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

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

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 20:20

doge wrote:I missed the centerline Gun Pod part. :doh: I managed to fit in that space. 8)
This is....40!!!!!!! :devil:@@@@@@@@(Gigantic Greed)


Nice graphic.

In the AVWEEK article, the Raytheon representative indicated that they could triple externally carried missiles. Clearly they are thinking about a triple rail that ejects straight down, down right, and down left. So there could be six missiles per external station that normally carries 2 AIM-9/AIM-120s.

So
12 Internal
4 on stations 1 and 11 due to weight limits
24 on stations 2, 3, 9, 10
6 on station 6


So in this completely unrealistic scenario, 46! Think of it, US Ace of Aces in one sortie!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23306
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 21:10

usnvo wrote:
doge wrote:I missed the centerline Gun Pod part. :doh: I managed to fit in that space. 8)
This is....40!!!!!!! :devil:@@@@@@@@(Gigantic Greed)


Nice graphic.

In the AVWEEK article, the Raytheon representative indicated that they could triple externally carried missiles. Clearly they are thinking about a triple rail that ejects straight down, down right, and down left. So there could be six missiles per external station that normally carries 2 AIM-9/AIM-120s.

So
12 Internal
4 on stations 1 and 11 due to weight limits
24 on stations 2, 3, 9, 10
6 on station 6

So in this completely unrealistic scenario, 46! Think of it, US Ace of Aces in one sortie!

ooh :roll: :devil: Aaahh the WARTHOG of the SKIEs but with BIGGER GUIDED BULLETS! :doh: :shock: blammo
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 654
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 21:17

element1loop wrote:
citanon wrote:Is it just me or does this thing look like a baby standard missile?


Iranian SM-1 knock-off 'Sayyad-2' SAM is closer.

ESSM blk 2 has it beat
Offline

boogieman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 22:31

steve2267 wrote:
boogieman wrote:Come to think of it this makes me wonder what brevity code you'd use for a missile with multi modal guidance. Fox 5 perhaps?


Fox U

or

Fox Uniform

:lmao: Now we're talking. "Get Foxed" perhaps?
Last edited by boogieman on 18 Sep 2019, 00:23, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Sep 2019, 22:57

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
boogieman wrote:Come to think of it this makes me wonder what brevity code you'd use for a missile with multi modal guidance. Fox 5 perhaps?


And why not Fox 4? As far as I know It isn't used, is it?

Fox 4 is unguided. Rockets, guns (technically, even though "guns guns guns" is used)


Never heard of "Fox 4" before.
Now "guns guns guns", yes that one does indeed rings me a bell.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

boogieman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post18 Sep 2019, 09:34

Yeah Fox 4 is already taken (albeit rarely used?). It's potentially quite a quandary though, especially if you have a situation where both Peregrine and JATM use multi mode guidance. How do you differentiate between them? Fox 5 for one and Fox 6 for the other?(!)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Sep 2019, 10:18

First of all thanks sprstdlyscottsmn and boogieman for clearing out what "Fox 4" means/meant.

boogieman wrote:Yeah Fox 4 is already taken (albeit rarely used?).


Yes, from what I could research and also thanks to sprstdlyscottsmn's reply, Fox 4 was used for unguided rockets but apparently it's not used anymore.

Which prompts me to another question:
- Isn't "Fox" meant or reserved for "Air-to-Air" weapons? Not that this matters much for the "Fox 4" term since unguided rockets have been used in the past for Air-to-Air roles. For example the main anti-bomber weapon of interceptors such as the F-94 Starfire and the CF-100 Canuck were precisely unguided rockets. Perhaps this is the reason why Fox 4 isn't used anymore?


boogieman wrote:It's potentially quite a quandary though, especially if you have a situation where both Peregrine and JATM use multi mode guidance. How do you differentiate between them? Fox 5 for one and Fox 6 for the other?(!)


I would say that, if the weapons automatically chooses the mode - which IMO is the most likely case - then use "Fox 5" (only).
If the weapon mode is chosen manually by the pilot and if the pilot chooses IR mode then state "Fox 2" or else if it chooses active radar mode then "Fox 3".

My 2 cents of course... :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Sep 2019, 16:18

Given the advanced state of Russian/Chinese equivalents, you just knew the US had to have something like this up their sleeve...

This is going to spur even greater consumption of Vodka in the former USSR, and give Sukhoi etc. an even worse hangover vs. what they're currently dealing with.

As meaningful as this is for keeping the F-22 ahead of the curve, it stands to benefit our 4th gens and F-35 the most. Big RCS or not, our legacy birds become that much deadlier and are now able to maximize their AESA radars, while the F-35 just went from 2 credible shots at least 4. More like 8 to 12, provided the RCS of these new weapons is low enough when carried externally...
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Sep 2019, 23:11

Peregrine's size and weight would appear to be a good fit for a Loyal Wingman UCAV.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post18 Sep 2019, 23:52

spazsinbad wrote:ooh :roll: :devil: Aaahh the WARTHOG of the SKIEs but with BIGGER GUIDED BULLETS! :doh: :shock: blammo


I think the B-1B would be even better. With the new EASA SABR-GS it has an Air-to-Air capable radar that is 3x larger than the APG-83 SABR radar on the F-16V. Theoretically it could carry 144 SDBs so it could also carry 144 Peregrines. Some updates to allow engagement with multiple guided missiles and voila! 144 (which is even more than 46!) Medium Ranged AAMs! You could shoot down virtually every combat aircraft in the Iranian Air Force! In one sortie!
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 00:09

and thus the B-1R is ressurected
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 00:19

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:and thus the B-1R is ressurected


I'm immature enough to want that just for the "Boner" nickname.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 00:25

popcorn wrote:Peregrine's size and weight would appear to be a good fit for a Loyal Wingman UCAV.


It would be a good fit for just about anything.

For instance, it could easily be integrated into NASAMS, allowing dramatically more missiles to be carried and, since they can be both Medium and Short Range, you could easily cover the entire altitude from very low level to very high level. And they are light enough to be fit to virtually anything you can fit a Stinger on to allow dispersed lethality and the rapid elimination of helo threats.

Stick a booster on it, quad pack it in a MK41 VLS, and you have a mini-SM-6 that could dramatically increase your magazine depth for medium range engagements. Or you could easily use it as is on a LCS (or most any other platform) allowing dramatic increase in range over a RAM missile.

On a B-1, you could easily carry 8 in place of a couple of JASSM/LRASM/MK-84s on the rotatory launcher . That would get the attention of any interceptor at minimal cost to missile payload.

The possibilities are endless. Shoot, put three on a SM-6 like a super star-streak in place of the warhead/fuze/radar and you can make a multiple axis attack with one missile.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1046
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 04:49

rheonomic wrote:
I'm immature enough to want that just for the "Boner" nickname.


Watching one take off in full AB in that time when its not really night yet but daylight is still fading gives me a stiffy...

Image
Offline

boogieman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 10:24

ricnunes wrote:I would say that, if the weapons automatically chooses the mode - which IMO is the most likely case - then use "Fox 5" (only).
If the weapon mode is chosen manually by the pilot and if the pilot chooses IR mode then state "Fox 2" or else if it chooses active radar mode then "Fox 3".

My 2 cents of course... :wink:


Makes sense. There is another possibility though - one where the weapon uses both IIR and AESA seekers simultaneously. Theoretically you could have both seekers cover the other's weaknesses to aid in countermeasure discrimination. Sensor fusion on a smaller scale perhaps?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests