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

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

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 01:32

weasel1962 wrote:The Amraam breaks down into 40-50 lbs warhead, 150 lbs WPU-6, ~110 lbs propellant. If Raytheon managed to reduce the WPU-6 weight significantly, it begs the question why not just integrate this into the AMRAAM in which case, it would have significantly much better range to "outstick" everyone else rather than build a smaller missile that can match its range...

I don't think Peregrine/CUDA are being designed to replace the AMRAAM - JATM will do that and remain the primary BVR weapon going forward. Peregrine/CUDA strike me as more of a replacement for Sidewinder... albeit one that has the potential to provide AMRAAM-esque BVR capability while increasing the size of A2A missile loadouts. I'd bet that JATM and Peregrine will also incorporate seeker technology that is ahead of anything found on an AMRAAM variant (AESA + IIR?).

So to answer your question - what not just upgrade AMRAAM again? Probably because with JATM you are updating/replacing literally every part of the missile (ergo, a clean sheet design) and with Peregrine you are increasing your missile count while potentially retaining AMRAAM range/NEZ performance.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 03:23

weasel1962 wrote:The Amraam breaks down into 40-50 lbs warhead, 150 lbs WPU-6, ~110 lbs propellant. If Raytheon managed to reduce the WPU-6 weight significantly, it begs the question why not just integrate this into the AMRAAM in which case, it would have significantly much better range to "outstick" everyone else rather than build a smaller missile that can match its range...


A more optimized warhead will probably be included in the AIM-260 JATM design. AFRL has funded a few programs towards that in its Air to Air S&T/R&D portfolio over the last many years. It along with other features, like more advanced propulsion will likely be what contributes to the longer range of the AIM-260 compared to the AIM-120 D. We are only told that Lockheed is the prime on the AIM-260. We don't know who its partners are. Over the years, AFRL has farmed out relevant R&D to most of the big primes and probably dozens of small businesses and research houses.

The seeker integrated target endgame (SITES) contract combines the missile's radar and the fuze into a single device. Additionally, if the SITES radar is transformed into a conformal array, Barrie suggests, more internal fuel volume could be added.

The multi-role responsive ordnance kill mechanism (MR ROKM) is seeking to invent a directional warhead.

Instead of scattering shrapnel in all directions, this warhead would channel the damage in a single direction.

This technology also may create more room for fuel by allowing the missile designer to install a smaller - but more lethal - warhead.

https://www.flightglobal.com/in-focus-u ... 20.article


The CUDA/Peregrine and the concept in general is there to produce magazine optimized, affordable missiles that complement other munitions with the AF such as the AIM-260. In addition to the ability to develop smaller, lighter missiles that exploit propulsion advances to get added range and agility, the program is also looking at more affordable designs which will likely use additive manufacturing and other areas the USAF/AFRL has invested in the past.

boogieman wrote: Peregrine/CUDA strike me as more of a replacement for Sidewinder


IMHO it is best to view them as a new class of missiles optimized around 5th and 6th generation aircraft. IIRC, the USAF still plans to continue to buy the AIM-9X through the early to mid 2030's and the Navy just put Raytheon on contract for a prototype FPGA upgrade for the AIM-9X SIP. SACM/CAST derivatives will likely field well before that and therefore co-exist with other weapons like the JATM, AMRAAM, AIM-9X etc.
Attachments
sacm-image01.jpg
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 07:47

bring_it_on wrote:IMHO it is best to view them as a new class of missiles optimized around 5th and 6th generation aircraft. IIRC, the USAF still plans to continue to buy the AIM-9X through the early to mid 2030's and the Navy just put Raytheon on contract for a prototype FPGA upgrade for the AIM-9X SIP. SACM/CAST derivatives will likely field well before that and therefore co-exist with other weapons like the JATM, AMRAAM, AIM-9X etc.

This is perfectly reasonable, although if a missile like Peregrine proves to be as capable as advertised (and your earlier post makes this sound very promising) then I think it's also reasonable to expect it to pick up much of the load now carried by Sidewinder on 5th gens. Particularly where the F35 is concerned, a weapon combining AIM9X level agility, AMRAAM level NEZ performance, a next-gen seeker, low cost and internal carriage would eclipse Sidewinder's capabilities & relevance for most practical applications.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 13:09

wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:
Yes indeed. Still, OPFOR can do all those things AND have the benefit of a bigger missile to work with. That's why I was surprised to hear it won't be a ramjet/VFDR design. I would have expected a throttleable motor to be the most efficient solution here kinematically.

Notwithstanding some other "secret sauce" propulsion breakthrough, I suppose there is also the need to keep costs down. A Meteor style ramjet mated to a guidance package capable of killing 5th gen threats may have been overkill (and wastefully expensive) for the range envelope being covered.

I think you answered part of your question, in terms of "secret sauce propulsion." Secondly, the OPFOR isn't going to be carrying R-37 or PL-21 internally.


Actually Su-57 can carry R-37 size missile internally. Su-57 has a lot of flaws but one thing it has going for it is big weapon bays, each main bay can carry two 700kg weapons.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3618
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 00:34

boogieman wrote:


I don't think Peregrine/CUDA are being designed to replace the AMRAAM - JATM will do that and remain the primary BVR weapon going forward. Peregrine/CUDA strike me as more of a replacement for Sidewinder... albeit one that has the potential to provide AMRAAM-esque BVR capability while increasing the size of A2A missile loadouts. I'd bet that JATM and Peregrine will also incorporate seeker technology that is ahead of anything found on an AMRAAM variant (AESA + IIR?).

So to answer your question - what not just upgrade AMRAAM again? Probably because with JATM you are updating/replacing literally every part of the missile (ergo, a clean sheet design) and with Peregrine you are increasing your missile count while potentially retaining AMRAAM range/NEZ performance.

The Peregrine/CUDA will replace AIM-120C range and magazine depth, with an AIM-9X (or better) agility missile. The AIM-260 will replace the AIM-120D, with considerable range, agility and ECCM improvements. There is also still the separate LREW program, which may be an even longer ranged weapon, along with the MSDM. With this family of weapons, a much larger overall engagement envelope will exist, along with a larger magazine depth.
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 01:11

wrightwing wrote:With this family of weapons, a much larger overall engagement envelope will exist, along with a larger magazine depth.

God help the OPFOR pilot(s) that flies into it. LREW is another fascinating project - I will be interested to see whether it is designed to fit inside F22/35 weapons bays or whether it will be too large. It would seem odd to design such a weapon and not be able to pair it with the pre-eminent air superiority platform in the fleet (Raptor). Perhaps something roughly the size of AARGM-ER will be pursued, although I confess I don't even know if the F22 could accommodate that.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6937
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 02:30

disconnectedradical wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:
Yes indeed. Still, OPFOR can do all those things AND have the benefit of a bigger missile to work with. That's why I was surprised to hear it won't be a ramjet/VFDR design. I would have expected a throttleable motor to be the most efficient solution here kinematically.

Notwithstanding some other "secret sauce" propulsion breakthrough, I suppose there is also the need to keep costs down. A Meteor style ramjet mated to a guidance package capable of killing 5th gen threats may have been overkill (and wastefully expensive) for the range envelope being covered.

I think you answered part of your question, in terms of "secret sauce propulsion." Secondly, the OPFOR isn't going to be carrying R-37 or PL-21 internally.


Actually Su-57 can carry R-37 size missile internally. Su-57 has a lot of flaws but one thing it has going for it is big weapon bays, each main bay can carry two 700kg weapons.


Yet, that won't make it more survivable. In order to exploit that advantage will it........... :wink:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3618
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 03:14

boogieman wrote:
wrightwing wrote:With this family of weapons, a much larger overall engagement envelope will exist, along with a larger magazine depth.

God help the OPFOR pilot(s) that flies into it. LREW is another fascinating project - I will be interested to see whether it is designed to fit inside F22/35 weapons bays or whether it will be too large. It would seem odd to design such a weapon and not be able to pair it with the pre-eminent air superiority platform in the fleet (Raptor). Perhaps something roughly the size of AARGM-ER will be pursued, although I confess I don't even know if the F22 could accommodate that.

LREW may keep the current length limits, but go with a bigger diameter body (i.e. 10"), or a similar diameter but with a ramjet. It remains to be seen what the final design looks like.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1382
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 03:27

Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that LREW was an R&D program that lead into JATM; LREW funding finished up in 2017, the same year that JATM then went on the books.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3618
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 04:03

disconnectedradical wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:
Yes indeed. Still, OPFOR can do all those things AND have the benefit of a bigger missile to work with. That's why I was surprised to hear it won't be a ramjet/VFDR design. I would have expected a throttleable motor to be the most efficient solution here kinematically.

Notwithstanding some other "secret sauce" propulsion breakthrough, I suppose there is also the need to keep costs down. A Meteor style ramjet mated to a guidance package capable of killing 5th gen threats may have been overkill (and wastefully expensive) for the range envelope being covered.

I think you answered part of your question, in terms of "secret sauce propulsion." Secondly, the OPFOR isn't going to be carrying R-37 or PL-21 internally.


Actually Su-57 can carry R-37 size missile internally. Su-57 has a lot of flaws but one thing it has going for it is big weapon bays, each main bay can carry two 700kg weapons.


Has that (internal carriage) actually been confirmed by reliable sources/photos?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3618
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 04:05

Dragon029 wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that LREW was an R&D program that lead into JATM; LREW funding finished up in 2017, the same year that JATM then went on the books.

LREW is a Raytheon program. JATM/AIM-260 is Lockheed Martin. To my knowledge, LREW development hasn't ended.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2822
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 12:54

I suspect we're looking at qualitative edges per missile in 5-7% kinematic boosts using the same space.

Can this new level of manufacturing do something like squeeze performance from a 4" diameter airframe that meets or exceeds performance of 20 year old designs using five inch diameters? Surely not. Or is the diameter really staying the same due to sensor physical properties limitations and therefore its more about an increase of fuel weight to sensor weight?

It is fine and dandy to have a four inch diameter missile that can replace say AIM-9M. But if the kinematic standards for AIM-9X is water standard then we really just developed an expensive toy that is less capable. But if you can squeeze the diameter to the point where 3 missiles with similar performance fit in the same space, well then hurrah! I suspect this is not the case. Getting even a 5-7% boost assures an edge first look first kill. And that sliver of performance is huge when we are talking life or death of hundred million dollar platforms.
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 13:28

madrat wrote:I suspect we're looking at qualitative edges per missile in 5-7% kinematic boosts using the same space.

Can this new level of manufacturing do something like squeeze performance from a 4" diameter airframe that meets or exceeds performance of 20 year old designs using five inch diameters? Surely not. Or is the diameter really staying the same due to sensor physical properties limitations and therefore its more about an increase of fuel weight to sensor weight?

It is fine and dandy to have a four inch diameter missile that can replace say AIM-9M. But if the kinematic standards for AIM-9X is water standard then we really just developed an expensive toy that is less capable. But if you can squeeze the diameter to the point where 3 missiles with similar performance fit in the same space, well then hurrah! I suspect this is not the case. Getting even a 5-7% boost assures an edge first look first kill. And that sliver of performance is huge when we are talking life or death of hundred million dollar platforms.

Are you referring to MSDM here? Because last I checked CUDA and Peregrine looked like ~7in weapons
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 14:33

LREW was an OSD run engineering and design related effort to "assess a multi-role long range interceptor for air-dominance". It had a pretty small budget (sub $10 Million between FY16 and 17). I think it was in place to do some design and analysis and pass that on to the individual services. I don't think the program itself would aim to create a new weapon. Would there be a need for both the JATM and a LREW derived weapon?

CUDA/Peregrine are most certainly not 3 or 4 inch diameter weapons. I think 6 or 7" are probably more accurate.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post21 Apr 2020, 15:34

wrightwing wrote:Has that (internal carriage) actually been confirmed by reliable sources/photos?


No pictures yet but launcher specs and drawings show the Su-57 was designed to have 4 700kg launchers internally. Since it's a much bigger airplane and marketed as multifunctional it's not surprising to have big payload. The aircraft has a lot of flaws but payload isn't one of them.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests