Raytheon Unveils New Air-to-Air Missile [Peregrine]

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

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post02 Dec 2019, 22:40

milosh wrote:
@boogieman

Su-35 MAWS is IR based, so using 101KS-V as evidence Su-57 have only 360deg ultraviolent coverage is problematic. And if you check last MAKS you will see what company which made 101KS-O wrote, analog to OLS with DIRCM. So 101KS-O very likely have IR sensor.

Right, but Su35 doesn't have DIRCM AFAIK. Even if we assume Su57 MAWS is IR based (which we don't have direct evidence for yet) you then get into the question of DIRCM hardening vs DIRCM capability. Just because the target has countermeasures doesn't mean they can't be overcome.

Worst case scenario you're dealing with one type of enemy aircraft that has this capability, and one that will exist in pretty tiny numbers for at least the next 10-15 years.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post02 Dec 2019, 22:57

milosh wrote:
marsavian wrote:
milosh wrote:Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)


Not SARH but continual datalink positional updates to the missile. Something like an F-35 armed with 2-way datalink missiles like Meteor/Aim-120D would be very good at this because of its 360 degree RF/IR fused sensors so even when maneuvering it will still have a good idea where you are and the missile will tell it whether it is locked on or not so even missile countermeasures could be overcome with further datalink updates.


That is command guidence which have lag, it is all nice when it is used against non VLO (lock target from 15km so lag isn't such issue) but what about VLO which almost all BVR seekers can lock for 5km or even less.



The F-35 would guide it continuously with no lag even with a VLO target because at least one of the AESA/EOTS/DAS/RWR sensors will be tracking the VLO target all the way from missile launch until missile impact. It maybe that the missile's own seeker barely locks on itself before impact. The 2-way datalink will make up for any deficiency in the missile's sensors against VLO targets.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post02 Dec 2019, 23:17

marsavian wrote:The F-35 would guide it continuously with no lag even with a VLO target because at least one of the AESA/EOTS/DAS/RWR sensors will be tracking the VLO target all the way from missile launch until missile impact. It maybe that the missile's own seeker barely locks on itself before impact.


That is command guidance which create missile lag (noticable if target is further and maneuvering), you can google that, nothing new, older western and eastern SAMs use that method of guidance.

For closer range engagement lag isn't issue but in close range combat you can use SARH mode which is lot faster.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 00:39

Not exactly. True command guidance doesn't use information obtained by the missile's onboard sensors to help track the target. In this example you'd be using data from the missile itself to track the target in real time (terminal phase), with the host platform's sensors used to help sort out countermeasures etc.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 07:44

timmymagic wrote:
wrightwing wrote:US weapons will be the least costly to acquire and integrate. They'll also provide better magazine depth. I doubt many customers will switch to European weapons.


Integration costs on US platforms is usually an irrelevance as the US has already paid for it. But if its not a US platform....Also cost of acquisition isn't necessarily true. And if you want performance to counter a threat US AAM's are not what you're looking at.

Magazine depth? On which platform? AIM-9X takes up a rail, as does Asraam, IRIS-T, Python 5. Amraam takes up a pylon or semi conformal station same as Meteor. The ability to carry additional Amraam in the F-35 bay hasn't been developed or ordered yet, and its not clear if it will enable carriage of other munitions other than Amraam.

Only 4 Meteors fit in the F-35s bays vs 6 AIM-120/260, or 12 Peregrine (and yes, the 6 AAM load out had been developed , ordered, and coming in Block 4.) Which threats do you believe aren't countered by F-35 + name the AAM?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 07:55

timmymagic wrote:


As to the AIM260? I think the jury is out on that one. The timeline is very aggressive, with an element of unrealistic thrown into the mix. Unless the tech is there right now and is available off the shelf the IOC mentioned is laughable. It sounds like its a mash up of different US missile components, or its taking elements from resurrected older programmes. If its fitting in the same form factor as Amraam the only possible configuration that makes sense is a 2 stage missile, and that comes with a lot of negatives. Any talk of newer propellants I suspect is not true, there is no secret sauce. I'm not convinced to say the least. It has the sound of a programme that has been cooked up in desperation more than anything else.


They didn't just start work on the AIM-260, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with it being an unrealistic timeline, or that desperation is involved. The technologies involved have been worked on for over 10 years already. (i.e. JDRADM, NGM, T-3, not to mention AAAM.)
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 08:24

milosh wrote:
marsavian wrote:
milosh wrote:Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)


Not SARH but continual datalink positional updates to the missile. Something like an F-35 armed with 2-way datalink missiles like Meteor/Aim-120D would be very good at this because of its 360 degree RF/IR fused sensors so even when maneuvering it will still have a good idea where you are and the missile will tell it whether it is locked on or not so even missile countermeasures could be overcome with further datalink updates.


That is command guidence which have lag, it is all nice when it is used against non VLO (lock target from 15km so lag isn't such issue) but what about VLO which almost all BVR seekers can lock for 5km or even less.

@boogieman

Su-35 MAWS is IR based capable detect missile from 60km, so expecting Su-57 have only 360deg ultraviolent coverage is problematic. And if you check last MAKS you will see what company which made 101KS-O wrote, analog to OLS with DIRCM. So 101KS-O very likely have IR sensor.

NPK SSP is a UV MAWS.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2873
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 09:37

boogieman wrote:Not exactly. True command guidance doesn't use information obtained by the missile's onboard sensors to help track the target. In this example you'd be using data from the missile itself to track the target in real time (terminal phase), with the host platform's sensors used to help sort out countermeasures etc.


That sounds like TVM (Track-Via-Missile) guidance that is used by Patriot PAC-1/2 and most S-300/400 missiles. ESSM also uses this guidance in some variant. Basically it's a variation of SARH but with the difference that the processing takes place in the launching unit and not the missile itself. So the missile is data linked with the launcher and sends the radar signals it receives to the launcher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track-via-missile

I could see some major advantages in this method versus ARH guidance. It would allow much more comprehensive sensor fusion using wider array of sensors than is possible to be carried by a missile. There is also much more processing power available in the aircraft than in a missile. This might give significant advantages against VLO/LO targets. With phased array radar the number of simultaneous targets can be very high especially when using ICWI guidance (Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination). It would also be much more difficult to know when the missile is in the terminal phase and where it's coming from.

Of course one variation could be using AESA seeker in missile with TVM/ICWI and ARH guidance modes available. Even passive anti-radar mode would easily be possible. With GaN seekers it would also have very wide bandwidth coverage to attack a wide array of radars.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 10:07

@wrightwing

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/ak_12/46 ... iginal.jpg

ИК диапазон = IR diapason
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 10:15

hornetfinn wrote:
boogieman wrote:Not exactly. True command guidance doesn't use information obtained by the missile's onboard sensors to help track the target. In this example you'd be using data from the missile itself to track the target in real time (terminal phase), with the host platform's sensors used to help sort out countermeasures etc.


That sounds like TVM (Track-Via-Missile) guidance that is used by Patriot PAC-1/2 and most S-300/400 missiles. ESSM also uses this guidance in some variant. Basically it's a variation of SARH but with the difference that the processing takes place in the launching unit and not the missile itself. So the missile is data linked with the launcher and sends the radar signals it receives to the launcher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track-via-missile

I could see some major advantages in this method versus ARH guidance. It would allow much more comprehensive sensor fusion using wider array of sensors than is possible to be carried by a missile. There is also much more processing power available in the aircraft than in a missile. This might give significant advantages against VLO/LO targets. With phased array radar the number of simultaneous targets can be very high especially when using ICWI guidance (Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination). It would also be much more difficult to know when the missile is in the terminal phase and where it's coming from.

Of course one variation could be using AESA seeker in missile with TVM/ICWI and ARH guidance modes available. Even passive anti-radar mode would easily be possible. With GaN seekers it would also have very wide bandwidth coverage to attack a wide array of radars.


Yes this was my thought as well, although I think it's still slightly different to classic TVM in that the missile would be using it's own multimodal (rather than SARH) seeker to fine tune its terminal approach, and "talking" back and forth with the launch platform to help discriminate countermeasures.

Totally pie in the sky stuff at this point, but perhaps one way of approaching the VLO opponent problem.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2873
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post03 Dec 2019, 11:51

boogieman wrote:Yes this was my thought as well, although I think it's still slightly different to classic TVM in that the missile would be using it's own multimodal (rather than SARH) seeker to fine tune its terminal approach, and "talking" back and forth with the launch platform to help discriminate countermeasures.

Totally pie in the sky stuff at this point, but perhaps one way of approaching the VLO opponent problem.


I agree that it's very possible future ability. I also doubt air-to-air missiles will go for SARH seeker any more as self guidance is a must as data link can easily be lost in air to air combat. In ships and ground launchers this is not a problem as they don't really move in such a manner that the data link could be lost. This might also be why such systems haven't been made for air-to-air missiles. Their fast movement and maneuverability might give problems with missile guidance.

Currently many design elements exist. There are two-way data links in Meteor and AIM-120D missiles with GPS/INS guidance systems. AESA seekers are making their way to missiles, even air-to-air missiles. I think this could be done today if need be and if it gave enough advantages.
Offline

timmymagic

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post05 Dec 2019, 00:58

[/quote]Only 4 Meteors fit in the F-35s bays vs 6 AIM-120/260, or 12 Peregrine (and yes, the 6 AAM load out had been developed , ordered, and coming in Block 4.) Which threats do you believe aren't countered by F-35 + name the AAM?[/quote]

Lockheed Martin's SideKick is neither developed, ordered or coming in Block 4 at present. LM may have done some initial studies, but they haven't built it, tested it, flown it, added it to Block 4 or have any orders for it. They have floated the idea out there, but no one has bitten. Right now its vapourware.

IF it gets done we don't know if it will enable 6 Meteor to be carried either...it will only be on A and C models, as LM don't make Amraam there may be an incentive to include other missiles. It will be a niche product though.

Right now I think the F-35 would take most things, but we're not talking about now, we're talking about 5-10 years+ away. If you're wanting to engage a J-20 you're going to want to do it as far away as possible. And engaging a threat further away could mean protecting a valuable asset like AAR or AWACS.

But given the big push to get AIM-9X range extended asap I suspect that the quality of Chinese DRFM jammers might be seen as a problem, if everyone was perfectly happy with Amraam's predicted performance there wouldn't have been such a rush.
Offline

timmymagic

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post05 Dec 2019, 01:57

wrightwing wrote:They didn't just start work on the AIM-260, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with it being an unrealistic timeline, or that desperation is involved. The technologies involved have been worked on for over 10 years already. (i.e. JDRADM, NGM, T-3, not to mention AAAM.)


Starting work on a missile in 2017, with expected initial fielding in 2021-22 is incredibly short. Amraam was first test fired in 1982, but didn't make it onto aircraft until 1991....

Also given that most of the work you mention was conducted by Raytheon (or companies bought by Raytheon) and not LM they're not going to have those projects to leverage.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2238
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post05 Dec 2019, 02:48

timmymagic wrote:
wrightwing wrote:They didn't just start work on the AIM-260, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with it being an unrealistic timeline, or that desperation is involved. The technologies involved have been worked on for over 10 years already. (i.e. JDRADM, NGM, T-3, not to mention AAAM.)


Starting work on a missile in 2017, with expected initial fielding in 2021-22 is incredibly short. Amraam was first test fired in 1982, but didn't make it onto aircraft until 1991....


"is incredibly short"... yes and no. For normal, corporate engineering shops, I'd agree that's short. But maybe they had been doing IR&D work for a little while? Or maybe there had previously been some black / off the books work?

On the other hand, if the Skunk Works was involved, then 4-5 years sounds normal, maybe longish. The F-35 is, after all, the offspring from the Skunk Works.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Dec 2019, 13:05

timmymagic wrote:


Starting work on a missile in 2017, with expected initial fielding in 2021-22 is incredibly short. Amraam was first test fired in 1982, but didn't make it onto aircraft until 1991....

Also given that most of the work you mention was conducted by Raytheon (or companies bought by Raytheon) and not LM they're not going to have those projects to leverage.

They didn't just start R&D in 2017, and LM has extensive experience in high performance missiles.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests