Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 May 2019, 02:33

gc wrote:Have the Navy considered slinging a SM-6 under the F-35 wing for near term anti-air and surface capability? They can get a Mach 3.5 missile with a range way greater than 250nm (this is the surface launched range) with some software tweaks i suppose.

No. It's a horrible idea.

eloise · by **eloise** » 08 May 2019, 02:52

marauder2048 wrote:Or the inlet design is proprietary (3D?) and they don't want to share it.

As far as i know, HSSW is a different program

madrat · by **madrat** » 08 May 2019, 02:58

garrya wrote:
madrat wrote:I really thought we'd see hypersonic weapons more akin to rocketpacks by now. INS with DU tips and delayed fuses. Hitting from 20km at Mach 5+ to crack concrete bunkers wide open on the cheap.

a small DU dart will be fairly ineffective against bunker

A tiny hole to insert the delayed fuse package is actually quite sound. The over-pressure then near instant partial vacuum effects of a contained explosion would clean a bunker out.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 May 2019, 03:52

madrat wrote:
garrya wrote:
madrat wrote:I really thought we'd see hypersonic weapons more akin to rocketpacks by now. INS with DU tips and delayed fuses. Hitting from 20km at Mach 5+ to crack concrete bunkers wide open on the cheap.

a small DU dart will be fairly ineffective against bunker

A tiny hole to insert the delayed fuse package is actually quite sound. The over-pressure then near instant partial vacuum effects of a contained explosion would clean a bunker out.

A Mach 5 SDB.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 08 May 2019, 04:04

eloise wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Or the inlet design is proprietary (3D?) and they don't want to share it.

As far as i know, HSSW is a different program

It is. My point was that they aren't showing you much of the inlet there either.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 08 May 2019, 09:13

sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:
madrat wrote:I really thought we'd see hypersonic weapons more akin to rocketpacks by now. INS with DU tips and delayed fuses. Hitting from 20km at Mach 5+ to crack concrete bunkers wide open on the cheap.

A tiny hole to insert the delayed fuse package is actually quite sound. The over-pressure then near instant partial vacuum effects of a contained explosion would clean a bunker out.

A Mach 5 SDB.

Depends on what impact velocity the penetrator can survive. Previously, practical penetrator designs were
limited to ~ 4000 fps but I swear that I read something about Sandia reliably hitting 5000 fps with some new materials.

eloise · by **eloise** » 08 May 2019, 10:45

sferrin wrote:
gc wrote:Have the Navy considered slinging a SM-6 under the F-35 wing for near term anti-air and surface capability? They can get a Mach 3.5 missile with a range way greater than 250nm (this is the surface launched range) with some software tweaks i suppose.

No. It's a horrible idea.

Why is it horrible?

lbk000 · by **lbk000** » 08 May 2019, 14:44

SM-6 is some 3x heavier than even an AIM-54, and that's not even considering the weight of a hypothetical carriage solution. It's an utter nonstarter.

Not even going to get into the engineering, logistical, and certification challenges that would suddenly make this a not-very-quick-and-cheap idea. Oh yeah, and in a world where saturation is ever more the name of the game, you want to bank on a deployment scheme that is anything but conducive to it?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 08 May 2019, 16:02

SM-6 is listed at 3300lbs but that likely included the booster which would not be needed for airborne use.

Whatever is left over is well within the weight limits of the inner pylon of any F-35 (5k lbs).

optimist · by **optimist** » 08 May 2019, 16:19

Just a question. Do they still have black weapon programs and procurement?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 08 May 2019, 16:38

What is this "black program" you speak of? :roll:

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 May 2019, 16:49

SpudmanWP wrote:SM-6 is listed at 3300lbs but that likely included the booster which would not be needed for airborne use.

Whatever is left over is well within the weight limits of the inner pylon of any F-35 (5k lbs).

It's definitely sans-booster (you could even put a twin launcher on the inboard pylons) but it's still a terrible idea. Lots of money and not much capability in this role. A LRASM would be far superior in every regard but speed.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 08 May 2019, 19:25

well, LRASM can't hit a plane or missile/rocket.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 08 May 2019, 19:30

SpudmanWP wrote:well, LRASM can't hit a plane or missile/rocket.

True. And in that regard (at least conceptually) an SM-6 minus booster might not be a bad Band-Aid for anti-air. (Assuming smaller, 2-stage, weapons are off the table.)

To attack a ship though, LRASM would be the better choice.

garrya · by **garrya** » 09 May 2019, 04:35

which is better