More CUDA Info

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 01:01

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. :)
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 01:28

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 01:47

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.
Last edited by popcorn on 04 Mar 2013, 09:43, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 03:55

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.
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 12:25

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.
Offline

hobo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 13:05

What the brochure actually said was : "Expands BVR engagement zones."

It also describes it as "medium range."


Image
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post04 Mar 2013, 14:27

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6890
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 May 2013, 04:11

Any updates???
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post30 May 2013, 10:07

What is LM's definition of Medium Range?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4927
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post30 May 2013, 14:41

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.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post31 May 2013, 00:25

Endgame agility is handled by the array of solid rocket attitude control thrusters.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

castlebravo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

Unread post31 May 2013, 23:29

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...
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Jun 2013, 01:17

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".
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post01 Jun 2013, 01:32

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
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4927
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post01 Jun 2013, 04:35

Best sensor suite ever with 12 missiles with full BVR range and 360 degree engagement sphere?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests