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

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

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 917
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post05 Dec 2019, 20:48

timmymagic wrote: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.


It isn't DRFM per se but combination with smaller RCS of J-20 and future J-31, jamming works lot better with smallish RCS.
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post06 Dec 2019, 12:46

steve2267 wrote:
"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.


Skunk Works isn't some secret sauce that can somehow significantly shorten a missile integration effort, particularly an air to air missile that will have to be launched from an aircraft under all parts of its flight envelope, unlike an A2G munition. According to their timeline they've got 2 years to get the missiles integrated and tested, that is incredibly short for an air to air munition that doesn't appear to even exist or have test shots done. If this was a Raytheon rather than LM you'd put money on it being some variant of the ESSM/Amraam lash up, but its not. I just cannot see the timeline as credible. If they'd said test launch maybe, but actually fielding?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Dec 2019, 13:14

timmymagic wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
"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.


Skunk Works isn't some secret sauce that can somehow significantly shorten a missile integration effort, particularly an air to air missile that will have to be launched from an aircraft under all parts of its flight envelope, unlike an A2G munition. According to their timeline they've got 2 years to get the missiles integrated and tested, that is incredibly short for an air to air munition that doesn't appear to even exist or have test shots done. If this was a Raytheon rather than LM you'd put money on it being some variant of the ESSM/Amraam lash up, but its not. I just cannot see the timeline as credible. If they'd said test launch maybe, but actually fielding?


You should look into the creation of the GBU-28. When time is of essence schedules can be shortened.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post06 Dec 2019, 16:48

sferrin wrote:You should look into the creation of the GBU-28. When time is of essence schedules can be shortened.


Lots of examples out there of rapidly fielded munitions. But usually they're air to ground, where the release parameters can be very tight, upgrades of existing weapons, or for a desperate need prior to a major conflict. You can guarantee that after the crisis has passed a full integration effort is undertaken and that store isn't used again until the proper clearances are undertaken.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3389
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Dec 2019, 21:00

timmymagic wrote:
sferrin wrote:You should look into the creation of the GBU-28. When time is of essence schedules can be shortened.


Lots of examples out there of rapidly fielded munitions. But usually they're air to ground, where the release parameters can be very tight, upgrades of existing weapons, or for a desperate need prior to a major conflict. You can guarantee that after the crisis has passed a full integration effort is undertaken and that store isn't used again until the proper clearances are undertaken.

LM has a lot of experience with missiles, so it's not their first rodeo. Not only have they produced numerous air launched missiles, PAC-3, and THAAD, but have been working on advanced propulsion with the CUDA, and with AFRL/DARPA on hypersonic weapons.
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post08 Dec 2019, 11:39

wrightwing wrote:LM has a lot of experience with missiles, so it's not their first rodeo. Not only have they produced numerous air launched missiles, PAC-3, and THAAD, but have been working on advanced propulsion with the CUDA, and with AFRL/DARPA on hypersonic weapons.


Thats true. But the CUDA doesn't exist....and remind me how long PAC-3 and THAAD took to field...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3389
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Dec 2019, 17:13

timmymagic wrote:
wrightwing wrote:LM has a lot of experience with missiles, so it's not their first rodeo. Not only have they produced numerous air launched missiles, PAC-3, and THAAD, but have been working on advanced propulsion with the CUDA, and with AFRL/DARPA on hypersonic weapons.


Thats true. But the CUDA doesn't exist....and remind me how long PAC-3 and THAAD took to field...

And now that they're fielded, LM has a vast amount of expertise, along with its work with DARPA on numerous missile projects. As for CUDA, you're correct that no product with that name exists, but it's incorrect to suggest that they haven't spent years in development so far. It's well beyond a concept/mock up.
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests