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

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post19 Sep 2019, 11:27

boogieman wrote: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?


In that case I guess that "Fox 5" could be used as well. For the simplicity namesake, an automatic usage of multiple seekers (one at a time or at the same time) could be "Fox 5".
Or alternatively, if the Active seeker will always end up being "on" or more precisely it will inevitably "turn on" when getting closer to the target then I guess that using "Fox 3" would be fine as well, since the other sensor (IR) is passive and cannot be counter detected by ESM/RWR equipment so in practical term it would still be an Active Radar guided missile but with the diference that such missile would have a "backup" (note the quotes) IR seeker.
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

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 15:06

:roll: Would anyone enlighten me on how they might find the 'BVR" level range on a missile weighs in at 150lb, half AMRAAM length, with more sensors than any existing counterparts and possibly a real warhead(even if not at the weight class of a full proximity fuzed one)?

I'm personally more inclined to believe that it's meant to be more of a Sidewinder replacement with a guidance suite less hindered by single mode IIR seeker and better suitability for F-35 internal carriage. That may goes on to include "BVR" shots when energy conditions are highly favorable.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 20:22

mmm wrote::roll: Would anyone enlighten me on how they might find the 'BVR" level range on a missile weighs in at 150lb, half AMRAAM length, with more sensors than any existing counterparts and possibly a real warhead(even if not at the weight class of a full proximity fuzed one)?

I'm personally more inclined to believe that it's meant to be more of a Sidewinder replacement with a guidance suite less hindered by single mode IIR seeker and better suitability for F-35 internal carriage. That may goes on to include "BVR" shots when energy conditions are highly favorable.

Lighter weight internals, new propellants, low drag, etc...
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1356
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post30 Sep 2019, 08:21

wrightwing wrote:
mmm wrote::roll: Would anyone enlighten me on how they might find the 'BVR" level range on a missile weighs in at 150lb, half AMRAAM length, with more sensors than any existing counterparts and possibly a real warhead(even if not at the weight class of a full proximity fuzed one)?

I'm personally more inclined to believe that it's meant to be more of a Sidewinder replacement with a guidance suite less hindered by single mode IR seeker and better suitability for F-35 internal carriage. That may goes on to include "BVR" shots when energy conditions are highly favourable.

Lighter weight internals, new propellants, low drag, etc...


A higher post-burn terminal mass stores a lot of E. More terminal E means it doesn't wash-off post-burn speed as fast due to its diameter and increasing parasitic as it reaches lower altitudes on the way down.

But take most of that residual mass out of the same missile diameter and parasitic, and it'll slow down much quicker when coasting lower into the atmosphere, due to having less post-burn E (yes, I know a lower m allows more boost v, but you get my point about less stored E to overcome drag at higher diameter).

So making the burned-out missile lighter is not necessarily the optimal thing to do for adding range, as it won't coast for as far as drag rises with decreasing altitudes towards intercept (i.e. a lighter terminal missile with 6 inch diameter will be much easier to bleed and trash than a 5 inch of same length with same post burn E).

To reduce that slowing problem you can give it a bigger directional warhead with more mass, to make it coast further post apogee, once nose-down headed for intercept and the higher mass requires higher AoA (thus imparting more drag) is effectively being negated by the added 1G acceleration to the higher mass, for that 6-inch drag cross-section.

I suspect this is why hit-to-kill was not used here for a shorter but still high diameter missile (as opposed to SACM's hit-to-kill approach in similar dimension and shape format).

But how much more energy/impulse can an insensitive propellant have, for that low total missile weight? It would have to be a substantially higher energy release fuel per unit time.

I have a hard time believing it could match an AIM-120D range with a far more complex larger seeker on it. So I'm likewise thinking this will be more of a multiband sidewinder on steroids rather than an AMRAAM match.

Bigger aperture allows a fainter signature to be seen sooner in more detail but the higher diameter also means the missile slows and loses its E sooner, shortening coast range.

That said, the most important improvement needed in AAMs right now is not more range. What they need the most is a much higher fly-out speed. A fighter @ 525 knots can move 22.75 nm track distance within 160 sec. Which is about the time it takes for an AIM-120D to fly-out 160 km of total track distance, to max range for an intercept on an unalerted target on steady course.

160 sec makes fire 'n forget impractical, and lower pk beyond about 60 to 75 km against any fast jet.

Sure, 'fire n' forget' is not essential with stealth as you don't need to turn-away, nor to merge. So you can just beam the target (out of sight) and TWR mode with EOTS. But with twice the fly-out speed a datalink supported missile will still dramatically increase terminal pk at higher ranges, and also eliminate the time-window in which the targeted jet can release weapons (pretty important, especially for A2G weapons).

If the fly-out is twice as fast, that target then has about 60 sec less time to operate, i.e. the second half of the fly-out range occurs much slower so ~30 seconds for the first half (75 km), and 50 sec for the second half to 150 km say.

That means all LM 5th-gens would have about double the time needed to prosecute more targets, compared to the OPFOR's capacity. Which provides a huge improvement in relative pks, plus doubles the time to "ACT" (as in the 'A' in OODA), compared to an OPFOR.

Frankly, a substantially higher speed flyout, to say 120km max range (compared to AMRAAM that is), would be much more significant in a BVR fight, than to have more range available beyond that. And I suspect this may be where these shorter and lighter BVR missiles excel. If they can really stack on the mach number for 2/3 of their total flight range (then lose E faster after that) this would actually be a huge practical advantage in any missile exchange fight, even if the missile delivers less total range than the AIM-120D.

I hope that's what these missiles are supposed to deliver (beyond offering the bigger magazine).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post30 Sep 2019, 17:06

element1loop wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
mmm wrote::roll: Would anyone enlighten me on how they might find the 'BVR" level range on a missile weighs in at 150lb, half AMRAAM length, with more sensors than any existing counterparts and possibly a real warhead(even if not at the weight class of a full proximity fuzed one)?

I'm personally more inclined to believe that it's meant to be more of a Sidewinder replacement with a guidance suite less hindered by single mode IR seeker and better suitability for F-35 internal carriage. That may goes on to include "BVR" shots when energy conditions are highly favourable.

Lighter weight internals, new propellants, low drag, etc...


A higher post-burn terminal mass stores a lot of E. More terminal E means it doesn't wash-off post-burn speed as fast due to its diameter and increasing parasitic as it reaches lower altitudes on the way down.

But take most of that residual mass out of the same missile diameter and parasitic, and it'll slow down much quicker when coasting lower into the atmosphere, due to having less post-burn E (yes, I know a lower m allows more boost v, but you get my point about less stored E to overcome drag at higher diameter).

So making the burned-out missile lighter is not necessarily the optimal thing to do for adding range, as it won't coast for as far as drag rises with decreasing altitudes towards intercept (i.e. a lighter terminal missile with 6 inch diameter will be much easier to bleed and trash than a 5 inch of same length with same post burn E).

To reduce that slowing problem you can give it a bigger directional warhead with more mass, to make it coast further post apogee, once nose-down headed for intercept and the higher mass requires higher AoA (thus imparting more drag) is effectively being negated by the added 1G acceleration to the higher mass, for that 6-inch drag cross-section.

I suspect this is why hit-to-kill was not used here for a shorter but still high diameter missile (as opposed to SACM's hit-to-kill approach in similar dimension and shape format).

But how much more energy/impulse can an insensitive propellant have, for that low total missile weight? It would have to be a substantially higher energy release fuel per unit time.

I have a hard time believing it could match an AIM-120D range with a far more complex larger seeker on it. So I'm likewise thinking this will be more of a multiband sidewinder on steroids rather than an AMRAAM match.

Bigger aperture allows a fainter signature to be seen sooner in more detail but the higher diameter also means the missile slows and loses its E sooner, shortening coast range.

That said, the most important improvement needed in AAMs right now is not more range. What they need the most is a much higher fly-out speed. A fighter @ 525 knots can move 22.75 nm track distance within 160 sec. Which is about the time it takes for an AIM-120D to fly-out 160 km of total track distance, to max range for an intercept on an unalerted target on steady course.

160 sec makes fire 'n forget impractical, and lower pk beyond about 60 to 75 km against any fast jet.

Sure, 'fire n' forget' is not essential with stealth as you don't need to turn-away, nor to merge. So you can just beam the target (out of sight) and TWR mode with EOTS. But with twice the fly-out speed a datalink supported missile will still dramatically increase terminal pk at higher ranges, and also eliminate the time-window in which the targeted jet can release weapons (pretty important, especially for A2G weapons).

If the fly-out is twice as fast, that target then has about 60 sec less time to operate, i.e. the second half of the fly-out range occurs much slower so ~30 seconds for the first half (75 km), and 50 sec for the second half to 150 km say.

That means all LM 5th-gens would have about double the time needed to prosecute more targets, compared to the OPFOR's capacity. Which provides a huge improvement in relative pks, plus doubles the time to "ACT" (as in the 'A' in OODA), compared to an OPFOR.

Frankly, a substantially higher speed flyout, to say 120km max range (compared to AMRAAM that is), would be much more significant in a BVR fight, than to have more range available beyond that. And I suspect this may be where these shorter and lighter BVR missiles excel. If they can really stack on the mach number for 2/3 of their total flight range (then lose E faster after that) this would actually be a huge practical advantage in any missile exchange fight, even if the missile delivers less total range than the AIM-120D.

I hope that's what these missiles are supposed to deliver (beyond offering the bigger magazine).


I wasn't addressing the missile weight. My point was that there was more room for propellant in a smaller form factor. I agree that they aren't in the AIM-120D range category. Like the SACM, they're more likely in the AIM-120C class.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2299
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 00:08

If the missile had two sections, retaining the booster act section for powered flight then discarding 60-70% of the mass for the second leg in a long range shot. In short range any remnants of fuel would impact it's punch.

Probably can go tri-seeker with fixed-mount UV and low wavelength FGPAs of IR seekers from FIM-92/ATAS. Optical sensors would need to be mounted behind any shock waves to maximize life at supersonic speeds. With really no need for them in long range shots, they are disposable, so they can be part of the aft section.

Even better if the body is formulated for minimized supersonic drag. Probably look similar to the Sprint ABM with a rod stick out its nose.

Even better if it has an alternative GPS way point to a ground target in the event of an unsuccessful mission to intercept. Why waste a missile shot that can be repurposed?

Even better if the thing has folding wings (similar to SDB) to enhance post-intercept glide.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 02:02

madrat wrote:
Probably can go tri-seeker with fixed-mount UV and low wavelength FGPAs of IR seekers from FIM-92/ATAS. Optical sensors would need to be mounted behind any shock waves to maximize life at supersonic speeds. With really no need for them in long range shots, they are disposable, so they can be part of the aft section


IIR permits a reduction in the angular resolution requirements for the active RF seeker which in turn
permits the use of radomes with higher fineness ratios. That in turn has a very large impact on reducing
missile drag since about 50% of missile drag is from the nose/dome.

Hard to tell from the mockups, but I think the fineness ratio of the radome for Peregrine is better than AMRAAM.

If you expect to encounter towed decoys in long range shots you definitely want to have your other drrkrt mofrd
with you.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the photos but there seems to be some degree boat tailing towards the rear as well.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2299
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 04:09

FIM-92 already is set to evolve to miniaturized high operating temperature wide fov low- and mid-wave infrared bolometers that were demonstrated since around 2010. The next generation for larger missile seekers is not much different save for larger lattice arrays and of course these support higher logic counts which would imply better IIR results. All that in 4.5 to 5 inch diameter missiles. Dassault integrates their infrared AAM's into the sensor suite and it is supposed to be pretty dang useful on 1970's technology. Imagine if you had 12-inch diameters to work with like in the old R-40 only using 2020 technology.

The room temperature stuff available in the mid-1990's was already fantastic, but this stuff blows that stuff out of the water. And with the filtering by distributive channeling, you can immerse the focal point using destructive laser energy, such as from a DIRCM, but you'll be hard pressed to deteriorate the entire surface of the sensor quick enough to kill it. It's pretty cool how the sensors are distributed the incoming view so that only small fractions of the array are actually in use, and what parts are constantly changing. Prevents any one bit of the array from both being damaged while preventing over-saturation of the incoming stimulus. The 'lattice' description implies something much less simple than it is in reality. Pretty genius stuff they came up with over a decade ago.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 13:21

What I don't get is how this "complements" Sidewinder in any way since they seem to be implying it has longer range, is just as maneuverable, and has a more capable seeker.

I guess if you had a very specialized bay (F-22?) that could accommodate exactly a Sidewinder's dimensions but not this slightly smaller missile it might make sense, otherwise I couldn't imagine a reason to choose to equip an inferior legacy missile.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post01 Oct 2019, 18:28

madrat wrote: The 'lattice' description implies something much less simple than it is in reality. Pretty genius stuff they came up with over a decade ago.


Raytheon's EODAS is based on III-V Type II Superlattices. I would fully expect that to proliferate to missile
seekers (if it hasn't already) since it relies on cheaper materials, larger wafers, permits cooler operation
and is inherently more radiation tolerant.

DIRCM at present is a few watts but I take your point that a distributed arrangement is going to be
necessary to resist the multi kilowatt airborne lasers that are coming.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2299
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 04:13

The DIRCM degrade the sensors to where they are flooded with infrared signals. But moving the incoming light around to new areas that were at rest makes a DIRCM less effective. The lattices also act as polarization filters so you can look slightly off the line from the DIRCM emitter and still 'see' a target. It is certainly a cat & mouse game between engineers.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 13:53

usnvo wrote:
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!


You think about this capability, then realize USAF is talking about retiring them.

For God's sake, why? It can carry more than a B-52, has great legs, gets there faster, does so with an infinitely lower RCS and.... they're already in service. All the infrastructure etc is already in place. All you'd need to do is certify the new weapon on an existing platform and... the USAF wants to get rid of them?

For the love of God, where is the B-1 lobby? And yet... there's an A-10 lobby??
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 13:58

^-- this X 50.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23305
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 15:30

mixelflick wrote:
usnvo wrote:
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!


You think about this capability, then realize USAF is talking about retiring them [B-1s].

For God's sake, why? It can carry more than a B-52, has great legs, gets there faster, does so with an infinitely lower RCS and.... they're already in service. All the infrastructure etc is already in place. All you'd need to do is certify the new weapon on an existing platform and... the USAF wants to get rid of them?

For the love of God, where is the B-1 lobby? And yet... there's an A-10 lobby??

One Page PDF attached with a HYPERSONIC WEAPONED B-1 ENVISAGED in AF Times by Aaron Mehta 07 Oct 2019
Goldfein on Meeting Bomber Mission Requirements as B-1 Readiness Drops
26 Sep 2019 Brian Everstine

"...Goldfein and Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Timothy Ray have both highlighted the heavy use of B-1s in the Global War on Terror, largely flying missions outside of what they were designed to do. B-1s are meant to fly with their wings back, at supersonic speeds and low altitudes. But in the Middle East—especially in Afghanistan—B-1s are filled with heavy bombs, flown long distances to their target areas, and used wings-forward as weapons trucks to provide air support for ground troops. “You think it wouldn’t be a demanding environment, but it turns out it puts stresses on the airplane you don’t anticipate,” Goldfein said.

Demand for the B-1 led to excessive flight hours and unexpected, significant structural issues like airframe stress fractures, Goldfein said. Still, the Air Force doesn’t regret heavy use of the bomber because it was the best asset what the military needed in recent years. “But now we’re having to pay the piper,” Goldfein said."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... Drops.aspx
Attachments
HYPERSONIC Weapons B-1 Air Force Times 07 Oct 2019.pdf
(1.02 MiB) Downloaded 49 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 18:12

mixelflick wrote:
usnvo wrote:You think about this capability, then realize USAF is talking about retiring them.

Wasn't their logic that B-1 has more overlap with the envisioned B-21 role, while both operating costs and the upgrade/modernization path for B-1 were much higher?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests