CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 11:47
by uclass
Okay so I came across this story about the AIM-9's first combat use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sid ... rait,_1958

During the Taiwan Strait battles of 1958, a ROCAF AIM-9B hit a PLAAF MiG-17 without exploding; the missile lodged in the airframe of the MiG and allowed the pilot to bring both plane and missile back to base. Soviet engineers later admitted that the captured Sidewinder served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities.


So, if a strike from a non-exploding AIM-9 doesn't kill a plane, would a strike from a CUDA that has no warhead?

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 12:38
by lbk000
Well damn, aircraft back then couldn't evade radar, so I guess that means the F-35 can't work either???

People far more invested in missile technology think there is promise in HTK, but I guess they must have never heard of the GAR-8 before!

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 13:13
by sferrin
uclass wrote:Okay so I came across this story about the AIM-9's first combat use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sid ... rait,_1958

During the Taiwan Strait battles of 1958, a ROCAF AIM-9B hit a PLAAF MiG-17 without exploding; the missile lodged in the airframe of the MiG and allowed the pilot to bring both plane and missile back to base. Soviet engineers later admitted that the captured Sidewinder served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities.


So, if a strike from a non-exploding AIM-9 doesn't kill a plane, would a strike from a CUDA that has no warhead?



Are you serious? Nope, hit-to-kill doesn't work at all:


Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 13:26
by bigjku
I think it’s unlikely that a HTK missile has no explosives. But the warhead would be relatively small and on the order of a 5-10 pounds at most rather than the 40 pounds of an AIM-120.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 13:35
by lbk000
Not according to Lockheed:
"Cuda is a highly lethal interceptor that defeats targets by direct body-to-body impact," Lockheed says. "At impact, Cuda sweeps its mass directly through the target at a selected point of vulnerability."


Apart from the fact that HTK is a proven technology already by way of LEAP, THAAD, PAC3, etc., I want to point out that now everyone and their mother is finally on board the highly-computerized negative-stability train it only gives surgical HTK the advantage.

However, the US is the only one that's significantly invested in HTK, so now everyone else is once again left with their pants around their legs.

That's how you keep winning.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 13:35
by botsing
HTK missiles will have dum-dum like properties.

So with impact the kinetic energy will cause the rapid spreading/expansion of material to have the highest kill probability.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 13:43
by hornetfinn
Good observation and question.

AIM-9B was not designed to kill with kinetic energy and was thus ineffective when it hit the MiG-17 and didn't detonate. Problem was that it was slow, even top speed was just about Mach 1.7 or so AFAIK and it would quickly lose speed when rocket motor burned. It was also not very dense and thus the kinetic energy was very low when it hit. HTK missiles need speed as kinetic energy is quadrupled when speed is doubled. CUDA would likely have something like 3-4 times higher speed than AIM-9B meaning about 10-20 times higher kinetic energy. That's like difference between getting hit with 12.7 mm machine gun round vs. 5.56 assault rifle bullet wearing body armour.

HTK missiles will also be designed to kill with kinetic energy only, which means they will also have far more effects when they hit. They could be frangible like FAPDS rounds which means they would disintegrate into high velocity fragments which would make a lot of damage to any aircraft. Basically fragmentation warhead effects without explosives.

I think it would work very well, especially against fighters and other relatively small targets. Not sure if HTK is going to be enough against large aircraft like transports though.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 13:51
by bigjku
lbk000 wrote:Not according to Lockheed:
"Cuda is a highly lethal interceptor that defeats targets by direct body-to-body impact," Lockheed says. "At impact, Cuda sweeps its mass directly through the target at a selected point of vulnerability."


Apart from the fact that HTK is a proven technology already by way of LEAP, THAAD, PAC3, etc., I want to point out that now everyone and their mother is finally on board the highly-computerized negative-stability train it only gives surgical HTK the advantage.

However, the US is the only one that's significantly invested in HTK, so now everyone else is once again left with their pants around their legs.

That's how you keep winning.


They could. PAC3 does have a lethality enhancer warhead and is the only one there that is even contemplated against a mixed target set so I could see that being incorporated given that the others are pure anti missile weapons. I could see it going either way. CUDA wasn’t selected for proof of concept. The competing proposal got funding to go forward in a similar space IIRC. Raytheon SACM I believe. I can see wanting a lethality enhancer for bigger targets.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 14:10
by lbk000
While it's possible, I think it would be hard to afford include a charge powerful enough to be effective against large aircraft while competing with space/mass needed for HTK properties in such a form factor. The R-60 is in the same size class (6ft) as the SACM/MSDM/CUDA/MHTK missile and its 3-3.5kg warhead is not considered particularly lethal against large targets.
1. I believe CUDA will have a dense rod-like component and it would achieve its effects through tumbling rather than any sort of fragmenting or expanding action. Likely the shearing effect would allow it to cut through wing spars or other vital areas of even large aircraft.
2. I dont think HTK would be pursued if it lacked the capability to very selectively target where its going to hit.
3. One of the core goals of MHTK is to allow more more missiles to be carried, there is a certain allowance for multiple missiles to be expended against a larger target if need be.
4. The concept of shooter-on-site is a pre-5thgen paradigm. In the 5th generation Any-Sensor-Best-Shooter world, a different weapons platform carrying a more ideal weapon may take care of the large aircraft for you.

Afterthought: in the foreseeable future anything is lethal if you shoot enough of it -- maybe one day the lines between bullets and missiles will get blurred and we will see "guns" on airplanes again.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 14:42
by hornetfinn
One way of achieving large target capability would be to release a cloud of tungsten (or similar heavy metal) subprojectiles before impact. Bit like AHEAD and ABM ammunition for 30-35 mm guns. That would require forward looking proximity fuze to detonate a small bursting charge to release the projectiles. This could be much smaller than regular warhed while having at least similar effects on target.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 15:04
by wrightwing
HTK missiles are designed very differently than standard missiles. They aren't just a typical missile minus explosives.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 15:51
by lamoey
It's the size difference between a PAC3 and a CUDA that makes it easy to doubt that it could have the same effect as in the movie kill of the QF-4 above. Gen 2-3 and some gen 4 tends to have more weight in their skin than newer designs, and may not be as easy to penetrate, especially if hit from behind, with less relative speed difference. Of course physics may prove me completely wrong, but that's what my intuition tells me.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 17:05
by steve2267
sferrin wrote:


At 0:56, approximately 1-2 frames before missile impact on the QF-4, a fireball appears that is quite distinct from the QF-4. Any idea what that is? If I didn't know any better, I'm guessing someone unzipped the solid-fuel rocket motor of the PAC-3 so that a debris could would also sweep through the target.

Such an unzipping feature would also give the PAC-3 the ability to be terminated prior to impact. "Did we just fire on that plane? Didn't you get the memo -- Turdeau is flying in to negotiate F-35 with Trump!? Abort! Abort! ABORT!!!"

[ETA: corrected time to 0:56, 1:31 was length of entire video.]

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 17:41
by sferrin
Since nobody else has done it yet I'll point out the obvious. In the famed "Mig-17 flies Sidewinder to China" example it was an AIM-9B for god's sake. It was obviously in a tail chase, after motor burnout, and basically "docked" with the Mig-17. The speed differential was minimal which is why there was limited damage to the missile itself. This should be so obvious as to make the initial questioning post just sad.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 17:43
by sferrin
steve2267 wrote:
sferrin wrote:


At 1:31, approximately 1-2 frames before missile impact on the QF-4, a fireball appears that is quite distinct from the QF-4. Any idea what that is?


Almost certainly a divert motor firing. When a PAC-3 "unzips" going after a soft target it's much more dramatic. (will post a video later) PAC-3 does have a "lethality enhancement" mechanism so it doesn't just punch a hole through a soft target but it doesn't look like they activated it for this shot. You'll see.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2017, 19:38
by wrightwing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_45MlUHYbNw


Even with inert warheads, the damage is pretty catastrophic.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 00:34
by count_to_10
I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 01:40
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.


On the contrary, SACM seems optimized to kick it's target in the butt..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

AFRL would design a small, low-weight ordnance with hyper-agility, increased range, high loadout and a compressed carriage capability. Slides describe a missile with “dramatically improved high off bore sight for rear hemisphere kills” and “lower cost per kill.” The missile would also incorporate energy optimizing guidance, navigation and control, according to AFRL.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 01:44
by bigjku
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.


On the contrary, SACM seems optimized to kick it's target in the butt..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

AFRL would design a small, low-weight ordnance with hyper-agility, increased range, high loadout and a compressed carriage capability. Slides describe a missile with “dramatically improved high off bore sight for rear hemisphere kills” and “lower cost per kill.” The missile would also incorporate energy optimizing guidance, navigation and control, according to AFRL.


Doesn’t that mean rear hemisphere of the launching plane? That’s how I read that.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 02:11
by popcorn
bigjku wrote:Doesn’t that mean rear hemisphere of the launching plane? That’s how I read that.


Doesn't seem logical to me, specially if used with a 5Gen jet. Even with the LO advantage, the smart play is to sneak up from the rear minimizing risk of detection. If over-the-shoulder shots become a frequent occurrence maybe a rethink is needed as to why a threat aircraft is managing to get in a threatening position?

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 02:34
by cantaz
Hemisphere of the launch aircraft, not the target.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 02:49
by popcorn
cantaz wrote:Hemisphere of the launch aircraft, not the target.

Yeah.. re-read it several times now.. makes sense in affording the widest engagement envelope..

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 03:17
by count_to_10
Anyway, the point being that the HTK missile is probably flying sideways through the target rather than hitting it nose on. As such, it will sweep out a larger volume even without explosives.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 03:30
by sferrin
sferrin wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
sferrin wrote:


At 1:31, approximately 1-2 frames before missile impact on the QF-4, a fireball appears that is quite distinct from the QF-4. Any idea what that is?


Almost certainly a divert motor firing. When a PAC-3 "unzips" going after a soft target it's much more dramatic. (will post a video later) PAC-3 does have a "lethality enhancement" mechanism so it doesn't just punch a hole through a soft target but it doesn't look like they activated it for this shot. You'll see.



This is more what I was thinking (starting at 0:18):


Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 04:23
by spazsinbad
:devil: Screenie from above PACman Video:

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 08:21
by hornetfinn
That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 08:55
by wrightwing
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.


On the contrary, SACM seems optimized to kick it's target in the butt..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

AFRL would design a small, low-weight ordnance with hyper-agility, increased range, high loadout and a compressed carriage capability. Slides describe a missile with “dramatically improved high off bore sight for rear hemisphere kills” and “lower cost per kill.” The missile would also incorporate energy optimizing guidance, navigation and control, according to AFRL.


Rear hemisphere of the launching plane (i.e. over the shoulder shots).

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 13:09
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote::devil: Screenie from above PACman Video:


It hits that target like Thor's hammer. In the video you can even see the shock wave from the impact propagating through the atmosphere. :shock:

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 20:35
by uclass
sferrin wrote:Are you serious? Nope, hit-to-kill doesn't work at all:

Hardly a like-for-like example. PAC 3 is over 5m long and 0.25m wide, CUDA is smaller and lighter than a sidewinder.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 20:41
by uclass
hornetfinn wrote:Good observation and question.

AIM-9B was not designed to kill with kinetic energy and was thus ineffective when it hit the MiG-17 and didn't detonate. Problem was that it was slow, even top speed was just about Mach 1.7 or so AFAIK and it would quickly lose speed when rocket motor burned. It was also not very dense and thus the kinetic energy was very low when it hit. HTK missiles need speed as kinetic energy is quadrupled when speed is doubled. CUDA would likely have something like 3-4 times higher speed than AIM-9B meaning about 10-20 times higher kinetic energy. That's like difference between getting hit with 12.7 mm machine gun round vs. 5.56 assault rifle bullet wearing body armour.

HTK missiles will also be designed to kill with kinetic energy only, which means they will also have far more effects when they hit. They could be frangible like FAPDS rounds which means they would disintegrate into high velocity fragments which would make a lot of damage to any aircraft. Basically fragmentation warhead effects without explosives.

I think it would work very well, especially against fighters and other relatively small targets. Not sure if HTK is going to be enough against large aircraft like transports though.

Point taken but the speed estimate seem a little optimistic if it's intended for medium-long range with a rocket motor and DACT. 4x would put it a Mach 7. And there will obviously be a range where its speed drops back down to Mach 2ish but botsing makes a valid point, it's probably design to be frangible to maximise impact damage.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 20:47
by uclass
hornetfinn wrote:That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.

That's the impression I got. A bit like a top-attack TOW warhead.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 21:12
by steve2267
uclass wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.

That's the impression I got. A bit like a top-attack TOW warhead.


USAF developing next generation air dominance missile
BY: Leigh Giangreco 30 May 2017

...

Based on AFRL and Carlisle’s description, SACM could have shades of the USAF and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s defunct joint dual-role air dominance missile (JDRADM) programme, which sought a combined air-to-air and air-to-ground missile for the F-22A and F-35, and external carriage on selected legacy aircraft. The air force effort spun a DARPA programme, the triple target terminator (T3) programme, which pursued a missile that could combine the capabilities of Raytheon’s AIM-120 and AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/


Would such an EFP warhead, packaged to fit in a 6" dia (or perhaps 7" dia) SACM / CUDA missile be large enough to destroy an MBT or at least an APC from a top attack? If so, an F-35 with upwards of twelve SACM / CUDA missiles would seem to be a tremendous CAS / Air-to-air threat. Even two AIM-120C7 or D with four SDB-II (or SPEAR) and four SACM/CUDA would be a very flexible arrangement. At only ~155lb each, payload weight would not be an issue. Could an innovative payload rack be created that enables small munitions such as these to be loaded two deep vertically? Mechanical simplicity probably goes out the window, so from that perspective KISS would seem to be violated. May not be worth the engineering efforts / costs.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 21:37
by castlebravo
hornetfinn wrote:That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.


EFP doesn't make sense. It looks to me like a small explosive charge turned the PAC3 missile body into a shotgun blast of high velocity projectiles. ~100 lbs worth of Mach 3 CUDA shredded into a thousand pieces would be like hitting the target with a thousand .50 BMG rounds. For the much bigger PAC3 missile, it is complete overkill. If that drone had been a piloted aircraft, there might have been some teeth left in the fireball, but I don't think the hair or eyeballs would have made it.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2017, 21:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
steve2267 wrote:Would such an EFP warhead, packaged to fit in a 6" dia (or perhaps 7" dia) SACM / CUDA missile be large enough to destroy an MBT or at least an APC from a top attack?

depends on where it hits. The issue with EFP is that it bores a straight line through what it hits. I've seen a HMMWV hit by a 6-in EFP where it went at an angle up through the door and out the roof and hit nothing vital. I've seen an M1 hit by a half-dozen 6-in EFP where all it hit was metal (no fuel, ammo, equipment, machinery, or personnel).

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 00:08
by sferrin
uclass wrote:And there will obviously be a range where its speed drops back down to Mach 2ish but botsing makes a valid point, it's probably design to be frangible to maximise impact damage.


Another thing to consider is even a 5lb warhead going off inside the aircraft is going to be deadly. There's also the notion, that I'd heard about forever ago, but not recently, that AAMs/SAMs these days are specifically designed to hit the cockpit area.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 00:12
by sferrin
castlebravo wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.


EFP doesn't make sense. It looks to me like a small explosive charge turned the PAC3 missile body into a shotgun blast of high velocity projectiles. ~100 lbs worth of Mach 3 CUDA shredded into a thousand pieces would be like hitting the target with a thousand .50 BMG rounds. For the much bigger PAC3 missile, it is complete overkill. If that drone had been a piloted aircraft, there might have been some teeth left in the fireball, but I don't think the hair or eyeballs would have made it.


IMO that's what's going on here. Also, there have been a couple blue-on-blue PAC-3 shots and the pilots didn't survive. (Then there was the F-16 that took out a Patriot radar. . . :lol: )

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 02:46
by popcorn
castlebravo wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.


EFP doesn't make sense. It looks to me like a small explosive charge turned the PAC3 missile body into a shotgun blast of high velocity projectiles. ~100 lbs worth of Mach 3 CUDA shredded into a thousand pieces would be like hitting the target with a thousand .50 BMG rounds. For the much bigger PAC3 missile, it is complete overkill. If that drone had been a piloted aircraft, there might have been some teeth left in the fireball, but I don't think the hair or eyeballs would have made it.

yeah, I recall reading that the intent was simply to provide a compact cloud of fragments increasing impact probability. Forward momentum of the fragments would largely be imparted by missile velocity,

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

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

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 04:24
by wolfpak
Some vision systems (irrespective of the part of the spectrum they operate in) employ centroid tracking. In other words they track the center of mass or center of the distribution of the pixels of the scene. For a fighter aircraft that's not to far aft of the cockpit and right where the wing carry through structure, engine faces and fuel tanks are. Upper hemisphere hit would be deadly and a lower hemisphere hit would certainly damage components and potentially start fires. If the lethality enhancer is in part made of zirconium the following from Wiki applies:
"The high reactivity of zirconium with oxygen at high temperatures is exploited in some specialised applications such as explosive primers and as getters in vacuum tubes. The same property is (probably) the purpose of including Zr nano-particles as pyrophoric material in explosive weapons such as the BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb."

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 06:29
by laos
Some sophisticated EFP warheads have multiple detonators that can be fired in different arrangements causing different types of waveform in the explosive, resulting in either a long-rod penetrator, an aerodynamic slug projectile, or multiple high-velocity fragments. A less sophisticated approach for changing the formation of an EFP is the use of wire-mesh in front of the liner: with the mesh in place the liner fragments into multiple penetrators.
In addition to single-penetrator EFPs , there are EFP warheads whose liners are designed to produce more than one penetrator; these are known as multiple EFPs, or MEFPs. The liner of an MEFP generally comprises a number of dimples that intersect each other at sharp angles. Upon detonation the liner fragments along these intersections to form up to dozens of small, generally spheroidal projectiles, producing an effect similar to that of a shotgun. The pattern of impacts on target can be finely controlled based on the design of the liner and the manner in which the explosive charge is detonated.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 10:46
by hornetfinn
Couple of interesting patents for warheads:

MEFP (Multiple EFP):
https://www.google.ch/patents/US5191169

Wide area dispersal warhead especially for HTK missiles:
https://www.google.ch/patents/US7717042

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 15:33
by optimist
sferrin wrote:
uclass wrote:And there will obviously be a range where its speed drops back down to Mach 2ish but botsing makes a valid point, it's probably design to be frangible to maximise impact damage.


Another thing to consider is even a 5lb warhead going off inside the aircraft is going to be deadly. There's also the notion, that I'd heard about forever ago, but not recently, that AAMs/SAMs these days are specifically designed to hit the cockpit area.

I'm sure that's a fact with the asraam and not a notion. It does target a part of the plane. I recall it has an image library onboard. This was from DSTO articles/reports. In a quick google to find what I read years ago, I saw they had a recent update for the newer infrared countermeasures. https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/projects ... ile-asraam
I think the asraam got a bit ahead of the aim-9 there for a while. I would think the block 2 aim-9x also uses the IIR and suitable software now, for identifying the target and where it wants to hit it.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 16:03
by garrya
I think the kinematic damage is more than enough but IMHO, the main issue is engagement distance, range likely shorter than AIM-120 unless they figure out some new super powerful propellant :|

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 19:34
by botsing
garrya wrote:I think the kinematic damage is more than enough but IMHO, the main issue is engagement distance, range likely shorter than AIM-120 unless they figure out some new super powerful propellant :|

A rocket motor is a controlled exothermic chemical reaction. Getting a better energy density/mass ratio while being able to control this energy is key to future missile speed and range. It will also be interesting if we will see more (sc)ram jet designs in future missiles

Another area for enhancement is aerodynamics, variable fin shape and size and another body shape might give a better speed, maneuverability and range optimization.

The mentioning of targeting the cockpit is quite interesting, killing the pilot in a manned aircraft would be considered the optimal goal of an anti-air missile.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 20:05
by steve2267
botsing wrote:
garrya wrote:I think the kinematic damage is more than enough but IMHO, the main issue is engagement distance, range likely shorter than AIM-120 unless they figure out some new super powerful propellant :|

A rocket motor is a controlled exothermic chemical reaction. Getting a better energy density/mass ratio while being able to control this energy is key to future missile speed and range. It will also be interesting if we will see more (sc)ram jet designs in future missiles

Several USAF generals (or soon to be retired generals) have made comments about stuff in the lab, things I can't talk about, hypersonics, and (alluded to) scramjets. Maybe not all in the same sentence, but in adjacent or "near" sentences. Who knows.

The concept that has been postulated in these parts of a two-stage SACM (Raytheon version of the CUDA concept?) whereby a boost or hypsersonic cruise stage drops a SACM in the target breadbasket hundreds of kilometers out would be one such use for a scramjet cruise stage.

botsing wrote:The mentioning of targeting the cockpit is quite interesting, killing the pilot in a manned aircraft would be considered the optimal goal of an anti-air missile.

So much for the "gentlemanly" view of air-to-air combat. I suppose that died with WWI, though there were some examples of chivalry in WW2.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2017, 20:25
by SpudmanWP
steve2267 wrote:there were some examples of chivalry in Ww2.

The most famous one I can think of was the German fighter pilot escorting a damaged bomber out of German airspace.

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_B ... r_incident


Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2017, 15:03
by lbk000
steve2267 wrote:So much for the "gentlemanly" view of air-to-air combat. I suppose that died with WWI, though there were some examples of chivalry in WW2.

Well, even though examples like JG27 liked to report a romantic philosophy of separation between killing aircraft vs killing pilots, it didn't change the fact that many successful pilots like Hans-Joachim Marseilles had a knack for shooting out enemy pilots. US gunnery training specifically encouraged targeting the vital parts of the enemy airplane, from the engine to the cockpit.

IMO chivalry is a symptom of romanticism and it is not a good thing, as it is a sort of fetishistic self-deception that can get in the way of lucid assessments of the actual situation. One cannot be a team player if they choose to prioritize the preservation of their own ego.

Re: CUDA, would it work?

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2017, 04:09
by marauder2048
Typically, aimable or directional warheads in the anti-air context refer to focusing the fragments
in a particular direction rather than EFP or shaped charge style focusing of a liner.


From "THE EVOLUTION OF AIR TARGET WARHEADS" by Waggener