weighing about 2.3 kg (5 lb). The MHTK is designed to defeat incoming rocket, artillery, and mortar fire out to ranges of 3 - 4 km (1.9 - 2.5 miles).


http://www.gizmag.com/eaps-miniature-hit-to-kill-interceptor-flight-tested/26824/.

Those are pretty small the diameters close to a chaff flare but far longer and a lot heavier. Since even AWACS, transports, and tanker are supposed to mount the system I assume it'll be podded for the non-VLO aircraft with the stealth aircraft drop them out their weapons bays.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 10:37
by taog
https://www.google.com/patents/US9671200

Northrop Grumman's MSDM concept

Interceptors are contained in a missile pod. Pod will set outside the weapon bay so there is no impact to payload capacity.

BTW, who can see the ****** pictures?

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 14:01
by kostas29
taog wrote:https://www.google.com/patents/US9671200

Northrop Grumman's MSDM concept

Interceptors are contained in a missile pod. Pod will set outside the weapon bay so there is no impact to payload capacity.

BTW, who can see the ****** pictures?


I can see them here

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0& ... S%3Dichino

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 16:09
by taog
kostas29 wrote:
taog wrote:https://www.google.com/patents/US9671200

Northrop Grumman's MSDM concept

Interceptors are contained in a missile pod. Pod will set outside the weapon bay so there is no impact to payload capacity.

BTW, who can see the ****** pictures?


I can see them here

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0& ... S%3Dichino

lol

thx a lot

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 03:05
by eloise
USAF Funds Lockheed’s ‘Half-Raam’ Missile Flights
Image
The U.S. Air Force has funded a flight test demonstration program for Lockheed Martin’s Cuda air-to-air missile, pushing the concept forward more than five years after it first appeared, the company says.

The flight tests, funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), will evaluate how the Cuda compares to the range and terminal phase maneuverability of the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-To-Air Missile (Amraam), says Frank St. John, executive vice-president of Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control business area.

Sometimes called the “half-raam”, Lockheed designed the Cuda to achieve similar range to the AIM-120 in a package about half the size, allowing existing fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 to carry twice the number of air-to-air missiles internally.

The “AIM-120-like” range of the proposed Cuda missile may seem counter-intuitive in such a relatively small package, but Lockheed insists it’s possible. After launch, the AIM-120’s rocket motor boosts for only several seconds, then uses momentum and control fins to maneuver as it nears the target.
The half-sized Cuda also is a boosted missile. To compensate for the reduced volume of propellant, Lockheed adds a divert and attitude control system (DACS) derived from the ground-based PAC-3 missile. The DACS inserts small rocket thrusters in the nose of the missile. Combined with aft-mounted control fins, such thrusters could, in theory, render the Cuda more effective than the AIM-120 during the terminal-phase of a long-range intercept.

In addition to the F-22 and F-35, Lockheed also views Cuda as playing a potential role in the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. Lockheed’s Aeronautics business area, with its Skunk Works division in Palmdale, California, leads the company’s discussions with the Air Force on the NGAD area, but Missiles and Fire Control also participates with a suite of technologies, St. John says.

In addition to new missiles, Lockheed also is evaluating how to pair such weapons with a range of sensors, including infrared search and track (IRST).
“There’s actually AFRL funding now for moving Cuda along. There’s also sensors — distributed aperture sensors, IRST sensors being funded as well,” St. John says. “We’re doing the collaborative [operational analysis] work with the folks in Palmdale about how do those sensors and weapons enable a future air dominance platform. I can’t get into too much more than that because of the security classifications.”

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/usa ... le-flights

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 06:14
by Corsair1963
cuda-lm-0001jpg4316bfa1-20c3-47c3-8670-52ab03f7bd9chd-1.jpg


cuda1.jpg

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 14:08
by mixelflick
If they can pull this off, it's going to be a game changer..

Not just for the F-22/35, but 4th gens as well. How many could an F-15C carry, 16-20? I'm thinking 6 on each fuselage fairing, 2 under each underwing station and possibly 4 more on its centerline station.

Even if it's a modest increase to 12, that's 4 more shots per plane. Even moreso if a Viper could carry 8, two on each underwing station with a pair of wingtip AMRAAM's. Going to significantly up the lethality of any one of those aircraft, and going to make it a very long day for Russian, Chinese etc pilots...

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 14:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'll do one better, how many could an F-15E/SA/QA carry on the CFT? I'm thinking twelve, same as Mk82 class weapons.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 14:31
by sferrin
eloise wrote:USAF Funds Lockheed’s ‘Half-Raam’ Missile Flights
Image
The U.S. Air Force has funded a flight test demonstration program for Lockheed Martin’s Cuda air-to-air missile, pushing the concept forward more than five years after it first appeared, the company says.

The flight tests, funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), will evaluate how the Cuda compares to the range and terminal phase maneuverability of the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-To-Air Missile (Amraam), says Frank St. John, executive vice-president of Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control business area.

Sometimes called the “half-raam”, Lockheed designed the Cuda to achieve similar range to the AIM-120 in a package about half the size, allowing existing fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 to carry twice the number of air-to-air missiles internally.

The “AIM-120-like” range of the proposed Cuda missile may seem counter-intuitive in such a relatively small package, but Lockheed insists it’s possible. After launch, the AIM-120’s rocket motor boosts for only several seconds, then uses momentum and control fins to maneuver as it nears the target.
The half-sized Cuda also is a boosted missile. To compensate for the reduced volume of propellant, Lockheed adds a divert and attitude control system (DACS) derived from the ground-based PAC-3 missile. The DACS inserts small rocket thrusters in the nose of the missile. Combined with aft-mounted control fins, such thrusters could, in theory, render the Cuda more effective than the AIM-120 during the terminal-phase of a long-range intercept.

In addition to the F-22 and F-35, Lockheed also views Cuda as playing a potential role in the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. Lockheed’s Aeronautics business area, with its Skunk Works division in Palmdale, California, leads the company’s discussions with the Air Force on the NGAD area, but Missiles and Fire Control also participates with a suite of technologies, St. John says.

In addition to new missiles, Lockheed also is evaluating how to pair such weapons with a range of sensors, including infrared search and track (IRST).
“There’s actually AFRL funding now for moving Cuda along. There’s also sensors — distributed aperture sensors, IRST sensors being funded as well,” St. John says. “We’re doing the collaborative [operational analysis] work with the folks in Palmdale about how do those sensors and weapons enable a future air dominance platform. I can’t get into too much more than that because of the security classifications.”

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/usa ... le-flights


I think the author got this bit wrong: "To compensate for the reduced volume of propellant, Lockheed adds a divert and attitude control system (DACS) derived from the ground-based PAC-3 missile. The DACS inserts small rocket thrusters in the nose of the missile. Combined with aft-mounted control fins, such thrusters could, in theory, render the Cuda more effective than the AIM-120 during the terminal-phase of a long-range intercept."

The divert motors aren't there to "make up for reduced volume of propellant". CUDA is a hit-to-kill missile and that REQUIRES those divert motors. It gets it's extra range from not having to haul a 50 pound warhead. By being hit-to-kill it doesn't need it.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 15:34
by doge
Corsair1963 wrote:Image

I saw the picture and came up with... My facile idea or thinking (or desire).
If also attach it to the outer door, That is total '16' !!! 8)

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:19
by mixelflick
I thought it was 16 too, but the mind still resists because we've been told forever up to 6 AMRAAM, and nothing else. Maybe two wingtip 9x's, but nothing more than 8.

The fact the air force is funding this little experiment has to have LM over the moon. If they can pull this off and demonstrate proof of concept, then landed a contract - it'll be a milestone. How many times has a contractor self-funded something that actually came to fruition? Can't think of many examples..

CUDA for the F-35 and F-22 are particularly important, even assuming a lesser range than AMRAAM. They can get so much closer, and PK obviously rises with proximity. Overwhelming an 8 ship of Flankers with say, 12 CUDA's with another 12 waiting in the wings promises to lay waste to larger formations of enemy jets, and the price of using those CUDA's is going to be a hell of a lot less than losing 8 Flankers. Russia or China would go broke in a hurry given that dynamic.

Even assuming they had the money, they wouldn't be able to build jets fast enough to replace them

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:47
by gc
Fighters are no satellites or ballistic missiles which are delicate and move at some ridiculous speed that makes destruction reassured with a direct hit. Hits on wings or less vital areas might not lead to destruction as we can see how fighters not infrequently RTB following midair collisions. So i am not entirely convinced how an energy depleted missile can complete the last step of a kill chain. My concern is that one gets lodge in those huge flankers and RTB. Think how heat seeking tech is gifted to the communists in the past.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:54
by popcorn
gc wrote:Fighters are no satellites or ballistic missiles which are delicate and move at some ridiculous speed that makes destruction reassured with a direct hit. Hits on wings or less vital areas might not lead to destruction as we can see how fighters not infrequently RTB following midair collisions. So i am not entirely convinced how an energy depleted missile can complete the last step of a kill chain. My concern is that one gets lodge in those huge flankers and RTB. Think how heat seeking tech is gifted to the communists in the past.

Note that having a HE warhead on that Sidewinder in question did not prevent the tech from falling into enemy hands. :devil:

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 15:59
by gc
popcorn wrote:
gc wrote:Fighters are no satellites or ballistic missiles which are delicate and move at some ridiculous speed that makes destruction reassured with a direct hit. Hits on wings or less vital areas might not lead to destruction as we can see how fighters not infrequently RTB following midair collisions. So i am not entirely convinced how an energy depleted missile can complete the last step of a kill chain. My concern is that one gets lodge in those huge flankers and RTB. Think how heat seeking tech is gifted to the communists in the past.

Note that having a HE warhead on that Sidewinder in question did not prevent the tech from falling into enemy hands. :devil:


True! but at least we tried our best!

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 17:07
by quicksilver
Note section 13.4.2.2 about abf warheads.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 01:17
by popcorn
Weren't they researching a/c cannon firing frangible ammo that did not require HE to achieve fragmentation effects? Maybe they could do the same with CUDA...

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 02:41
by southernphantom
popcorn wrote:Weren't they researching a/c cannon firing frangible ammo that did not require HE to achieve fragmentation effects? Maybe they could do the same with CUDA...


A casing packed with sintered metal would definitely do a number to an airframe on impact, sort of like a 12ga breaching round.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 15:21
by sferrin
southernphantom wrote:
popcorn wrote:Weren't they researching a/c cannon firing frangible ammo that did not require HE to achieve fragmentation effects? Maybe they could do the same with CUDA...


A casing packed with sintered metal would definitely do a number to an airframe on impact, sort of like a 12ga breaching round.


No, no, no. Needs to be birdshot encased in wax. :wink:

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 15:26
by element1loop
Aim for the pilot's seat.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 15:41
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:Aim for the pilot's seat.


Some already do that supposedly. CUDA would do the same I presume.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 16:28
by ricnunes
Please forgive me about this post of mine since it completely lacks any technical or otherwise useful information about the CUDA missile but it contains (IMO) a funny consideration about the name CUDA:

In Portuguese CUDA sounds like "cu da" which literally means "a$$ of".

For example "aunt's a$$" would be translated to Portuguese as "cu da tia".

Perhaps if LM plans to someday export the missile to Portugal (or other Portuguese speaking countries) they should consider changing the missile's name (I'm joking here, of course) :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 16:52
by SpudmanWP
sferrin wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
popcorn wrote:Weren't they researching a/c cannon firing frangible ammo that did not require HE to achieve fragmentation effects? Maybe they could do the same with CUDA...


A casing packed with sintered metal would definitely do a number to an airframe on impact, sort of like a 12ga breaching round.


No, no, no. Needs to be birdshot encased in wax. :wink:

It likely contains the same "Lethality Enhancer" warhead that it's PAC-3 daddy had.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 17:09
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:It likely contains the same "Lethality Enhancer" warhead that it's PAC-3 daddy had.


I don't know anything specific about its "lethality enhancer" but I wonder if it's something just big enough to break up the airframe (so all the energy is transferred when going after an aircraft, instead of just punching a hole through it), or something more. See 0:19 here:


Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 18:15
by SpudmanWP
That is exactly what it is.

The Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) provides performance enhancements to the battle-proven Patriot Advanced Capability – 3 (PAC-3) missile which will counter evolving threat advancements. Aerojet Rocketdyne has qualified a larger advanced two-pulse solid rocket motor for the MSE upgrade. Aerojet Rocketdyne has also qualified the Lethality Enhancer (LE) for the MSE missile. The LE is a small directional warhead that launches a stream of low-speed steel fragments in the direction of the target in order to enhance the kill probability for certain target types. These MSE upgrades will support both the existing PATRIOT systems. The MSE missile is also the baseline interceptor for the multi-national Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).

https://www.rocket.com/patriot-pac-3-mse

Here is a pic that shows the "Lethality Enhancer" warhead in the core of the divert engine cluster.

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2019, 09:33
by eloise
I didn't know MSDN and SACM are different until now
msdn and sacm.PNG

msdn sacm.PNG

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 09:49
by taog
European ver. MSDM concept

The missile is around 10 kg and the length is less than 1 m.

Image

Re: More CUDA Info

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2019, 15:06
by mixelflick
Let's get SACM/CUDA on the F-35 ASAP. Looks to be a real winner. Two AIM-120D's and 8 CUDA = one lethal air superiority machine. Would go a long way toward shutting people up too.

The small self defense missile... very interesting. Would make a lot of sense outfitting it to the B-52 and B-21 Raider. Finally, a self defense capability for our bombers. Ever since they removed tail gunners they've had no recourse. Stealth, sure. Jamming, great. But we need to step it up a notch insofar as shooting back.

Losing just one bomber is big, big $... to say nothing of aircrew.