British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 00:24
by gabriele
Richard Scott, London - IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets
18 January 2016
Key Points

The integration of Storm Shadow on the F-35B as part of UK follow-on development has been dropped
The UK is looking to integrate the Meteor BVR air-to-air missile and the SPEAR Cap 3 stand-off precision guided weapon as part of Block 4

The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has abandoned plans to integrate the MBDA Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile on the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and is instead looking at the far future integration of a new long-range deep-strike weapon projected under the still embryonic Selective Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Cap 5 programme.


http://www.janes.com/article/57304/stor ... ation-plan

Very interesting. I think SPEAR 5 might be the same as the "Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon" that UK and France are beginning to flesh out with a new round of studies to be launched this year. Anyone has access to the full Jane's article to see if my guess is on the mark, and to see the rest?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 00:36
by bigjku
Storm Shadow is a dead end because there aren't enough orders to keep production running. The next missile will be still born. European defense isn't spending enough money to afford it. They will buy whatever the US creates unless something drastic changes between now and then.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 06:27
by Corsair1963
Clearly, the F-35 is going to have the largest selections of weapons ever available to a Modern Fighter. :D

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 21:45
by gabriele
The recently announced joint Japan-UK programme to develop a new air-to-air missile will be supported by a successfully conducted project to integrate Japanese seeker technologies into MBDA's Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), the Ministry of Defense (MoD) in Tokyo has revealed to IHS Jane's .

The project to integrate the Japanese technologies, developed by Mitsubishi Electric, into the Meteor BVRAAM was agreed in July 2014. The project centred on adapting and developing the Japanese technologies in order to enhance the accuracy and performance of the missile.

A spokesman from the Japanese MoD confirmed on 14 January that, based on this collaborative effort, Japan and the United Kingdom will now implement a "technological feasibility programme" to develop a Joint New Air-to-Air Missile (JNAAM) by "combining the UK's missile-related technologies and Japanese seeker technologies".


http://www.janes.com/article/57196/japa ... ct-with-uk


Meteor fitted with japanese AESA seeker (and possibly with smaller wings), with an eye on the F-35.
If someone has access to the whole piece...

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 22:33
by Dragon029
The recently announced joint Japan-UK programme to develop a new air-to-air missile will be supported by a successfully conducted project to integrate Japanese seeker technologies into MBDA's Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM), the Ministry of Defense (MoD) in Tokyo has revealed to IHS Jane's.

The project to integrate the Japanese technologies, developed by Mitsubishi Electric, into the Meteor BVRAAM was agreed in July 2014. The project centred on adapting and developing the Japanese technologies in order to enhance the accuracy and performance of the missile.

A spokesman from the Japanese MoD confirmed on 14 January that, based on this collaborative effort, Japan and the United Kingdom will now implement a "technological feasibility programme" to develop a Joint New Air-to-Air Missile (JNAAM) by "combining the UK's missile-related technologies and Japanese seeker technologies".

The spokesman said that the joint project undertaken by Japan and the United Kingdom since July 2014 has "analysed the capability perspectives of combining the Meteor with Japanese active radio-wave seeker technologies. As a result, it was confirmed that a JNAAM equipped with the Japanese seeker technologies is technologically feasible".

The spokesman was speaking one week after UK defence secretary Michael Fallon visited Tokyo to discuss the terms of bilateral defence collaboration with his counterpart from Japan Gen Nakatani. Following meetings between the two officials, a joint statement was issued outlining co-operation on a new missile programme, although details were not immediately disclosed.

"Following the success of the first round of talks on the co-operative research project on the feasibility of a Joint New Air-to-Air Missile, the ministers confirmed discussions would move to the second stage," the statement said. This second stage, now confirmed by the Japanese MoD, will feature the "technological feasibility programme" before moving to a potential developmental stage.

ANALYSIS
Japan's interest in the Meteor programme stems from the missile systems' expected integration into the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft, which both Japan and the United Kingdom are procuring.

Underscoring belief in Tokyo that Japanese technologies are a suitable complement for the system, the project to integrate Mitsubishi Electric into the programme was the first to be approved by Japan following the lifting of the country's self-imposed military export ban in April 2014.

This ban prohibited Japanese companies from entering international collaboration programmes such as the Meteor project, and in this sense the integration of the Japanese technologies into the programme will be positively regarded in Tokyo.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 22:46
by gabriele
Thanks. Do you have access to the earlier article too?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 23:03
by Dragon029
Yep and phew is it a big one (edited with some extra key points bolded):

Key Points
-The integration of Storm Shadow on the F-35B as part of UK follow-on development has been dropped
-The UK is looking to integrate the Meteor BVR air-to-air missile and the SPEAR Cap 3 stand-off precision guided weapon as part of Block 4


The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has abandoned plans to integrate the MBDA Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile on the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and is instead looking at the far future integration of a new long-range deep-strike weapon projected under the still embryonic Selective Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Cap 5 programme.

Officials have also disclosed that while the United Kingdom still plans to integrate the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile and the projected SPEAR Cap 3 precision stand-off air-to-surface weapon on the F-35B, there is as yet no concrete programme agreed with the JSF Program Office.

As the sole Level 1 collaborative partner for the JSF programme's System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, the United Kingdom has negotiated the integration of the Raytheon Paveway IV precision-guided bomb and MBDA Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) as part of the Block 3 release. Paveway IV and ASRAAM, together with the Raytheon AIM-120C5 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), constitute the UK's 'threshold' weapons fit.

Speaking at the Royal Aeronautical Society's (RAeS's) 'Delivering Capability: A Balance Between Weapon and Platform' conference in November 2015, Iain Barker, part of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory's (Dstl's) weapons integration team, said that the UK's status as Level 1 partner in the JSF programme had "allowed us to influence the F-35 design to get UK weapons on board". He added, "All were legacy weapons of known size and shape, allowing the [internal weapons] bay to be designed around the weapon shapes."

The original plan was for all three threshold weapons to be qualified for internal carriage on the F-35B. However, the 2010 decision to switch to the F-35C variant - subsequently reversed in 2012 - had repercussions for this plan according to Barker. "The two variants have different internal bays, there is no commonality," he explained. "So we had to start from scratch again on the B ... during this [period] we lost internal ASRAAM as a capability we would field." Accordingly, ASRAAM will now only be qualified as an external store.

"SDD weapon integration has had its challenges," added Barker. "Test envelope availability; differences in configuration approach; political direction; weapon updates; and programme concurrency.

"The UK has its own weapons, and DOSG [Defence Ordnance Safety Group] to work with. That required a redesign of how the UK would do flight test to get the appropriate data to support certification."

Internal integration of Paveway IV has encountered some challenges. "The battery firing device lanyard was found to be incompatible with the [weapon] rack," said Barker. "It was an easy fix, but would have to be fitted across all racks, so the decision was taken instead to modify the weapon lanyard."

Initial F-35B handling trials carrying ASRAAM and Paveway IV mass/shape models on external hardpoints began in late 2014. Paveway IV weapon separation testing began in June 2015 with the release of two inert weapons from the internal weapons bay of aircraft BF-03.

Under current plans, the F-35B is scheduled to achieve initial operating capability (IOC) at the end of 2018 with the three threshold weapons. An MoD spokesperson confirmed to IHS Jane's that "integration of the UK's System Development Demonstration (SDD's) weapons is currently proceeding to plan and [they] are on track to be cleared to support UK F-35 Lightning II IOC in December 2018".

Beyond the IOC, the United Kingdom has been developing plans for follow-on development involving the integration of additional weapons to maximise the aircraft capability. Storm Shadow was a threshold weapon in the original JSF Joint Operational Requirements Document, with external weapon stations 3 and 9 designed to accept the 3,000 lb store. However, Barker told the RAeS conference that integration has now been dropped. "We will not certify Storm Shadow on F-35," he said, adding that the plan "is that the aircraft will get SPEAR Cap 5 as a future deep fire capability".

The SPEAR Cap 5 capability requirement is currently planned to be met by a nascent Future Cruise Anti-Ship Weapon studied by MBDA under a French/UK co-operation project. IOC is envisaged in the period 2030-35.

Asked to comment on the rationale for not proceeding with Storm Shadow integration, the MoD told IHS Jane's that there "was never any formal requirement for Storm Shadow to be integrated on the UK's F-35 aircraft".

Meteor and SPEAR Cap 3 both remain in the frame for follow-on integration as part of the F-35 Block 4 programme. A cropped-fin Meteor concept has been developed by MBDA to enable carriage inside the F-35 bay; a feasibility study has subsequently concluded that there are no significant issues to overcome with regard to integration.

"With Meteor, neither the weapon nor the platform were designed with each other in mind," Barker said. "We're having to clip the wings in order to fit into the bay, and make some minor bay modifications. We will still deliver the capability we require."

SPEAR Cap 3 is designed to meet a UK requirement for a new mini cruise missile able to attack mobile/relocatable targets at medium stand-off range. MBDA has matured the so-called 100B concept - a network-enabled turbojet-powered 100 kg class weapon sized for a quad loadout in the F-35B internal bay - as part of the UK's sovereign complex weapons pipeline.

While the US-developed GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II has also been assessed in relation to the SPEAR Cap 3 requirement, the MoD is at this stage continuing to pursue the MBDA technical solution on the grounds that it is the only weapon option that fulfils all its key user requirements. The MoD now plans to fund MBDA for an extended Assessment Phase through to a SPEAR Cap 3 Main Gate decision planned for 2018.

"SPEAR Cap 3 is a weapon specifically designed for the F-35 platform," Barker said. "The F-35B is intended as the primary platform for this weapon."

The UK's aspiration is that weapons introduced under follow-on development should reach the front-line in the early-to-mid 2020s. However, Barker acknowledged to the RAeS audience that the programme timelines for follow-on weapon integration had yet to be finalised. "After SDD, we no longer have Level 1 status," he said. "It becomes all about aircraft offtake numbers. So we have to battle with all the other partner nations.

"The challenge for the UK will be to fit the UK weapons into that timeline to get what we need. The Block 4 programme is heavily dominated by the US customer, and it also requires modifications to the aircraft and the availability of the weapon. So Meteor will come first."

Barker added that the MoD is looking at what scope there is to drive down the cost and compress the schedule of follow-on integrations. "So we want to look at doing Meteor and SPEAR Cap 3 environmental testing together ideally to save on time and cost," he said.

The MoD told IHS Jane's in a statement,"Planning for F-35 Lightning II follow-on modernisation is currently being undertaken by the JSF Programme Office. It is intended that both Meteor and Spear Cap 3 integration will form part of this upgrade programme."

COMMENT
The decision not to proceed with Storm Shadow integration on the F-35B comes as the UK continues work to integrate Storm Shadow into the Royal Air Force's Typhoon FGR4 aircraft under the Phase 2 Enhancements (P2E) package. A first Storm Shadow launch from a Tornado was performed on a UK range in November 2015.

Integration of Storm Shadow into Typhoon under P2E is intended to lead to an IOC of August 2018, ensuring that the RAF's air-launched deep-strike capability is sustained after the retirement of the Tornado GR4 in 2019. However, the decision not to pursue integration of Storm Shadow on the F-35B means that the UK's Carrier Strike capability will be left devoid of a deep-strike weapon.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 23:15
by gabriele
Thank you so much. Very interesting indeed.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 23:42
by spazsinbad
SDBII requires bay mods so I guess all done together?
"...Meteor and SPEAR Cap 3 both remain in the frame for follow-on integration as part of the F-35 Block 4 programme. A cropped-fin Meteor concept has been developed by MBDA to enable carriage inside the F-35 bay; a feasibility study has subsequently concluded that there are no significant issues to overcome with regard to integration.

"With Meteor, neither the weapon nor the platform were designed with each other in mind," Barker said. "We're having to clip the wings in order to fit into the bay, and make some minor bay modifications. We will still deliver the capability we require."...

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2016, 00:43
by gabriele
I don't remember who it was, but an officer a while ago stated firmly that they are looking at making a list of bay mods and getting them all done together in Block IV.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2016, 01:51
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'gabriele' - here is the quote: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=28254&p=307324&hilit=accommodate#p307324
"...“If the weapons bay has to be redesigned to accommodate [new] weapons, we’ll only be redesigning it one time,” Bogdan told reporters..."

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2016, 06:28
by spazsinbad
UK Backs MBDA on Mini-Cruise Missile Requirement
18 Mar 2016 Andrew Chuter

"LONDON — Britain's Defence Ministry is expected to extend MBDA’s assessment phase contract on the SPEAR Capability 3 missile program, leaving no room for the moment for Raytheon Systems to secure a foothold in the requirement for it’s Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), according to a source familiar with the program. No formal decision has been announced to continue solely with development of MBDA’s Selective Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) missile development...

...Selective Precision Effects at Range Capability 3, better known as SPEAR Cap 3, is one of several weapons being developed for the British military under the SPEAR umbrella....

...SPEAR Cap 3 is set to be part of the offensive armament of British F-35s to be operated by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.

The standoff weapon is being designed to allow the F-35, and eventually maybe the RAF Typhoon, to attack a wide range of moving and stationary targets, day or night with a selective-effect warhead.

SPEAR Cap 3 is one of several weapons being developed for the British military under the SPEAR umbrella. SPEAR Cap 1 is a development of Raytheon’s Paveway IV precision-guided bomb, while Spear Cap 2 is an advanced version of MBDA’s Brimstone missile.

MBDA’s 2-meter long Spear Cap 3 weapon is a turbojet powered mini-cruise missile with a range beyond 100 km – beyond the range of many potentially hostile air defense systems .

It’s would be rival, the SDB II, is a winged unpowered bomb with a range in excess of 40 miles. The weapon has been purchased by the US military and is scheduled to be operational starting with the F-15 with other combat jets, including the F-35, to follow. Integration activities are already underway.

The National Audit Office, the Governments spending watchdog, effectively endorsed the MBDA program in its major projects report released late last year, saying that the SDB II fell short on a number of the key user requirements. There was a “clear operational analysis that supports the UK procurement of SPEAR Cap 3,” said the NAO.

Raytheon executives though have previously emphasized the cost-benefits of their weapon as well as it’s local production possibilities as reasons why the British should allow the weapon to compete.

Company executives have said components built in the UK could be part of the global supply chain for all SDB II’s. A purchase could save the British over £500 million compared with the rival MBDA weapon, they have previously said.

Last year Taylor Lawrence, the president of Raytheon Missile Systems, told Defense News in an interview at the Paris Air Show that the company was open to developing a powered version of the SDB II to meet the requirement if the British showed interest in it.

Under a UK government arrangement with MBDA and other local complex weapons suppliers crafted in 2006 competition was normally excluded for companies outside the arrangement .

The complex weapons policy is aimed at helping preserve local skills and technologies while also retaining operational sovereignty."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /81862964/

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2016, 17:00
by spazsinbad
UK orders advanced ASRAAM weapons for F-35B
16 Aug 2016 Beth Stevenson

"MBDA has been awarded a £184 million ($238 million) contract for the provision of advanced short range air-to-air missiles (ASRAAMs) for the UK’s Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.

The contract covers the purchase of a new variant of the weapon currently in operation with the Royal Air Force on its Panavia Tornado GR4s and Eurofighter Typhoons. Integration onto the F-35B will be covered under a separate contract, the Ministry of Defence says.

Announced on 16 August, the deal builds on a £300 million award to MBDA in September 2015 to support a Capability Sustainment Programme (CSP) for the development of the new variant of the weapon for the RAF’s Typhoons, and will add to the stockpile of a new common ASRAAM for the MoD. This will enter service on the Typhoon in 2018.

The F-35 is due to reach initial operational capability for land-based operations with the UK in December 2018, but the MoD plans to use the current ASRAAM missile on the Lightning II until 2022. The point at which the production lines will cross over from the older to the newer variant has yet to be determined.

Integration of the CSP version of the ASRAAM on the UK’s F-35s will come under the Block 4 software upgrade that the aircraft will undergo; it is currently in the 3i configuration, and will subsequently evolve to a 3F standard.

The first batch of the current ASRAAM variant was delivered to the USA in January, ahead of flight trials on board the F-35, supported by UK weapons integration lead BAE Systems.

The test examples were the first British-built missiles to be installed on the JSF, and are undergoing flight trials from NAS Patuxent River in Maryland and Edwards AFB in California. The RAF’s F-35B test and evaluation unit, 17 Sqn, is based at the latter location.

Initial tests were to include environmental data gathering, safe separation from the aircraft, weapon integration testing, firing trials and target engagement...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 5b-428544/

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2016, 17:58
by spazsinbad
Britain Stockpiles New ASRAAM Missiles for the F-35
16 Aug 2016 Andrew Chuter

"LONDON — Britain is spending £184 million ($239 million) stockpiling a new version of the ASRAAM short range air-to-air missiles ahead of equipping the F-35B Lightning II combat jet with the weapon, the Ministry of Defence said Aug 16.

The Ministry of Defence said the new order would see F-35s operated by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy start to use an updated version of the missile beyond 2022.

The order for additional ASRAAM’s follows an announcement last September of a £300 million deal with missile maker MBDA to design and build an initial batch of updated weapons.

Typhoon and Tornado combat jets are already cleared to carry the current version of ASRAAM.

The updated variant of the missile is expected to enter service on the Typhoon in 2018, the MoD said in a statement.

British F-35s will carry the current version of ASRAAM until 2022 at which point it will be taken out of service...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /88827092/

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2016, 12:54
by noth
No Storm Shadow for the F-35B is going to curtail the QE II Class's usefulness a bit. Might have to buy JASSM or whatever is in the US pipeline for Block IV to provide some capability at least. And no ASRAAM internally seems no good either...

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2016, 15:37
by weasel1962
JSOW-er. 4 external instead of 2 storm shadows. Double the range.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2016, 15:58
by SpudmanWP
noth wrote:No Storm Shadow for theis going to curtail the QE II Class's usefulness a bit. Might have to buy JASSM or whatever is in the US pipeline for Block IV to provide some capability at least. And no ASRAAM internally seems no good either...


Smart mfgs are going with UAI.

Not many countries are willing to fork over the tens of millions it takes to do a traditional weapon integration program.

Besides, going UAI also opens up all the current F-16, F-15 and future F-18 (SH) markets to your weapon at very little additional cost.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2016, 17:34
by str
weasel1962 wrote:JSOW-er. 4 external instead of 2 storm shadows. Double the range.


JSOW, as a whole (500kg), weights only slightly more than Storm Shadow's warhead (450kg). They're in entirely separate classes. US equivalent is JASSM.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 02:41
by weasel1962
...so put 2 bombs on each target. Same impact.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 02:48
by jessmo111
Does anyone know if Asraam or AIM9
Can be used for cruise missile defense?
If they can that would explain the reasoning behind so much focus with external IR missiles.
Having 2 extra shots on the rails during a missile picket, could be the difference between life and death.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 16:54
by weasel1962
Aim-9x was tested from an mml for exactly that purpose as part of ifpc inc 2-i.

If the f-35 uses boeing quad rail racks for stations 2,3,9,10, its a theretical 22 AAM missile loadout.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 03:33
by str
weasel1962 wrote:...so put 2 bombs on each target. Same impact.


Only if CEP = 0.

(It doesn't)

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 13:43
by uclass
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 5b-428544/

The ASRAAM is a short-range, infrared-guided missile capable of flying at Mach 3. Its new version will be manufactured at MBDA’s Bolton, Lancashire site. It has the same performance characteristics as the current configuration, but benefits from an MBDA seeker – a Raytheon one is currently used

It will also be easily upgraded through software changes that will enhance the image processing and algorithm performance, and components from other MBDA products – such as the Common Anti-air Modular Missile – will be introduced.


This could be the CAMM(A).

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 13:48
by uclass
weasel1962 wrote:JSOW-er. 4 external instead of 2 storm shadows. Double the range.

Don't bet on that. The officially quoted range is for export purposes and the US knows that, which is why it refuses to integrate it on to Saudi fighters. You can make a better guess by examining the size - 5.1m.

The RAF however slipped up a while back and let the cat out of the bag.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150103054 ... shadow.cfm

Performance
Range: 300nm+


That's probably a for lo-lo flight profile too.

After release, the wings deploy and the weapon navigates its way to the target at low level using terrain profile matching and an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS).

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2016, 13:57
by uclass
noth wrote:No Storm Shadow for the F-35B is going to curtail the QE II Class's usefulness a bit. Might have to buy JASSM or whatever is in the US pipeline for Block IV to provide some capability at least. And no ASRAAM internally seems no good either...

Why use a stealth asset in a non-stealthy configuration to deploy a stealthy stand-off weapon? That's the question that led to the decision.

If a Typhoon can fire the missile from out of harms way, then why use an F-35 that could be performing another sortie at the same time, like a separate deep strike or escort. There are also 11 submarines capable of firing Block IVs from the middle of nowhere too.

The UK has limited money, so this (for once) seems like a sensible limitation of spending.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2016, 01:32
by spazsinbad
No apologies for keepin' youse in suspenders with the B for Bomber F-35B pic elsewhere (shades of Rocky Horror) but...
PICTURE: Paveway IV dropped from F-35
05 Dec 2016 Beth Stevenson

"Raytheon Systems' Paveway IV laser-guided bomb has been dropped from a Lockheed Martin F-35B, paving the way for integration of the weapon on the UK’s future Joint Strike Fighter fleet.

Carried out as part of a UK effort, the test took place at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California using a US Marine Corps-operated F-35B. It was used to collect data on the interaction between the munition and the aircraft’s on-board computers and will be followed by live firings in the coming months.

The milestone marks the first weapons release under the UK’s integration programme, which saw a number of fit tests carried out at Edwards AFB in California earlier this year.

In addition to the Paveway IV, MBDA’s ASRAAM short-range, air-to-air missile will also be integrated onto the UK’s F-35s; live firings of the latter weapon will also be carried out over the coming months.

The integration work is part of the UK’s preparations for the initial operational capability for its Joint Strike Fighters and is being supported by BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and the RAF Warfare Centre, in addition to Lockheed and the weapons manufacturers....

PHOTO: https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/get ... emid=69031

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 35-432098/

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 20:16
by spazsinbad
Britain, MBDA cut trio of missile-related deals worth $690M
21 Apr 2017 Andrew Chuter

"LONDON — In what is expected to be the final significant military equipment announcement by the British government ahead of the June 8 general election, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has revealed a set of missile-related orders with MBDA worth more than half a billion dollars.

Official go-ahead for the start of integration work on the Meteor air-to-air missile on the Lockheed Martin F-35B;... announced by Fallon at a hurriedly arranged visit to MBDA's Stevenage, England, site on April 21....

...the Ministry of Defence is investing £539 million (U.S. $690 million) in the orders, some of which have been sitting around for months awaiting announcement....

...Fallon’s announcement at Stevenage gave the official go-ahead for the start of the integration of the Meteor missile onto the F-35B fleet now slowly being built up by the British for use by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

The defense secretary said that the MoD was investing £41 million into the Meteor's integration and that the missiles would enter service on the F-35B in 2024. But the missile is expected to enter service even sooner next year when it begins to replace the Raytheon-made Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles on the Air Force’s Typhoon fleet...."

Graphic:"The Meteor missile is fired from a fighter jet in this artist's rendering. Photo Credit: Courtesy of MBDA Systems" http://snagfilms-a.akamaihd.net/69/8d/e ... issile.jpg

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bri ... worth-690m

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 23:48
by gabriele
Mostly behind paywall, but today's deal seems mostly about the clipped fins kit development and the test rounds for the trials.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/mbd ... 35-testing

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 08:51
by old_rn
Interesting graphic as it shows the F35B carrying 4 Meteors. The released one is from the door mounted one and there is another on the internal bay (plus two ASRAAMs). I wonder if the F35B Meteors will include the new Japanese active seeker?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 09:21
by spazsinbad
ZOOMed

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 09:47
by jessmo111
Meteor + F-35B combo will be really nasty! How do you argue that the Typhoon is the high in the hi lo mix when this combo will make it obsolete?!

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 11:27
by bojack_horseman
jessmo111 wrote:Meteor + F-35B combo will be really nasty! How do you argue that the Typhoon is the high in the hi lo mix when this combo will make it obsolete?!


Indeed, the UK will have a 'high-high' combination.

Regarding the respective loudouts, the UK having 2 x Meteor, 2 x ASRAAM & 8 x SPEAR-3s vs the USAF carrying 2 x AMRAAM, 2 x Sidewinder & 8 x SDBs, I think the UK will have a considerable advantage.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2017, 04:19
by Corsair1963

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2017, 14:27
by spazsinbad
UK MoD green lights Meteor integration on F-35B
26 Apr 2017 Robin Hughes

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has officially approved the integration of the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) on the UK F-35B Lightning II multirole stealth aircraft under one of a raft of separate missile-related contract awards to the MBDA announced on 21 April.

A GBP41 million (USD52.5 million) contract provides for the development of an initial integration solution for Meteor on the F-35, a UK MoD Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) spokesperson told Jane's . "There will be a separate contract for full integration, the timeline of which will be guided by the US follow-on modernisation [FoM] programme. The UK is seeking to have the capability available on the F-35 from 2024," the spokesperson said. Meteor is a candidate for internal carriage on the UK's F-35B as part of the Block 4 capability upgrade cycle.

Dave Armstrong, managing director at MBDA UK, told Jane's that the contract essentially moves an earlier Meteor/F-35 integration study into the design phase. "We've already completed an initial study, and we understand precisely what we need to do. So this [contract] moves the study into the design phase, and we will end up with the right build of software and adaptation for Meteor on the F-35. We also have make sure that when the missile is in the internal weapons bay it is compatible with the aircraft and so our design work will also focus on safety parameters, release parameters, etc, to ensure that the missile works in the complete F-35 environment. So this contract will conclude with a finished product."

Armstrong confirmed that the design phase includes a minor hardware redesign to the missile tail fin. "As currently configured, the fins [on the Meteor] will not fit in the internal weapons bay of the F-35, and therefore they have to be redesigned. In simplistic terms we are cropping the top of the fin and are moving it elsewhere to retain the same surface area - and so the performance remains unchanged...."

Photo: "A mock-up of the Meteor BVRAAM in the internal carriage bay of the F-35B Lightning II. Note the cropped rear fins to allow internal carriage of the missile on the aircraft. Source: R Hughes" http://www.janes.com/images/assets/834/ ... -_main.jpg


Source: http://www.janes.com/article/69834/uk-m ... n-on-f-35b

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2017, 22:16
by spazsinbad
Photo of the Day
17 May 2017 Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)

PHOTO:"Photo of the Day: U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Tom "Sally" Fields conducted U.K. AIM-132 and Paveway IV external weapons testing with an F-35B Lightning II Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant May 12, 2017. Fields is based at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River Integrated Test Force (ITF) and assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23." https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=597A4F33

Source: https://www.facebook.com/NAVAIR/photos/ ... =3&theater

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2017, 23:02
by lamoey
spazsinbad wrote:
Photo of the Day
17 May 2017 Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)

PHOTO:"Photo of the Day: U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Tom "Sally" Fields conducted U.K. AIM-132 and Paveway IV external weapons testing with an F-35B Lightning II Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant May 12, 2017. Fields is based at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River Integrated Test Force (ITF) and assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23." https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=597A4F33

Source: https://www.facebook.com/NAVAIR/photos/ ... =3&theater


Should not the very tip of each of the Paveway point in the direction of the airflow, or is this a doctored picture?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2017, 23:05
by spazsinbad
Looks undoctored to me - aircraft in burner pulling some Gs most likely OR just accelerating in the turn? Except I have modified the photo - look at original which is smaller etc.... Photo may have been taken from below in level flight?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 04:59
by rheonomic
Seems like the Paveway IVs do this, e.g. the Typhoon in this FlightGlobal article or the Harrier on this page.

At first I thought it might be the seeker heads pointing toward the ground, but the Typhoon picture is interesting as it looks like the Paveways on the left wing have the seeker head pointing down and the Paveways on the right wing are straight.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2017, 07:19
by johnwill
F-35 LEF is deflected, so AoA is significant and seeker heads are simply trying to maintain zero AoA.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2017, 00:03
by count_to_10
I did not know they did that.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2017, 17:43
by quicksilver
GBU-12 and similar weapons come to the jet with a round styrofoam shape mounted inside the fins so that the assembly doesnt bounce around (or get damaged) while being transported. Sometime during the loading sequence for the weapon, the shape is removed and the weight of the seeker head causes the assembly to tip in the direction of that weight. As air loads act upon the seeker (airborne), the seeker aligns with the aircraft vector.

Pic at the link.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jfr ... 504.jpg|||

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 03:23
by quicksilver
Deleted. Wrong thread.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 06:34
by rheonomic
quicksilver wrote:GBU-12 and similar weapons come to the jet with a round styrofoam shape mounted inside the fins so that the assembly doesnt bounce around (or get damaged) while being transported.


Cool, learnt something new today.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 15:20
by uclass
gabriele wrote:
Richard Scott, London - IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets
18 January 2016
Key Points

The integration of Storm Shadow on the F-35B as part of UK follow-on development has been dropped
The UK is looking to integrate the Meteor BVR air-to-air missile and the SPEAR Cap 3 stand-off precision guided weapon as part of Block 4

The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has abandoned plans to integrate the MBDA Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile on the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and is instead looking at the far future integration of a new long-range deep-strike weapon projected under the still embryonic Selective Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Cap 5 programme.


http://www.janes.com/article/57304/stor ... ation-plan

Very interesting. I think SPEAR 5 might be the same as the "Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon" that UK and France are beginning to flesh out with a new round of studies to be launched this year. Anyone has access to the full Jane's article to see if my guess is on the mark, and to see the rest?

My take on this is that Storm Shadow is being dropped on F-35B because it can't carry tanks and missiles and the range of the B with two Storm Shadows would be limited, which is why I think they may opt for a mix of As and Bs yet.

I don't think Storm Shadow itself is dead yet though.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 17:00
by neptune
uclass wrote:
gabriele wrote:
Richard Scott, London - IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets
18 January 2016
Key Points

The integration of Storm Shadow on the F-35B as part of UK follow-on development has been dropped
The UK is looking to integrate the Meteor BVR air-to-air missile and the SPEAR Cap 3 stand-off precision guided weapon as part of Block 4

The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has abandoned plans to integrate the MBDA Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile on the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and is instead looking at the far future integration of a new long-range deep-strike weapon projected under the still embryonic Selective Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Cap 5 programme.


http://www.janes.com/article/57304/stor ... ation-plan

Very interesting. I think SPEAR 5 might be the same as the "Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon" that UK and France are beginning to flesh out with a new round of studies to be launched this year. Anyone has access to the full Jane's article to see if my guess is on the mark, and to see the rest?

My take on this is that Storm Shadow is being dropped on F-35B because it can't carry tanks and missiles and the range of the B with two Storm Shadows would be limited, which is why I think they may opt for a mix of As and Bs yet.

I don't think Storm Shadow itself is dead yet though.


Storm Shadow:
300 nm, 0.8 mach, 3k lb, 17 ft, 900 lb warhead/ sub-munitions
:)

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 12:22
by hythelday
(I know it's also French but still)

MBDA introduces the SmartGlider family of weapons

Le Bourget, 19 June 2017.
MBDA presents the new SmartGlider family of guided weapons, optimised to counter anti-access strategies and other emerging battlespace threats. Planned to become available for fast jets no later than 2025, SmartGlider forms a family of all-up-round glider weapons, with folding wings and a range of over 100 km. This new generation of air-to-ground weapons is designed to counter new networked short- and medium-range surface-to-air threats, as well as moving/relocatable targets or hardened fixed targets.

The compact family member, SmartGlider Light, is 2 meters long and weighs 120 kg. 12 to 18 SmartGlider Lights can be carried on an aircraft thanks to a Hexabomb Smart Launcher (HSL) capable of managing reactive strikes without affecting the pilot’s workload [...]

Last, MBDA also prepares a 1,300 kg SmartGlider Heavy able to carry a multipurpose warhead of more than 1,000 kg to deal with large and hardened infrastructure.


Image


So I guess 120 kg glide bomb with a seeker is something with less range than SPEAR 3 but probably has a little more punch.

It's big brother is ~3000 pounds, and thus too heavy to be carried internally (as per disclosed rating of 2500 lb for station 4 and 8 hardpoints) on an F-35, and probably is too large for the British F-35B too. Also 1000 kg of HE in a 1300 kg package seems like an unproportionally large number even for a general purpose bomb, let alone penetrating one. Probably multiple warheads (shaped charge for penetration, rest to affect the target)?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 16:14
by steve2267
Sounds like MBDA just re-invented SDB II and JSOW?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 08:24
by popcorn
https://www.upi.com/Harris-Corp-develop ... 505239883/

Harris Corp. developing F-35 missile release system

Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Harris Corporation is to develop a carriage and release system for the new MBDA Spear missile for Britain's F-35B aircraft and other fighters...
Under the contract, Harris will provide four internal bay-compatible SCORPION Lightweight Ejection Rack Units for two F-35 weapon bays. They are to provide the aircraft's pilot with reliable weapon-departure control of the missiles.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 07:08
by spazsinbad
The Joint New Air to Air Missile goes ahead
17 Dec 2017 Gabriele

"The JNAAM is a development of Meteor that will include, it is believed, an AESA seeker developed by Japan. This evolved missile would then equip aircraft including the F-35s of both UK and Japan. It is currently the most interesting joint programme among those launched with the aim of deepening the bilateral collaboration. At the Ministerial Meeting on 14 December the two countries agreed to looking forward “to the early embodiment of the joint research project including the research prototyping and the launch testing”.

The ministers also “welcomed that the first bilateral co-operative research project of Chemical and Biological Protection Technology was successfully completed in July 2017. They welcomed progress made on the Project for the Cooperative Research on Personnel Vulnerability Evaluation, and confirmed the exploration of possible co-operation on projects of interest including the Joint Preliminary Study on Potential Collaborative Opportunities for Future Combat Air System/ Future Fighter, launched in March this year”.

The JNAAM is very interesting on its own, but it becomes even more important as it could help open a path to joint development of that “Future Fighter” that could be the post-Typhoon face of UK airpower and the future of the british aerospace industry...."



Source: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... le-of.html

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 08:04
by eloise
JNAAM
Capture.PNG

Capture1.PNG

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 10:45
by spazsinbad
MBDA discloses development of SPEAR variants
18 Apr 2019 Robin Hughes

"MBDA in the UK has disclosed details on the development of two prospective air-launched missile variants evolved from its baseline SPEAR stand-off, air-to-surface developmental weapon system: SPEAR-EW (electronic warfare) and SPEAR-Glide.

Still in its development phase, the SPEAR weapon is MBDA's solution for the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) 100 kg class Selective Precision Effects At Range Capability 3 (SPEAR Cap 3) requirement. The MoD awarded MBDA a GBP411 million (USD536 million) four-year SPEAR Cap 3 Development Phase contract in March 2016 for critical design and development work to tailor the SPEAR weapon for use within the internal weapons bay of the UK Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35 Lightning multirole stealth aircraft. Integration of SPEAR onto the Eurofighter Typhoon is also a programme of record for the RAF.

SPEAR is a long-range missile powered by a Pratt & Whitney TJ-130 turbojet engine to deliver a given range of over 140 km, according to MBDA. Designed to operate as an all-weather capability, SPEAR introduces a significant evolution of the terminal guidance seeker package developed for the Brimstone missile, featuring a combined radio frequency (RF) imaging sensor and a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker with an enhanced algorithm and processing capability that enables the missile to 'see' and record images of the target area through the RF imaging element of the seeker.

Navigation is delivered through anti-jam GPS combined with a Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)-based inertial measurement unit sourced from UTC Aerospace Systems. The missile also features an insensitive munition-compliant multi-effects warhead - sourced from TDW - with multiple fusing options that provides a low collateral footprint and allows for tunable effects to the target; and a two-way datalink.

Weighing less than 100 kg and 1.8 m in length, MBDA's SPEAR solution features a circular 180 mm cross-section airframe, dorsally mounted fold-out wings (folding rearward for stowage), a revised intake arrangement with twin side inlets, and three folding tail surfaces."

Graphic: "Artist’s rendering of the baseline SPEAR weapon, SPEAR-EW, and SPEAR-Glide launched from the F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon platforms. Source: MBDA" https://www.janes.com/images/assets/978 ... 0_main.jpg


Source: https://www.janes.com/article/87978/mbd ... r-variants

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2019, 16:06
by eloise
I can't stress how excited iam for SPEAR-EW , best thing ever

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2019, 09:49
by timmymagic
eloise wrote:I can't stress how excited iam for SPEAR-EW , best thing ever


The 3 versions of Spear are a fantastic capability.
Spear itself outperforms any competition, but won't be cheap..
Spear EW is a fairly unique capability, smaller than MALD-J
SpearGlide will be the direct SDBII Stormbreaker competitor with a larger warhead but no propulsion

What the range really needs though is a Spear 'Simple' (what used to be called 'Value Engineered'). Essentially a SpearGlide without the MMW seeker, just reliant on GPS/INS and possibly a SAL seeker head. That would provide some competition for SDBI and round the range out.

As to SmartGlider? That really demonstrates one of the flaws in MBDA as a joint European missile house. SpearGlide and Spear already fill that niche in the MBDA catalogue, instead because the French won't buy Spear they're going to re-invent the wheel....madness.

SmartGlider Heavy though is interesting. The UK needs a a heavier weapon that PWIV with its 500lb warhead. EPWIII and PWII are not going to be carried by F-35 for the UK and the UK lacks a longer range gliding weapon. The template for SmartGlider Heavy should be JSOW. A weapon with modular payloads would be very useful.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2019, 23:54
by element1loop
timmymagic wrote:
eloise wrote:I can't stress how excited iam for SPEAR-EW , best thing ever


What the range really needs though is a Spear 'Simple' (what used to be called 'Value Engineered'). Essentially a SpearGlide without the MMW seeker, just reliant on GPS/INS and possibly a SAL seeker head. That would provide some competition for SDBI and round the range out.


If you don't want to re-invent a wheel for a general-purpose precision-guided glide-bomb then cheap-ish JDAM-ER kits exist and can be configured or upgraded as necessary with a laser sensor plus immunity to GPS-jamming or an all-weather radar sensor. Testing achieved a claimed 72 km from a 40,000 ft launch (classic Hornet) with a 500 lb GBU, so is likely to go further out with F-35 and its 10K to 15K feet higher altitude performance.

Image

Image

Image

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2019, 00:03
by marauder2048
timmymagic wrote:The template for SmartGlider Heavy should be JSOW. A weapon with modular payloads would be very useful.


Except JSOW-ER is going the other direction by trading (in a non-modular way) payload for range.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 07:58
by squirrelshoes
I don't get JSOW-ER. Well I get the usefulness of a standoff weapon but it's not like they are lobbing it at guys in a pickup truck, they are going to use it to hit something valuable. Might as well use JASSM which is more survivable (stealthier, can fly lower) and has a bigger warhead.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 08:15
by SpudmanWP
JSOW-ER is internal to the F-35.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 09:23
by element1loop
squirrelshoes wrote:I don't get JSOW-ER. Well I get the usefulness of a standoff weapon but it's not like they are lobbing it at guys in a pickup truck, they are going to use it to hit something valuable. Might as well use JASSM which is more survivable (stealthier, can fly lower) and has a bigger warhead.


Dedicated RCS treatment plus carried to high-altitude in cold air before launch then glides through cold air for most of the way, at a speed which makes for next to no thermal heating of leading edges. I'm guessing it has penetration and terminal electronic aids to explain the smaller warhead within such a large chassis. RAAF chose to use JSOW on Super Hornet (JASSM on the classic Hornet only) and it was these Super Hornets which replaced the F-111 as a dedicated regional strike aircraft, where JSOW was its best stand-off strike weapon. Recently noticed JASSM (not just LRASM) is now listed as integrated on Super Hornet so I guess JASSM's now an option there too.

JSOW lacks little other than the range for a 4th-gen to make a surprise strike but now with F-35A internal carry that's covered to. If you need LOS sensor observation of the target and strike then JSOW's the cheaper dedicated VLO weapon for it.

Internal JSOW-ER on F-35A and C is still 4 years away from first batch delivery, apparently to USN first (even though LRASM, JASSM and JASSM-ER are now all available on SH). JSOW-ER capability remains a priority, presumably because it remains cheaper than buying a new JASSM-ER. But even then there's no indication JSOW-C1 will be phased out.

The Requirements for the JSOW-ER includes: extending the range of the existing JSOW C-1 variant while maintaining targeting and performance capabilities, carriage on F-18 and internal carriage on F-35A/C while minimizing any changes to existing aircraft integration and limitations, hardware and software modifications to optimize midcourse and endgame performance for the powered variant of the JSOW, and deployment to the fleet no later than FY23.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 22:15
by marauder2048
element1loop wrote:guessing it has penetration and terminal electronic aids to explain the smaller warhead within such a large chassis.


Based on what? They barely had enough power to sustain the datalink at range for JSOW-C-1.

I guess you could argue that the alternator on the TJ-150 would let them power the datalink
at the extended range and some EW features but given that they carve up the warhead
to fit the fuel tank I'm skeptical of any other additions.


element1loop wrote:Internal JSOW-ER on F-35A and C is still 4 years away from first batch delivery, apparently to USN first (even though LRASM, JASSM and JASSM-ER are now all available on SH). JSOW-ER capability remains a priority, presumably because it remains cheaper than buying a new JASSM-ER. But even then there's no indication JSOW-C1 will be phased out.


Based on the FY20 budget, it's cheaper than buying JASSM baseline.
And datalinked; they have talked about datalinking JASSM versions other than LRASM
but my guess is that they'll just wait for JASSM-D.

I'm guessing JSOW-C-1 will be reworked to JSOW-ER standard.

What you will likely get with JSOW-ER is the equivalent to powered version of SDB with a datalink and terminal seeker.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 05:43
by magitsu
element1loop wrote:Internal JSOW-ER on F-35A and C is still 4 years away from first batch delivery, apparently to USN first (even though LRASM, JASSM and JASSM-ER are now all available on SH). JSOW-ER capability remains a priority, presumably because it remains cheaper than buying a new JASSM-ER. But even then there's no indication JSOW-C1 will be phased out.


Classic JASSM is probably unavailable without redesign due to turbine manufacturer Teledyne leaving the business. Same turbine (Teledyne CAE J402-CA-100) was apparently in certain other missiles too (Harpoon?). It probably could use WDL aka 2-way datalink from -ER too at the same time.

But the family is looking at increased demand (new factory in Alabama), so they will be developed further.
https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... les/158943

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 06:37
by aussiebloke
magitsu wrote:
Classic JASSM is probably unavailable without redesign due to turbine manufacturer Teledyne leaving the business.


According to the DoD’s FY2020 budget papers “The last JASSM-Baseline was delivered on 20 December 18“.

All subsequent deliveries of JASSM are either JASSM-ER or from October 2022 the AGM-158D (this appears to be what was previously referred to as JASSM-XR or JASSM Extended Range).
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2020 ... B_2020.pdf

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 08:45
by element1loop
magitsu wrote:Classic JASSM is probably unavailable without redesign due to turbine manufacturer Teledyne leaving the business. Same turbine (Teledyne CAE J402-CA-100) was apparently in certain other missiles too (Harpoon?). It probably could use WDL aka 2-way datalink from -ER too at the same time.

But the family is looking at increased demand (new factory in Alabama), so they will be developed further.
https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... les/158943


Yes, saw that story on the JASSM production expansion. Good news, plus demand expressed for more LRASM.

Brit F-35B won't be able to carry JSM, JSOW-C1 or JSOW-ER internally, external only, so they may have to develop some internal alternative to JSOW-C1 carried on the A and C.

As per ...

timmymagic wrote:SmartGlider Heavy though is interesting. The UK needs a a heavier weapon that PWIV with its 500lb warhead. EPWIII and PWII are not going to be carried by F-35 for the UK and the UK lacks a longer range gliding weapon. The template for SmartGlider Heavy should be JSOW. A weapon with modular payloads would be very useful.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 09:08
by element1loop
aussiebloke wrote:According to the DoD’s FY2020 budget papers “The last JASSM-Baseline was delivered on 20 December 18“.


JASSM's claimed range is ~370 km while Kongsberg claims 500 km for JSM, which has proper NSM-like anti-ship capabilities too. So that's most likely the next general-purpose stealth cruise strike weapon from here. Japan made a $71 million USD order in March for an unknown number of JSM.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 19:05
by marauder2048
magitsu wrote:It probably could use WDL aka 2-way datalink from -ER too at the same time.


It was dropped from -ER a decade ago.
LRASM has it and it might find its way back onto the rest of the family.

Has anyone actually found a reliable unit cost for JSM? The 250+ nm range, ~ $500k unit cost
category seems to be pretty vacant aside from JSOW-ER.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2019, 19:00
by squirrelshoes
element1loop wrote:JASSM's claimed range is ~370 km while Kongsberg claims 500 km for JSM, which has proper NSM-like anti-ship capabilities too. So that's most likely the next general-purpose stealth cruise strike weapon from here. Japan made a $71 million USD order in March for an unknown number of JSM.

I think Japan is buying JSM to be able to sink Chinese ships, it's got a warhead appropriate for taking ships out of action more than being a general purpose cruise missile. JASSM-ER can go 925km with a 1,000lb warhead, which gives it a lot more land attack applications than JSM.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2019, 17:55
by garrya
EED5D3BA-817D-4849-9E00-247E0A0C0FAF.jpeg

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2020, 09:58
by hythelday
F-35B jets to get Meteor missile ‘middle of this decade’
By George Allison, September 11, 2020

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35b-j ... is-decade/

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“Initial development work for Meteor integration has progressed well. Final contract award is currently under negotiation which, on current plans, would deliver the integration of Meteor on the F-35B Lightning in the middle of this decade.”

[...]

BAE Systems has received an initial funding award from Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 programme, to start integration efforts for MBDA’s Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile and SPEAR precision surface attack missile. Under this initial package of work BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin will also complete further integration work with MBDA on ASRAAM and with Raytheon on Paveway IV, initially integrated in support of delivering Initial Operating Capability for the UK.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2020, 11:47
by hornetfinn
squirrelshoes wrote:
element1loop wrote:JASSM's claimed range is ~370 km while Kongsberg claims 500 km for JSM, which has proper NSM-like anti-ship capabilities too. So that's most likely the next general-purpose stealth cruise strike weapon from here. Japan made a $71 million USD order in March for an unknown number of JSM.

I think Japan is buying JSM to be able to sink Chinese ships, it's got a warhead appropriate for taking ships out of action more than being a general purpose cruise missile. JASSM-ER can go 925km with a 1,000lb warhead, which gives it a lot more land attack applications than JSM.


I think JSM and JASSM-ER compliment each other very well. JASSM-ER is definitely the heavy hitter while JSM is good for smaller and softer targets like ships, SAM systems and ballistic missile launchers for example. But it seems that Japan is not buying that kind of land-attack capability (too offensive perhaps). Interesting though that Japan is developing domestic supersonic anti-ship missile ASM-3 with 400 km range and Mach 3+ speed. Of course that's way too big for F-35 internal carry.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2020, 12:30
by timmymagic
hythelday wrote:F-35B jets to get Meteor missile ‘middle of this decade’
By George Allison, September 11, 2020

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35b-j ... is-decade/

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“Initial development work for Meteor integration has progressed well. Final contract award is currently under negotiation which, on current plans, would deliver the integration of Meteor on the F-35B Lightning in the middle of this decade.”

[...]

BAE Systems has received an initial funding award from Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 programme, to start integration efforts for MBDA’s Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile and SPEAR precision surface attack missile. Under this initial package of work BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin will also complete further integration work with MBDA on ASRAAM and with Raytheon on Paveway IV, initially integrated in support of delivering Initial Operating Capability for the UK.


This was just the confirmation of a fact that had been known for a couple of years already. Meteor would only arrive with the Block IV enhancements.

Current UK weapons on F-35 are:

Legacy Asraam
Paveway IV

Coming in 2025/6 with Block IV
- Meteor
- Spear
- Asraam CSP (Capability Sustainment Programme) - Essentially Block 6 Asraam, new UK seeker head, tech transfer from CAMM to remove obsolescence and other improvements. Completely new production to replace Legacy Asraam. It should start to be deployed on Typhoon in 2022. Promises to be the best WVR missile on earth.

Unclear at present
- Paveway IV Penetrator - This should arrive by default with Block IV, but little heard on it recently
- Spear variants - 2 variants currently under development; SpearGlide and Spear-EW. Spear Glide should be a comparatively easy integration. Spear-EW would be more complex.
- JNAAM - Joint UK/Japan programme to place an AESA seeker on Meteor. Given the delays to Meteor integration the arrival of JNAAM and Meteor integration actually coincide...

Beyond that its as clear as mud. The UK is developing the FASGW missiles with France but they're unlikely to arrive until 2030-35. The clear gaps for the UK on F-35 are; heavier munition than PWIV (potentially gliding), Anti-Shipping, long range air to ground. The worrying thing is there appears to be little urgency around closing these gaps.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2020, 15:34
by mixelflick
Meteor coming online should really put it over the top insofar as air to air missions. Granted, it could probably get by with AMRAAM but realistically - it's going to be awhile before AIM-260 is on it (IF its exported). I

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing carrying a Meteor or any other AAM for that matter. But especially Meteor..

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2020, 21:49
by dtmdragon
timmymagic wrote:
hythelday wrote:F-35B jets to get Meteor missile ‘middle of this decade’
By George Allison, September 11, 2020


Unclear at present
- Paveway IV Penetrator - This should arrive by default with Block IV, but little heard on it recently


My understanding is the press release on UK F-35B IOC-land stated the Paveway IV with Tactical Penetrator warhead will be apart of IOC-maritime at the end of this year?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2020, 22:30
by squirrelshoes
timmymagic wrote:SpearGlide

First time I've heard of this.

Sounds like SDB2ish?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 15:17
by timmymagic
mixelflick wrote:Meteor coming online should really put it over the top insofar as air to air missions. Granted, it could probably get by with AMRAAM but realistically - it's going to be awhile before AIM-260 is on it (IF its exported). I

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing carrying a Meteor or any other AAM for that matter. But especially Meteor..


I think AIM-260 will definitely be exported, Meteor is managing to get inroads into the world BVR missile market, that has to all intents and purposes been a US preserve for 50 years now (if you ignore the small numbers of SkyFlash or Super 530 users). With the US intent of stopping procurement of Amraam that trend is only going to increase, particularly when F-35 is integrated (some F-35 users Amraam stockpiles will need replacing or re-lifing around about them). Of particular interest is the adoption of Meteor by South Korea and Japan (admittedly no order placed but the JNAAM work is heading in one direction). The US is going to need to protect that market place, at the moment its main way of protecting it is by controlling integration on US platforms ahead of others.

Meteor is going to give the RN a hell of a CAP capability (in most ways it would be superior to the old F-14/Phoenix combination).

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 15:22
by marauder2048
timmymagic wrote:
I think AIM-260 will definitely be exported, Meteor is managing to get inroads into the world BVR missile market, that has to all intents and purposes been a US preserve for 50 years now (if you ignore the small numbers of SkyFlash or Super 530 users). With the US intent of stopping procurement of Amraam that trend is only going to increase, particularly when F-35 is integrated (some F-35 users Amraam stockpiles will need replacing or re-lifing around about them). Of particular interest is the adoption of Meteor by South Korea and Japan (admittedly no order placed but the JNAAM work is heading in one direction). The US is going to need to protect that market place, at the moment its main way of protecting it is by controlling integration on US platforms ahead of others.


When has US defense export policy ever been motivated by market share considerations?

timmymagic wrote:Meteor is going to give the RN a hell of a CAP capability (in most ways it would be superior to the old F-14/Phoenix combination).


7-inch diameter seeker and 50 lb warhead vs a 15-inch diamater seeker + 150 lb warhead?

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 15:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote:
timmymagic wrote:Meteor is going to give the RN a hell of a CAP capability (in most ways it would be superior to the old F-14/Phoenix combination).


7-inch diameter seeker and 50 lb warhead vs a 15-inch diamater seeker + 150 lb warhead?


that 7-in seeker is going to be far more capable. Improved Tx/Rx losses, signal processing software, etc. And really it is the kinematics that are being discussed here. Meteor range is rather unparalleled with a throttleable ramrocket.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 16:05
by timmymagic
marauder2048 wrote:When has US defense export policy ever been motivated by market share considerations?


That segment has never really come under pressure, particularly with traditional buyers of US gear like SK and Japan. No-one likes to see market dominance lost or reduced.

timmymagic wrote:Meteor is going to give the RN a hell of a CAP capability (in most ways it would be superior to the old F-14/Phoenix combination).


7-inch diameter seeker and 50 lb warhead vs a 15-inch diamater seeker + 150 lb warhead?[/quote]

Well Meteor works for one (although to be fair we're presuming that)...longer ranged, more manoeverable at the end game, radar will be more effective at long range as well.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 16:28
by mixelflick
No question F-35B/Meteor trumps the F-14/Phoenix, but that's of course expected.

Think about it though... how advanced was the Phoenix, that we're talking about it even now? The F-14/AWG-9 plus Phoenix pairing was downright fearsome, as experience in Iranian service showed. There was nothing remotely close to its capabilities when originally fielded, and even today it represents a credible threat (Iranian F-14AM's plus Fakhour 90). It would be a mistake to take that combo lightly, and provided their F-14's really have been updated with new radars, E/W suite etc... represents a credible threat to just about everything flying (minus the F-22 and F-35).

It's a whole lotta' missile, moving incredibly fast with a monster warhead. Not something I'd want to be confronted with, that's for sure..

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 16:30
by marauder2048
timmymagic wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:When has US defense export policy ever been motivated by market share considerations?


That segment has never really come under pressure, particularly with traditional buyers of US gear like SK and Japan. No-one likes to see market dominance lost or reduced.


I've yet to see evidence that concerns about market dominance or lack thereof influences US defense export policy.


timmymagic wrote:
Well Meteor works for one (although to be fair we're presuming that)...longer ranged, more manoeverable at the end game, radar will be more effective at long range as well.


There's really no evidence for any of this.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 16:34
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
timmymagic wrote:Meteor is going to give the RN a hell of a CAP capability (in most ways it would be superior to the old F-14/Phoenix combination).


7-inch diameter seeker and 50 lb warhead vs a 15-inch diamater seeker + 150 lb warhead?


that 7-in seeker is going to be far more capable. Improved Tx/Rx losses, signal processing software, etc. And really it is the kinematics that are being discussed here. Meteor range is rather unparalleled with a throttleable ramrocket.


Given that seeker perf is cubic in aperture...
Not sure where you get improved Tx/RX losses. It's not an AESA.
I don't see any evidence that the 7-inch VFDR beats the 15-inch SRM when lofted for range.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 16:38
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote:
Given that seeker perf is cubic in aperture....


While not inaccurate, it is far from the whole picture when it comes to radar. I've given my reasons for my thoughts, you have given yours. We disagree about the end result. No biggie.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 16:58
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
While not inaccurate, it is far from the whole picture when it comes to radar


Sorry but unless there's an AESA in the mix Big-Oh analysis says that aperture is the whole picture.
Particularly when there's such a huge difference.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 17:46
by timmymagic
marauder2048 wrote:There's really no evidence for any of this.


That Meteor is not more manoeuverable in the end game??

It's powered all the way, AIM-54 was coasting...there's no way its not going to have an enormous advantage at the point of intercept at range.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 17:57
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote:
Sorry but unless there's an AESA in the mix Big-Oh analysis says that aperture is the whole picture.
Particularly when there's such a huge difference.


I don't know "Big-Oh" analysis, but I know that aperture is meaningless without wavelength, as the aperture relative to wavelength gives beam width and gain. So you can use a 2x frequency on a 1/2diameter aperture to get the same beamwidth. I know that SW in the back end can be used to determine returns from lower S:N ratios. I know that both hardware design and heating of the system can effect the receiving gain to a large degree. I know that output wattage is not solely a factor of aperture. Even old MSA radars are a lot more than just aperture.

In the end we don't have anywhere near all the numbers to plug in to get the answer. So in looking back at my statement I should have said it could be better, not that it is better.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 18:01
by marauder2048
timmymagic wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:There's really no evidence for any of this.


That Meteor is not more manoeuverable in the end game??

It's powered all the way, AIM-54 was coasting...there's no way its not going to have an enormous advantage at the point of intercept at range.


It's not clear that the higher Vbo for AIm-54C in a loft loses to the ducted rocket. And if there is an increase
in miss distance it's not clear that's not compensated for by the much larger warhead.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 18:19
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
Sorry but unless there's an AESA in the mix Big-Oh analysis says that aperture is the whole picture.
Particularly when there's such a huge difference.


I don't know "Big-Oh" analysis, but I know that aperture is meaningless without wavelength, as the aperture relative to wavelength gives beam width and gain. So you can use a 2x frequency on a 1/2diameter aperture to get the same beamwidth. I know that SW in the back end can be used to determine returns from lower S:N ratios. I know that both hardware design and heating of the system can effect the receiving gain to a large degree. I know that output wattage is not solely a factor of aperture. Even old MSA radars are a lot more than just aperture.


Big-Oh says that a cubic term dominates all other terms of a lesser power. Everything else you've mentioned
is a linear term. And of course a higher frequency has greater propagation losses.

And, IIRC, we are talking about the same frequency for AIM-54 and Meteor.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 19:32
by timmymagic
squirrelshoes wrote:
timmymagic wrote:SpearGlide

First time I've heard of this.

Sounds like SDB2ish?


Pretty much that. At DSEi 2019 MBDA and the UK MoD talked about 'spiral developments' of Spear, Brimstone tech and other UK IP. One of those was Spear-EW, which is the Spear missile combined with Leonardo's Britecloud DRFM jammer technology. The US equivalent would be MALD-J/N/X. That got a development contract. Another mentioned development was SpearGlide, which was also seen at Paris. Basically, its a direct competitor for SBD2 Stormbreaker. It's the same form factor as Spear, same sensors and overall weight balance. The jet and fuel are removed and replaced with a larger warhead though. To all intents and purposes it will match SBD2 exactly. Should be a very easy development and should also be incredibly easy to integrate to any platform that has had Spear integrated.

They also talked around other 'spiral developments' to Spear, to create a 'family' of munitions. Nothing mentioned but the size of Spear, the desire for a family of weapons, MBDA's existing portfolio and the competition could point us to some possibilities, just speculation...but some obvious ones below:

1) - SDB1 equivalent - This is the obvious one. A 'SpearSimple' if you like. No expensive sensors just GPS and SAL, gliding only with the ability to penetrate a hard target. Has to be dirt cheap.
2) - SpearRecon - An attritable drone with a cheap E/O sensor for a look 'over the hill' with data transmitted back to launch platform. Could be useful for BDA. Could lead to the below..
3) - E/O seeker head - Could provide extreme accuracy for low collateral strikes at range, like the Israeli Delilah. Comparatively cheap as well.
4) - Loitering version - Switching the jet for a more fuel efficient internal combustion engine and prop could create a useful, cheap air launched loitering munition. The issue of control and seeker for it would need to be addressed though, simple and cheap with offboard control or more autonomous and expensive. Could be a simple 'spiral' with a Recon version and an E/O seeker head. Lots of attempts at this sort of concept before, but in truth the idea sometimes seems better than the reality.
5) - Air-to-Air - I've seen this posited before, an air to air version to hunt UAV's and rotary wing. Could be cheaper than a 'normal' A2A missile for more vulnerable targets, but its a bit of a niche capability. The idea some have had of it hunting in an area seems a little far-fetched for the type of seeker it could usefully carry.

Apart from that I can't think of any more, the size of the form factor and limit on power generation capability counts out some of the more novel payloads, and there comes a point where the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 19:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote:
Big-Oh says that a cubic term dominates all other terms of a lesser power. Everything else you've mentioned
is a linear term. And of course a higher frequency has greater propagation losses.

And, IIRC, we are talking about the same frequency for AIM-54 and Meteor.


Hmm, I think I need a bit more help here. I am seeing effective Aperture as being the same as Gain, or Power, or S:N. all are 4th root wrt Range, none are cubic. I know the radar equation has many derivations so I am wondering which one you are looking at.

Capture.PNG

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 20:59
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Hmm, I think I need a bit more help here. I am seeing effective Aperture as being the same as Gain, or Power, or S:N. all are 4th root wrt Range, none are cubic. I know the radar equation has many derivations so I am wondering which one you are looking at.


We commonly call the center figure PAG since those "variables" in are in fact inderdependent.
If you increase the aperture you increase the gain by virtue of a smaller beam size.
You also tend to have more radiated and received power (in the monostatic case). Because of the independency
of that term we say that increases in aperture result in cubic increases.

It's why everyone tries to build bigger radars (see SM-6); the other figures are much harder to manipulate in a way that produces big increases. In fact, aperture size is about the only meaningful thing they changed on SM-6 relative to AIM-120.

There are practical limitations like weight and drag for A2A missiles so you end up with a compromise.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2020, 21:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
marauder2048 wrote: We commonly call the center figure PAG since they are inderdependent.
If you increase the aperture you increase the gain by virtue of a smaller beam size.
You also tend to have more radiated and received power (in the monostatic case). Because of the independency
of that term we say that increases in aperture result in cubic increases.

I see, thank you. So, yes, all other things constant, aperture is cubic. I doubt any of the rest is actually constant myself, but I see how it would be an uphill battle. Even doubling the frequency (and yes you already covered the propagation issue) will just hold G constant while A gets slashed, and newer hardware allowing you to thermally push the same power through a smaller antenna still keeps P constant. The only place to make it up would be improved S:N processing, but half the diameter means A is cut to a quarter so improving S:N by 4x is unlikely. At best you are mitigating your losses unless you have a PESA or AESA.

Thanks for taking the time to more thoroughly explain your position.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 01:00
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to more thoroughly explain your position.


No problem. And I don't mean to imply that it's not worth every bit of effort expended on improving
processing and other gains (e.g. pulse compression/coherent integration) and reducing noise.
AESAs are all about the latter and as you see the gains can be quadratic on monostatic since Tx/Rx
noise tends to be reduced by the same factor.

Every bit helps and if you move enough linear terms in the right direction everything is better.
But the big hammer is aperture.

The later versions of AIM-54C seeker were digital and had very good processing gains so it's not
immediately clear to me that a half-aperture seeker other than an AESA could move enough
terms in the right direction to compensate.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 06:03
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:Sorry but unless there's an AESA in the mix Big-Oh analysis says that aperture is the whole picture.
Particularly when there's such a huge difference.

AFAIK, Meteor uses Ku -band seeker which have operating frequency between 12-18 GHz (wavelength: 2.4 - 1.6 cm)
I don't know for certain the operating band of AIM-54 seeker, however, since both AIM-120 and AIM-54 is made by Raytheon (Hughes), if i was to venture an educated guess, I would say it also use I band seeker similar to AIM-120 with operating frequency from 8-10 GHz (wavelength: 3.7 - 2.9 cm)
So the operating wavelength of AIM-54's seeker is roughly 1.54 - 1.81 times longer than the operating wavelength of Meteor.
The Gain equation is as follows:
gain.png

From the equation we can deduce that because AIM-54's seeker operate at longer wavelength, if all else equal, to match the Gain of Meteor's seeker then the aperture of AIM-54's seeker must be 2.37 - 3.27 times bigger than Meteor's seeker aperture. Given that AIM-54's diameter is only two time bigger than Meteor's diameter thus this requirement isn't satisfied so Meteor will have higher Gain.
Higher frequency has greater propagation losses but from 8-20 GHz the attenuation is negligible imho
6m32f1.jpg


Moreover, while the range of AIM-54's seeker could be better, the ECCM of Meteor's seeker is likely better because there are more ECCM methods when it was made. There are many ECCM method and not everything rely on the pure transmitting power.
Image

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 06:17
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:It's not clear that the higher Vbo for AIm-54C in a loft loses to the ducted rocket. And if there is an increase
in miss distance it's not clear that's not compensated for by the much larger warhead.

IIRC, Spurt made an aero and kinematic analysis for Meteor, seem like it can beat anything else.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 08:35
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:AFAIK, Meteor uses Ku -band seeker which have operating frequency between 12-18 GHz (wavelength: 2.4 - 1.6 cm)


It's an X-band seeker.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 09:13
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:It's not clear that the higher Vbo for AIm-54C in a loft loses to the ducted rocket. And if there is an increase
in miss distance it's not clear that's not compensated for by the much larger warhead.

IIRC, Spurt made an aero and kinematic analysis for Meteor, seem like it can beat anything else.


AIM-54C was well over 100 nm. Meteor's not getting out that far.

GQM-163A, a VFDR with twice as many inlets, a bigger combustion chamber and
(IIRC) hundreds of pounds more propellant for the gas generator gets out to 110 nautical miles.

And the ultimate question for end-game is miss distance; warhead lethal radii is pretty much
linear in warhead weight. So I like AIM-54C's chances particularly against a fighter that's laden
with the sort of ASCM that could threaten a carrier.

For Meteor's original design target of an A2A Flanker that tries to out-dive an A2A missile
sure..but then the ballistic coefficient of the AIM-54C might be better too.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 18:08
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:It's an X-band seeker.

X-band is 8-12 GHz, most reliable source I can find for Meteor indicate it uses a Ku band seeker
Moreover, Meteor's seeker was supposed to be a delivered from Aster and Mica RF seeker
Aster uses Ku band seeker (12-18 GHz) while Mica uses J band seeker (10-20 GHz) so it would make more sense that Meteor seeker also operate at high frequency regime like these two
an active radar seeker derived from MBDA’s Aster and Mica missiles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ainonl ... sile%3Famp

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 18:25
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:It's an X-band seeker.

X-band is 8-12 GHz, most reliable source I can find for Meteor indicate it uses a Ku band seeker
Moreover, Meteor's seeker was supposed to be a delivered from Aster and Mica RF seeker
Aster uses Ku band seeker (12-18 GHz) while Mica uses J band seeker (10-20 GHz) so it would make more sense that Meteor seeker also operate at high frequency regime like these two
an active radar seeker derived from MBDA’s Aster and Mica missiles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ainonl ... sile%3Famp


Ku-band and X-band overlap; when the quote seeker band it's typically where the center frequency falls.

You see Ku but they mean X-band.

And 10 - 12 GHz would overlap between Aster and Mica.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 18:52
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:AIM-54C was well over 100 nm. Meteor's not getting out that far.

I have seen various aerodynamic and kinematic simulation by various people showing Meteor excess 100 nm


marauder2048 wrote:GQM-163A, a VFDR with twice as many inlets, a bigger combustion chamber and
(IIRC) hundreds of pounds more propellant for the gas generator gets out to 110 nautical miles.

That a banana to orange comparison, GQM-163A is ground launched from zero altitude, zero starting speed. By contrast, even in worst case scenario, I expect Meteor to be launched from 20.000-35.000 ft and Mach 0.85
Starting speed and altitude have a tremendous impact on missile range. For example: a ground launched AIM-120 won't fly further than 20 km whereas at high altitude it can goes as far as 120 km.
9F1D3927-075B-4337-A3CA-CB37391875C3.png

Moreover, GQM-163 was designed to simulate Russian supersonic anti ship missile thus it is either sea skimming or only cruise at 45.000 ft in high altitude operation. Whereas, air to air missiles tend to climb to much higher altitude to take advantage of the low drag condition


marauder2048 wrote:For Meteor's original design target of an A2A Flanker that tries to out-dive an A2A missile
sure..but then the ballistic coefficient of the AIM-54C might be better too.

Why would AIM-54 have better drag coefficient than Meteor? AIM-54 is a fat missile with much higher (cross sectional area)/total length compared to Meteor. Furthermore, AIM-54 motor burn for about 25 seconds whereas the throttle able motor of Meteor can burn for about 3 minutes. Thus at terminal stage, AIM-54 maneuver with no thrust, just gravity and drag, basically every slight turn that it make, it will lose the speed that it can't get back. By contrast, Meteor can uses low thrust for cruising and high thrust for end game maneuver.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 19:12
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:Ku-band and X-band overlap; when the quote seeker band it's typically where the center frequency falls.
You see Ku but they mean X-band.
And 10 - 12 GHz would overlap between Aster and Mica.

I find that hard to believe, even early in the development stage, Meteor was supposed to use much higher frequency than AIM-120 to have better burn through performance.

Besides, Meteor basically uses an improved version of AD4A seeker which operate at 10-20 GHz, make no sense for them to reduce it to 10-12 GHz.
7B69F65D-F9CB-4F63-A473-34402F2ABB84.jpeg

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 19:15
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Ku-band and X-band overlap; when the quote seeker band it's typically where the center frequency falls.
You see Ku but they mean X-band.
And 10 - 12 GHz would overlap between Aster and Mica.

I find that hard to believe, even early in the development stage, Meteor was supposed to use much higher frequency than AIM-120 to have better burn through performance.


There were a lot of things at the early stages of development that didn't make the final cut. Like an AESA.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 19:20
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:There were a lot of things at the early stages of development that didn't happen. Like an AESA.

Yes of course, but I find it hard to believe that the improved AD4A on Meteor is somehow worse than the base AD4A seeker on MiCA and Aster, both supposed to work in 12-18 GHz

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2020, 19:28
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:There were a lot of things at the early stages of development that didn't happen. Like an AESA.

Yes of course, but I find it hard to believe that the improved AD4A on Meteor is somehow worse than the base AD4A seeker on MiCA and Aster, both supposed to work in 12-18 GHz


Given that MICA is a smaller diameter missile it makes perfect sense particularly as
solid state amplifiers were much more powerful at X-band than a Ku-band during this period.

And it's an Italian seeker anyway; I'm sure they had a say.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2020, 04:03
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:Given that MICA is a smaller diameter missile it makes perfect sense particularly as
solid state amplifiers were much more powerful at X-band than a Ku-band during this period.
And it's an Italian seeker anyway; I'm sure they had a say.

The much bigger Aster also use AD4A seeker that operate in Ku-band and only recently upgraded to Ka band in Block 1 NT version
Given that Mica, Aster and Meteor all use version of AD4A, it is extremely strange if Meteor suddenly become the outliner, there isn't anything to support the claim that Meteor use X-band either.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2020, 23:21
by boff180
garrya wrote:The much bigger Aster also use AD4A seeker that operate in Ku-band and only recently upgraded to Ka band in Block 1 NT version
Given that Mica, Aster and Meteor all use version of AD4A, it is extremely strange if Meteor suddenly become the outliner, there isn't anything to support the claim that Meteor use X-band either.


The only reference I can find to the Meteor using X-band at the moment is "The Drive" who did a 2016 article of European missile capability and stated the Meteor uses an X-band seeker.

However, the UK is currently working with Japan to produce a new version of the Meteor that uses an AESA seeker head developed from the one used in the AAM-4B - first test firings should occur in 2023. It's official designation is the JNAAM, the UK have not yet said if it intends to order the missile itself though.

latest update here: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... evelopment

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2020, 02:35
by marauder2048
boff180 wrote:However, the UK is currently working with Japan to produce a new version of the Meteor that uses an AESA seeker head developed from the one used in the AAM-4B - first test firings should occur in 2023. It's official designation is the JNAAM, the UK have not yet said if it intends to order the missile itself though.

latest update here: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... evelopment



If you go back to the FRAAM and related competitions, they ended up with a version of the Mica 4A
seeker which is X-band.

The confusion comes from the fact that in the 90's there were using NATO band designations (I, J) and
IEEE X-band overlaps with both bands. And there were multiple seekers options (including Ka-band) that were
proposed (including passive X-band and active ka-band) but ultimately abandoned.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2020, 03:02
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:That a banana to orange comparison, GQM-163A is ground launched from zero altitude, zero starting speed. By contrast, even in worst case scenario, I expect Meteor to be launched from 20.000-35.000 ft and Mach 0.85


GQM-163 has a huge rocket motor that boosts. It carries a lot more gas generator propellant
And it doesn't have the weight penalties of carrying a warhead or a seeker or a datalink.
And it gets more ram air and its combuster is more efficient by virtue not being a compromised IRR.

The GQM-163A motor is the same one that was used for HSAD and T3.
Meteor was designed for a 5km launch altitude. Min launch altitude is 3km.
The only way the Eurocanards could survive against IADS was with low-altitude pen.

garrya wrote:Moreover, GQM-163 was designed to simulate Russian supersonic anti ship missile thus it is either sea skimming or only cruise at 45.000 ft in high altitude operation.


Completely untrue.

gqm-163-high-diver.png


garrya wrote:Why would AIM-54 have better drag coefficient than Meteor? AIM-54 is a fat missile with much higher (cross sectional area)/total length compared to Meteor.


I said ballistic coefficient; it's vitally important for dive performance.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2020, 14:31
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:If you go back to the FRAAM and related competitions, they ended up with a version of the Mica 4A
seeker which is X-band.
The confusion comes from the fact that in the 90's there were using NATO band designations (I, J) and
IEEE X-band overlaps with both bands. And there were multiple seekers options (including Ka-band) that were
proposed (including passive X-band and active ka-band) but ultimately abandoned.

Mica uses AD4A seeker that operate in J-band (10-20 GHz)
Mica RF is equipped with a programmable J-band, pulse Doppler AD4A radar seeker with a pointed ceramic radome at the nose.
The radar seeker, supplied by Thales and Alenia Marconi Systems, operates at 10GHz to 20GHz. The seeker is of proven design and performance and is also installed in the Aster missile.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/
X band actually only range from 8-12 Ghz, so only a tiny part of J band overlapped with it. Imho, X-band is just so popular to most enthusiasts that people always think missile seeker operate in X band.



marauder2048 wrote:GQM-163 has a huge rocket motor that boosts. It carries a lot more gas generator propellant
And it doesn't have the weight penalties of carrying a warhead or a seeker or a datalink.
And it gets more ram air and its combuster is more efficient by virtue not being a compromised IRR.

All of that is true and I don't doubt that if they are launched in the same condition the GQM-163 will have longer range, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a vast difference between their launch condition. GQM-163 is launched from ground with zero starting velocity. Meteor is launched from at least Mach 0.85 and 35.000 ft in most case. GQM-163 cruise in thicker air as well


marauder2048 wrote:The GQM-163A motor is the same one that was used for HSAD and T3.
Meteor was designed for a 5km launch altitude. Min launch altitude is 3km.

Afaik, none of us have seen the motor for T-3 and HSAD's motor is most certainly not the same one used on GQM-163 since it only has 2 inlets
hsad_2.jpg

Furthermore, 5 km is only 16.000 ft which is rather low for most aircraft, so I don't think that where Meteor is designed to operate. Moreover, they launch Meteor at 13 km (42,650 ft) already
Meteor.PNG

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... t-success/

marauder2048 wrote:Completely untrue
gqm-163-high-diver.png


That diagram strengthen my point though.
That GQM-163 climbed to 35.000 ft from starting point on ground with zero starting speed. Then cruise at Mach 3.3 at 35.000 ft for 203 km.Thus, not only GQM-163 has to climb 10.7 km from ground, it also cruise in relatively thick air at 35.000 ft, and yet it can still fly for >200 km.
On the other hand, Meteor launched from Mach 0.85 at 35.000-40.000 ft then climb to 60.000-65.000 ft and cruise there will be in a much more favorable condition. The drag is much lower.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2020, 17:09
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:I said ballistic coefficient; it's vitally important for dive performance.

I still don't see how AIM-54 has better ballistic coefficient than Meteor. From the equation
30972466-B641-453E-B913-4A220B75CD38.jpeg

BC is Mass/(cross sectional area*drag coefficient)
AIM-54 is heavier than Meteor but its cross sectional area is also double
and the smaller length/diameter ratio of AIM-54 suggest that its Cd is worse than Meteor as well.
Furthermore, we shouldn't ignore the fact that AIM-54 motor only burn for 24 seconds while Meteor's motor burn for several minutes

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2020, 20:01
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
The radar seeker, supplied by Thales and Alenia Marconi Systems, operates at 10GHz to 20GHz. The seeker is of proven design and performance and is also installed in the Aster missile.


https://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/
X band actually only range from 8-12 Ghz, so only a tiny part of J band overlapped with it. Imho, X-band is just so popular to most enthusiasts that people always think missile seeker operate in X band.


J-band is merely the band where the center frequency falls. You aren't seriously suggesting that there
were seekers in the early 90's out there with 10 GHz of bandwidth?

garrya wrote:All of that is true and I don't doubt that if they are launched in the same condition the GQM-163 will have longer range, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a vast difference between their launch condition. GQM-163 is launched from ground with zero starting velocity. Meteor is launched from at least Mach 0.85 and 35.000 ft in most case. GQM-163 cruise in thicker air as well

IOW, GQM-163's range is understated. That rather proves my point.

garrya wrote:is most certainly not the same one used on GQM-163 since it only has 2 inlets


The number of inlets is completely irrelevant since they aren't an integral part of the motor.
ARC (aerojet) is the same company that did the motor for HSAD, Coyote and T3.
Same gas generator, same valve system. The only thing that really changes is the combustor
for the integral rocket ramjet.

garrya wrote:Furthermore, 5 km is only 16.000 ft which is rather low for most aircraft, so I don't think that where Meteor is designed to operate. Moreover, they launch Meteor at 13 km (42,650 ft) already
Meteor.PNG

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... t-success/


Where they are launching now proves nothing about its design launch altitude.
5 km is not low if the aircraft is trying to survive in an IADS heavy environment.
Pre-stealth, low altitude was one of the only survivable flight profiles.

garrya wrote:That diagram strengthen my point though.


It completely contradicts your claim of only two flight profiles.

garrya wrote:That GQM-163 climbed to 35.000 ft from starting point on ground with zero starting speed. Then cruise at Mach 3.3 at 35.000 ft for 203 km.Thus, not only GQM-163 has to climb 10.7 km from ground, it also cruise in relatively thick air at 35.000 ft, and yet it can still fly for >200 km.
On the other hand, Meteor launched from Mach 0.85 at 35.000-40.000 ft then climb to 60.000-65.000 ft and cruise there will be in a much more favorable condition. The drag is much lower.


IOW, the upperbound on Meteor's performance is Coyote. That's the point.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2020, 20:06
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I still don't see how AIM-54 has better ballistic coefficient than Meteor. From the equation
BC is Mass/(cross sectional area*drag coefficient)
AIM-54 is heavier than Meteor but its cross sectional area is also double
and the smaller length/diameter ratio of AIM-54 suggest that its Cd is worse than Meteor as well.
Furthermore, we shouldn't ignore the fact that AIM-54 motor only burn for 24 seconds while Meteor's motor burn for several minutes


How is the Cd worse? AIM-54 has a much better radome fineness ratio.
50% of missile drag is frontal so that's a huge advantage. The greater mass dominates
over long distances; it's the component of the formula that's trying to convey inertia.

It's why heavier artillery shells get used for range.

I see a difference in peak velocity and higher beta vs. higher sustained and lower beta. Unclear which wins.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2020, 09:30
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:J-band is merely the band where the center frequency falls. You aren't seriously suggesting that there
were seekers in the early 90's out there with 10 GHz of bandwidth?

No, I don't suggest that Mica seeker has 10 GHz band width. But the operating bandwidth of Mica lie between 12-18 GHz same as Aster since they both use a version of AD4A seeker rather than in X-band range of 8-12 GHz.


marauder2048 wrote:IOW, GQM-163's range is understated. That rather proves my point

No, you should reread your original comment.
comment.PNG

You claimed that "because AIM-54 range is greater than 100 nm and GQM-163 with all the bell and whistle only gets out to 110 nautical miles. There is no way that Meteor has better range than AIM-54". Then I pointed out that is a banana to orange comparison given that GQM-163 is ground launched with starting velocity equal zero, and it also cruise in much thicker air where the drag will significantly shorten the potential range. Your diagram prove my point since it shows a ground launched GQM-163 still manage 110 nm eventhough it has to climb very far and cruise in very thick air.



marauder2048 wrote:The GQM-163A motor is the same one that was used for HSAD and T3
The number of inlets is completely irrelevant since they aren't an integral part of the motor.
ARC (aerojet) is the same company that did the motor for HSAD, Coyote and T3.
Same gas generator, same valve system. The only thing that really changes is the combustor
for the integral rocket ramjet

The fact that ARC is the same company that make motor for HSAD, GQM-163 and T-3 prove nothing, one company can design and produce more than one type of motor.
Moreover, HSAD uses MARC-R290 ramjet motor while GQM-163 uses MARC-R282.
GQM-163.PNG

HSAD.PNG

It is important to note that GQM-163 is 5.62 meters long without booster, with booster it is 9.56 meters long. MARC-R282 diameter is 350 mm (13.8 inches) and has 4 inlets. On the other hand, HSAD is 4.1 meters long including the warhead, seeker, booster. And MARC-R290 diamter is only 254 mm (10 inches) and has 2 inlets. They are not the same in any shape or form. A comparison with T-3 is even worse since it is used to study a multi mission missile that can replace AIM-120 so its dimension will be different from HSAD and GQM-163 as well.



marauder2048 wrote:Where they are launching now proves nothing about its design launch altitude.
5 km is not low if the aircraft is trying to survive in an IADS heavy environment.
Pre-stealth, low altitude was one of the only survivable flight profiles.

There isn't any evidence that 5 km is the design launch altitude of Meteor though, and there isn't any evidence that low altitude launch to survive IADS heavy environment was part of the requirement for Meteor either.



marauder2048 wrote:IOW, the upperbound on Meteor's performance is Coyote. That's the point.

IF you can get the range of a GQM-163 launched from 40.000-45.000 ft, Mach 1.2 and make it cruise at 60.000-65.000 ft then I can agree that the upper bound that Meteor can't surpass. A ground launched GQM-163 is not the upper bound for Meteor launched from high altitude, high velocity.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2020, 13:11
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:How is the Cd worse? AIM-54 has a much better radome fineness ratio.
50% of missile drag is frontal so that's a huge advantage.

How can AIM-54 have better fineness ratio than Meteor?
530F5995-AA80-43FC-95BC-334D6C3EDB85.jpeg

2EC7883F-A0CB-4B66-ABC1-405E8CF4E128.png

Fineness ratio is length/diameter
Meteor is 3.65 meters long and its diameter is 178 mm so fineness ratio is 20.5
AIM-54 is 4 meters long and its diameter is 380 mm so fineness ratio is 10.52


marauder2048 wrote:The greater mass dominates
over long distances; it's the component of the formula that's trying to convey inertia.
It's why heavier artillery shells get used for range.

Yes greater mass is an advantage. But as you can see in the equation, the cross sectional area is equally important. On one hand, AIM-54 is about twice as heavy. On the other hand, AIM-54 cross sectional area is also twice as big. Thus, they balance out

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2020, 18:45
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:Fineness ratio is length/diameter
Meteor is 3.65 meters long and its diameter is 178 mm so fineness ratio is 20.5
AIM-54 is 4 meters long and its diameter is 380 mm so fineness ratio is 10.52


Yes. And I explicitly stated radome fineness. And you chime in with irrelevancies.

garrya wrote:Yes greater mass is an advantage. But as you can see in the equation, the cross sectional area is equally important. On one hand, AIM-54 is about twice as heavy. On the other hand, AIM-54 cross sectional area is also twice as big. Thus, they balance out


We're comparing empty masses. So no. They don't balance out.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2020, 19:03
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:J-band is merely the band where the center frequency falls. You aren't seriously suggesting that there
were seekers in the early 90's out there with 10 GHz of bandwidth?

No, I don't suggest that Mica seeker has 10 GHz band width. But the operating bandwidth of Mica lie between 12-18 GHz same as Aster since they both use a version of AD4A seeker rather than in X-band range of 8-12 GHz.


No. The operating frequency lies somewhere in the J-band. Which is 10 - 20 Ghz.
They've been explicit about that for Meteor since the 90's. MICA being a narrower diameter
would require a higher frequency seeker. Meteor would not.



garrya wrote:You claimed that "because AIM-54 range is greater than 100 nm and GQM-163 with all the bell and whistle only gets out to 110 nautical miles. There is no way that Meteor has better range than AIM-54". Then I pointed out that is a banana to orange comparison given that GQM-163 is ground launched with starting velocity equal zero, and it also cruise in much thicker air where the drag will significantly shorten the potential range. Your diagram prove my point since it shows a ground launched GQM-163 still manage 110 nm eventhough it has to climb very far and cruise in very thick air.


Which manages to completely ignore the massive differences in the gas generator perf
between the two. It's clear that GQM-163 will be an upperbound on Meteor's performance.



garrya wrote:
It is important to note that GQM-163 is 5.62 meters long without booster, with booster it is 9.56 meters long. MARC-R282 diameter is 350 mm (13.8 inches) and has 4 inlets. On the other hand, HSAD is 4.1 meters long including the warhead, seeker, booster. And MARC-R290 diamter is only 254 mm (10 inches) and has 2 inlets. They are not the same in any shape or form. A comparison with T-3 is even worse since it is used to study a multi mission missile that can replace AIM-120 so its dimension will be different from HSAD and GQM-163 as well.


You're injecting pure irrelevances: it's the same gas generator, the same exact EM valve/plunger arrangement.
HSAD has port covers and some weight reduction and a slightly different combustor because it's an IRR.
But that's not fundamental.


garrya wrote:There isn't any evidence that 5 km is the design launch altitude of Meteor though, and there isn't any evidence that low altitude launch to survive IADS heavy environment was part of the requirement for Meteor either.


It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.
In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2020, 11:50
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:No. The operating frequency lies somewhere in the J-band. Which is 10 - 20 Ghz.
They've been explicit about that for Meteor since the 90's. MICA being a narrower diameter
would require a higher frequency seeker. Meteor would not.

Mica, Aster and Meteor all use version of AD4A seeker
Mica radome diameter is 160 mm and its seeker is often cited as working inside J band range (10-20 GHz)
Aster radome diameter is 180 mm and its seeker is often cited as working inside Ku band range (12-18 GHz)
Meteor radome diameter is 178 mm and it also uses a version of AD4A seeker delivered from Aster and Mica.
There isn't a big difference between their random diameter, thus logically speaking they will use the same frequency to reduce cost and risk through parts commodity. On the other hand, there is a big difference between Meteor, Mica and Aster radome diameter with the radome of AIM-54 or fighter radome, so it is also logical that they use a higher frequency regime.



marauder2048 wrote:Which manages to completely ignore the massive differences in the gas generator perf
between the two. It's clear that GQM-163 will be an upperbound on Meteor's performance.

I didn't ignore their difference in size. In fact, big part of the reason why GQM-163 can fly that far while being launched from ground and cruising in thick air is due to its size. However, the difference in starting and crusing conditions will have a massive impact on range and you can't ignore that.
For example:
Aster-15 is 310 kg and 4.2 meters long, Aster-30 is 450 kg and 4.9 meters long whereas Aim-120 is only 152 kg and 3.7 meters long. Yet max range of Aster-15 is 40 km while max range of Aster-30 is 120 km whereas AIM-120 launched at high altitude can reach as far as 130 km. So despite having about 3 times the launch mass and obviously a lot more propellant Aster-30 still has shorter max range than AIM-120 because the former is launched from ground while the later can be launched at high altitude in very favorable conditions.
aster-30.jpg

AIM-120 range vs altitude
AIM-120.png


Another example:
S-200 is a 10.8 meters long missile that weight 7100 kg with 4 inlets to get alot of air while ASMP-A is only 5.38 meters long and weight 860 kg. Yet S-200 can't fly further than 200 km while ASMP-A can fly as far as 500 km.
5T83-S-200-Transporter-Transloader-1S.jpg

ASMp-A.jpg


It isn't surprising that a smaller missile with less propellant can fly a longer distance if it is launched from more favorable starting conditions.

marauder2048 wrote:You're injecting pure irrelevances: it's the same gas generator, the same exact EM valve/plunger arrangement.
HSAD has port covers and some weight reduction and a slightly different combustor because it's an IRR.
But that's not fundamental.

No, I didn't inject any irrelevances. MARC-R282 ramjet stage used by GQM-163 and MARC-R290 used by HSAD are not the same thing period. They don't have the same length, they don't have the same diameter, they don't have the same number of inlets, they don't have the same aerodynamic, they don't even carry the same amount of propellant, they don't have the same combustor. All these factors affect range.
I don't know if their gas generator and EM valve are the same or not because you haven't provide evidences for me to make a conclusion, but even if these parts are similar, R282 and R290 are still not the samething given that there are more than a dozen differences between them.


marauder2048 wrote:It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.

Can you quote that part?

marauder2048 wrote:In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

That the minimum altitude requirement and you shouldn't forget they also said it can reach >250 km at high altitude
Meteor 2.PNG

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2020, 14:58
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:Yes. And I explicitly stated radome fineness. And you chime in with irrelevancies.

Imho, it isn't irrelevant to consider the fineness ratio of the whole missile body instead of only the nose consider that drag affect the whole missile.
Nevertheless, I did some estimation:
Meteor radome is 11% of the total body length so it is 401.5 mm long, Meteor diameter is 178 mm so the radome fineness ratio is 2.26
AIM-54 radome is 18.1 % of the total body length so it is 724 mm long, AIM-54 diameter is 380 mm so the radome fineness ratio is 1.90
Bigger fineness ratio is better. So, frankly I don't see how AIM-54 has better radome fineness ratio than Meteor.

marauder2048 wrote:We're comparing empty masses. So no. They don't balance out.

Afaik, we don't know the empty mass of either missile. Furthermore, I want to emphasize again that AIM-54 motor only burn in 25 seconds while Meteor motor can burn for several minutes. Thus, AIM-54 will go empty much earlier. If we compare them both at burn out then that will be a Meteor that have just burn out to AIM-54 that burned out 155 seconds earlier

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2020, 05:02
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.
In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

I only have time to look carefully at the scholarly links now: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257018.pdf
It appear that they are simulating the performance of a BVR air to air missile with the same length and diameter as the current BVR air to air missile, and it has 2 inlets. Thus, I think it is quite close to Meteor.
But how is this not a world better than AIM-54?
In their simulation, the ramjet missile is launched from altitude of 6 km, to target also at 6 km, which is very low altitude
Meteor simulation.PNG

Yet we got some insane interception range
Meteor range loft.PNG

With turn down ratio of 10 => Powered intercept distance is 100 km and unpowered intercept distance is 220 km => total intercept is 320 km
With turn down ratio of 7.5 => powered intercept distance is 95 km and unpowered intercept distance is 200 km => total intercept distance is 295 km
With turn down ratio of 5 => powered intercept distance is 80 km and unpowered intercept distance is 180 km => total intercept distance is 260 km
IMHO, that is many time better than what AIM-54 can do at the same altitude.

Furthermore, I also look at the altitude requirement, there is no indication that 6 km is the intended altitude, the operating envelope affected by turn down ratio and minimum altitude requirement
altitude requirement.PNG

Meteor conclusion.PNG

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2020, 03:09
by squirrelshoes
Stay down maraudee!

Image

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2020, 20:38
by marauder2048
garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.
In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

I only have time to look carefully at the scholarly links now: <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257018.pdf</span>
It appear that they are simulating the performance of a BVR air to air missile with the same length and diameter as the current BVR air to air missile, and it has 2 inlets. Thus, I think it is quite close to Meteor.
But how is this not a world better than AIM-54?
In their simulation, the ramjet missile is launched from altitude of 6 km, to target also at 6 km, which is very low altitude


Well thanks for proving my claim that Meteor was not designed for high-altitude launch.
The turn-down requirement dictated the low altitude launch; that's entirely consistent with
no fewer than two sources that I cited that you helpfully regurgitated. It also contradicts
your claims of "minutes" of powered flights; depending on TDR it's barely over a minute.


I can't even begin to start addressing some of the amateurish and non-rigorous claims being made
here like looking at frontal drag without considering the different ogives employed by different missiles.


Or some willful refusal to understand why the gas generator and EM valve are the most important part
of a VFDR or why weight optimized missiles like HSAD and T3 with integral rocket ramjets
would be different than steel cased, non weight optimized, non IRR test targets like GQM-163.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2020, 10:39
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:Well thanks for proving my claim that Meteor was not designed for high-altitude launch.
The turn-down requirement dictated the low altitude launch; that's entirely consistent with
no fewer than two sources that I cited that you helpfully regurgitated

Which part from your sources make you think Meteor isn't designed for high altitude launch?. Can you quote that part?
Imho, the scholarly source clearly shows that Meteor isn't limited to low altitude.
The source indicates that the operating envelope is dictated by 3 factors:
- Minimum altitude and speed requirement: the lower the minimum altitude, the bigger the booster has to be and it also increases the maximum flow requirement since low altitude air is thicker
- Radome heating effect: although the propulsion system might be able to keep the missile at Mach 4, the missile must be slow down to a slower speed so that the radome stagnation temperature is lower than 800K (526°C)
- Turn down ratio: lower altitude require higher max fuel flow (to fight the air resistance) while higher altitude require lower minimum fuel flow (to keep the missile slower and reduce radome stagnation temperature). Thus, a bigger turn down ratio means the operating envelope can be expanded in both ways.
In their simulation, they estimated that for their simulated ramjet missile if the minimum launch altitude requirement is: sea level from Mach 0.5 and the turndown ratio is 1:5 then the maximum altitude that it can cruise is 15 km (49kft).
If the turndown ratio is increased to 10 then the maximum cruising altitude is 20 km (65kft).
On the other hand, if they relaxed the minimum altitude requirement to be 5 km instead of sea level then even with a turndown ratio of 1:7.5 then the missile can still cruise at an altitude beyond 20 km (65kft)
launch characteristic.PNG


For comparison, the minimum launch altitude requirement for A3M (later become Meteor) is 3 km height from Mach 0.9 and the demonstrated turn down ratio is 1:9 .Thus, not only the mininum altitude requirement of A3M is not as low as the missile in the scholarly study, the turndown ratio ratio is also higher than 5. Both factors clearly indicate a much higher maximum crusing altitude than 15 km (49kft) so I can't see how Meteor isn't designed for high altitude launch.
Meteor prototype.PNG




marauder2048 wrote:It also contradicts your claims of "minutes" of powered flights; depending on TDR it's barely over a minute.

It doesn't actually, the minutes of powered depend on specific conditions
In the study, they simulated the ramjet missile launched from an altitude of 6 km the loft to 12 km height. Those are not the altitude with minimum fuel consumption. A Meteor launched from 15 km will be able to operate much longer. For example: at 15 km altitude the fuel consumption is about 1/2 that of 10 km altitude and about 1/4 that of 5 km altitude
loft.PNG

fuel rate altitude.PNG

Furthermore, relax the minimum launch speed requirement can reduce the booster size, thus increase missile range
Meteor conclusion.PNG




marauder2048 wrote:I can't even begin to start addressing some of the amateurish and non-rigorous claims being made
here like looking at frontal drag without considering the different ogives employed by different missiles.

If you have some CFD study of Meteor and AIM-54, I'm happy to see them too. However, you only said AIM-54 has much better radome fineness then Meteor. A simple length/diameter calculation shows that not to be the case

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2020, 11:09
by garrya
marauder2048 wrote:Or some willful refusal to understand why the gas generator and EM valve are the most important part
of a VFDR or why weight optimized missiles like HSAD and T3 with integral rocket ramjets
would be different than steel cased, non weight optimized, non IRR test targets like GQM-163.

you haven't shown us any evidence about the gas generator and EM valve of GQM-163, HSAD and T-3 for anyone to make any conclusion regarding whether they are the same thing or not. Only saying that they are made by the same company doesn't help because these missiles used for vastly different purposes and one company can make more than one type of motor. At least you can give us a photo or some statements from the manufacturer
Furthermore, you are the one who claimed GQM-163 motor is the same one used for HSAD and T-3. I said they aren't the same thing given that there are too many difference between them
Capture.PNG

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2020, 22:39
by squirrelshoes
Image

Did F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2020, 23:23
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
Did F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.


Wake me up when you can make a cogent contribution on matters technical.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2020, 00:20
by h-bomb
squirrelshoes wrote:Did F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.


Only on land based operations. They could not trap with full fuel reserves and 6 Phoenix. Jettisoning perfectly good weapons cost a lot.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 01:54
by squirrelshoes
h-bomb wrote:Only on land based operations. They could not trap with full fuel reserves and 6 Phoenix. Jettisoning perfectly good weapons cost a lot.

Thanks. So how would they usually fly on a CAP, was there a standard mix of Phoenix/Sparrow or depend on era and region?

Also = do you know if Iran flew with six AIM-54 since land based ops?


marauder2048 wrote:Wake me up when you can make a cogent contribution on matters technical.

Snickering at how that poster waded through your bluster and sliced you to pieces until you withered and fled was beyond anything cogent... funny would be the better word.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 02:22
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Wake me up when you can make a cogent contribution on matters technical.

Snickering at how that poster waded through your bluster and sliced you to pieces until you withered and fled was beyond anything cogent... funny would be the better word.


He regurgitated and misrepresented scholarly sources that I had posted in another thread.
I'm sorry that you can only appreciate technically involved discussions on a superficial and risible level.

Again, let us know when you have something to contribute on the technical front.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 13:50
by basher54321
squirrelshoes wrote:Thanks. So how would they usually fly on a CAP, was there a standard mix of Phoenix/Sparrow or depend on era and region?

Also = do you know if Iran flew with six AIM-54 since land based ops?


Era specific no doubt

According to David Parsons, during the 1980s during the many Libyan confrontations his squadron flew with AIM-9/AIM-7 only because they expected to merge. Some other squadrons though, he said, did do a AIM-54/9/7 with 2 AIM-54 despite the extra weight penalty.

What has come from Iran in the 80s would suggest they felt 2 x AIM-54A was the max they could load and still retain some agility if they had to merge. They also had to conserve the far more limited supply.

6 x AIM-54s not only significantly reduces performance but also range/endurance and Iranians give an Rmin of about 4 miles for the A model which if anywhere near would mean it was useless close in compared to even the AIM-7E-2.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 13:43
by squirrelshoes
basher54321 wrote:Era specific no doubt

According to David Parsons, during the 1980s during the many Libyan confrontations his squadron flew with AIM-9/AIM-7 only because they expected to merge. Some other squadrons though, he said, did do a AIM-54/9/7 with 2 AIM-54 despite the extra weight penalty.

What has come from Iran in the 80s would suggest they felt 2 x AIM-54A was the max they could load and still retain some agility if they had to merge. They also had to conserve the far more limited supply.

6 x AIM-54s not only significantly reduces performance but also range/endurance and Iranians give an Rmin of about 4 miles for the A model which if anywhere near would mean it was useless close in compared to even the AIM-7E-2.

Thanks for the info, makes sense. I imagine ROE would often steer away from usefulness of AIM-54 for many operations.

It's a big plus for F-22 (and now F-35) how much farther they can take identifying contacts from BVR passively via RF signature.


marauder2048 wrote:He regurgitated and misrepresented scholarly sources that I had posted in another thread.

That's your ego talking, he flayed you. I can assure you many others on here also enjoyed watching that happen to a thin-skinned forum bully who enters discussions mainly to "win" by marathon BS shoveling than anything else. That dude had the patience to call you out on everything you threw until you faded and quit. Funny stuff.

Re: British weapons for the F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 16:51
by marauder2048
That's your ego talking, he flayed you. I can assure you many others on here also enjoyed watching that happen to a thin-skinned forum bully who enters discussions mainly to "win" by marathon BS shoveling than anything else. That dude had the patience to call you out on everything you threw until you faded and quit. Funny stuff.


At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is. I can't continue to hold hands on radome
fineness ratios. I can't kepp handhold on why seeker sensitivity is cubic in aperture size.
I can't continue finding/referencing actual scholarly sources that are then misrepresented and mischaracterized.

If you have anything to contribute technically to enhance the discussion please do so. But you don't.