Page 3 of 3

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 06:05
by SpudmanWP
Depends on target, warhead size, and survival chance fo the missile & launch platform.

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 07:55
by garrya
SpudmanWP wrote:Depends on target, warhead size, and survival chance fo the missile & launch platform.

This target
Image

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 10:48
by knowan
An air-launched SM-6 would also have far more range than is useful.

If you want to propose converting a SAM for air-launch, the RIM-162 ESSM Block II would be a better idea; the F-35 could probably even carry that internally.

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 12:53
by sferrin
garrya wrote:which is better


Which is better:

Comparison-Essay.jpg

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 12:54
by sferrin
knowan wrote:An air-launched SM-6 would also have far more range than is useful.


With CEC there's no such thing. But you're packing a 1,500lb weapon when you could get the same effect with a fraction of the weight by using a 2-stage missile.

Capture.PNG

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 03:47
by eloise
sferrin wrote:
knowan wrote:An air-launched SM-6 would also have far more range than is useful.


With CEC there's no such thing. But you're packing a 1,500lb weapon when you could get the same effect with a fraction of the weight by using a 2-stage missile.

Capture.PNG

i do not know what is in your photo, but iam skeptical if it has the reach of SM-6
SM-6 is 2 stage missile
Image

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 04:07
by SpudmanWP
That is an SM-6 that includes a booster for launching out of an Mk-41 VL cell. An air-launched version would not need the booster but would need lugs and datalinks plumbed.

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 05:04
by fidgetspinner
garrya wrote:which is better
Image
Image


As much as I am dying to know the size, length, speed, range, date test and operational production date of the missile I think a better preference in my opinion regarding a stealth aircraft is to carry such weapons internally without losing its stealth profile.

More or less it seems the Russians are getting the right idea to carry their supposedly in development mini-kinzhal to fit in their su-57s. I would prefer an aircraft like the F-35 to carry such weapons internally if its carried externally have some F-16, F-15 or F-18 carry it instead its just my personal preference.

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 10:45
by knowan
SpudmanWP wrote:That is an SM-6 that includes a booster for launching out of an Mk-41 VL cell. An air-launched version would not need the booster but would need lugs and datalinks plumbed.


A SM-6 without the booster would basically be a SM-2MR, although with the better guidance package of the SM-6. That would bring the weight down to around 1600 lbs, so it'd still be half again as heavy as an AIM-54.


fidgetspinner wrote:More or less it seems the Russians are getting the right idea to carry their supposedly in development mini-kinzhal to fit in their su-57s. I would prefer an aircraft like the F-35 to carry such weapons internally if its carried externally have some F-16, F-15 or F-18 carry it instead its just my personal preference.


They already have a mini-Kinzhal, it's called the Kh-15. That's about the best performance in range/speed/warhead they're likely to get within the size restrictions they have.
They'd be able to increase range while retaining Mach 5-6 speeds if they change from rocket to ramjet propulsion though, ending up with something like the ASALM.

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 13:41
by garrya
fidgetspinner wrote:
As much as I am dying to know the size, length, speed, range, date test and operational production date of the missile I think a better preference in my opinion regarding a stealth aircraft is to carry such weapons internally without losing its stealth profile.

More or less it seems the Russians are getting the right idea to carry their supposedly in development mini-kinzhal to fit in their su-57s. I would prefer an aircraft like the F-35 to carry such weapons internally if its carried externally have some F-16, F-15 or F-18 carry it instead its just my personal preference.

Same here

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 13:42
by garrya
sferrin wrote:Which is better:

Imho, they will be used against the same kind of target, more or less

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 14:27
by sferrin
garrya wrote:
sferrin wrote:Which is better:

Imho, they will be used against the same kind of target, more or less


Neither one of them is likely to be used against a ship.

Re: Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 17:07
by fidgetspinner
So looking back at that image is it possible for the F-35 to carry up to 2 HAWC hypersonic missiles? I think the F-35 can launch those missiles at a far enough distance towards targets without compromising much of its stealth by coming at a closer distance towards its targets. I think the F-35 can handle the weight load of 2 HAWC missiles while carrying 4-6 AMRAAMs internally. So the pilot has the option to either launch and hopefully not jettison the HAWC missiles if an aerial target started approaching the F-35.

I am cool with the idea but that depends on the range of the missiles. The small size of the missile is definitely a huge plus making it difficult to intercept but I would preferably want the range of the missiles to be 750kms+ unless anyone here has better preferable range estimates?