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: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post23 Nov 2019, 13:45

wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:The more I look at this the more I think simply putting AIM9X-style thrust vectoring on the AIM260 makes more sense. If the addition of TVC adversely affects range performance too much you could simply have a non-TVC version for longer range BVR shots (AIM260A & AIM260B?).

Granted, this would be a more expensive weapon than Peregrine but it would give you the kind of kinematic overmatch you want against the likes of Su35, Su57 and J20 in the WVR regime. When paired with AN/AAQ37 it would also give the F35 the ridiculous ability to take high pK WVR missile shots irrespective of orientation to the bandit (and to some degree irrespective of energy state). With both F22 and F35 capable of carrying 6 of them (ref sidekick) I don't see magazine depth as being that big of a problem.


Kinematics aren't the major issue for F-22s and F-35s. It's a bigger issue for the 4th generation jets that'll be in service till the 2040s. Large magazine depth will also be of use, depending on the threats, as F-22s and F-35s can carry 12 Peregrines/SACM/CUDA or whatever the settled name ends up being. The AIM-260 and/or LREW will be useful at killing assets that enable Su-35/57s and J-20/31s. Nobody's going to be shooting LO aircraft at 300km, though. That's where magazine depth comes in.


Magazine depth is great all else being equal, but I'm not confident that SACM is a real BVR weapon. At 2/3 the length of Sidewinder (which is itself a short legged missile) I'd say you're looking at a WVR only weapon against such kinematically demanding targets.

As for AIM260, I'm pretty sure it's aimed squarely at red team 5th gens as well. This makes sense too - you want a weapon with a big fat NEZ when taking on the best the enemy has to offer.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Nov 2019, 19:03

SpudmanWP wrote:
milosh wrote:No dorsal fins, missile body have slight conical shape and there are six or maybe eight holes :? small rocket thrusters?
It has tail grid fins. Having tail fins only is ok just as ASRAAM has shown.


Thanks, I always forgot about ASRAAM, it is quite agile even though having only tail fins and no TVC!
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3344
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Nov 2019, 22:59

boogieman wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:The more I look at this the more I think simply putting AIM9X-style thrust vectoring on the AIM260 makes more sense. If the addition of TVC adversely affects range performance too much you could simply have a non-TVC version for longer range BVR shots (AIM260A & AIM260B?).

Granted, this would be a more expensive weapon than Peregrine but it would give you the kind of kinematic overmatch you want against the likes of Su35, Su57 and J20 in the WVR regime. When paired with AN/AAQ37 it would also give the F35 the ridiculous ability to take high pK WVR missile shots irrespective of orientation to the bandit (and to some degree irrespective of energy state). With both F22 and F35 capable of carrying 6 of them (ref sidekick) I don't see magazine depth as being that big of a problem.


Kinematics aren't the major issue for F-22s and F-35s. It's a bigger issue for the 4th generation jets that'll be in service till the 2040s. Large magazine depth will also be of use, depending on the threats, as F-22s and F-35s can carry 12 Peregrines/SACM/CUDA or whatever the settled name ends up being. The AIM-260 and/or LREW will be useful at killing assets that enable Su-35/57s and J-20/31s. Nobody's going to be shooting LO aircraft at 300km, though. That's where magazine depth comes in.


Magazine depth is great all else being equal, but I'm not confident that SACM is a real BVR weapon. At 2/3 the length of Sidewinder (which is itself a short legged missile) I'd say you're looking at a WVR only weapon against such kinematically demanding targets.

As for AIM260, I'm pretty sure it's aimed squarely at red team 5th gens as well. This makes sense too - you want a weapon with a big fat NEZ when taking on the best the enemy has to offer.


The SACM/Peregrine is quoted as having a similar range to AMRAAM (obviously not C7/D), but having 12 AAMs with a 80 to 100km range, would certainly be useful, as a stealth vs stealth fight won't be occurring at 300km. You'd already be within your NEZ, when engaging. It's the 4th generation jets that need the most help, because an opponent can see them at tactically useful ranges, and take evasive action/countermeasure. With F-22/35s they're not going to know about them, till their MAWS start blaring.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post23 Nov 2019, 23:37

Hmm, a few things:

- Against Chinese J20 and Russian Su57 I think you'll find the scenario would be more challenging than that:

https://csbaonline.org/research/publica ... ompetition

On day 1 (and maybe even day 30) they would be datalinked to mobile, digital VHF AESAs operating inside dense IADS coverage. The bandits might struggle to lock a weapon on you but they wouldn't always be oblivious to your presence, location or intentions.

- I'm skeptical of the quoted range for Peregrine. That's a long way to fly for such a tiny missile. At any rate there is a big difference between the quoted max range for Peregrine or JATM and the range at which you would effectively employ them against targets with high quality sensors, MAWS, EW, supercruise, TWR and high G availability across the flight envelope. You want a kinematically powerful missile with correspondingly robust sensors to over-match that target set, and AIM260 gives you all of that. There's a decent chance Peregrine won't.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post24 Nov 2019, 01:03

boogieman wrote:
On day 1 (and maybe even day 30) they would be datalinked to mobile, digital VHF AESAs operating inside dense IADS coverage. The bandits might struggle to lock a weapon on you but they wouldn't always be oblivious to your presence, location or intentions.


This is probably the biggest fallacy of current thinking towards China. It will just be the opposite. In any currently theorized conflict, the Chinese will have a positive objective and the US/Co-Belligerents will have a negative objective. No one is looking to take over China, just keep them from taking over.

For instance, China wants to re-unify Taiwan. Taiwan does not want to take over mainland China (OK, they probably do but are rational enough to not try). The US doesn't have to attack China, they just have to keep China from conquering Taiwan. From Day 1, the Chinese have to bravely leave their own IADS and enter Taiwan's IADS. The US (or anyone else) doesn't need to gain air and sea control, they just have to stop the Chinese from doing so. If mainland China needs to be attacked to support that, you can do it with JASSM and Tomahawks.

Chinese aircraft, subs, and ships have to move beyond the first island chain to interdict the USN because the US can, and will, interdict China from beyond the first island chain. But the USN doesn't have to enter the SCS to achieve their potential war aims.

You can make the same argument for Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, or the Philippines.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post24 Nov 2019, 01:42

usnvo wrote:
boogieman wrote:
On day 1 (and maybe even day 30) they would be datalinked to mobile, digital VHF AESAs operating inside dense IADS coverage. The bandits might struggle to lock a weapon on you but they wouldn't always be oblivious to your presence, location or intentions.


This is probably the biggest fallacy of current thinking towards China. It will just be the opposite. In any currently theorized conflict, the Chinese will have a positive objective and the US/Co-Belligerents will have a negative objective. No one is looking to take over China, just keep them from taking over.

For instance, China wants to re-unify Taiwan. Taiwan does not want to take over mainland China (OK, they probably do but are rational enough to not try). The US doesn't have to attack China, they just have to keep China from conquering Taiwan. From Day 1, the Chinese have to bravely leave their own IADS and enter Taiwan's IADS. The US (or anyone else) doesn't need to gain air and sea control, they just have to stop the Chinese from doing so. If mainland China needs to be attacked to support that, you can do it with JASSM and Tomahawks.

Chinese aircraft, subs, and ships have to move beyond the first island chain to interdict the USN because the US can, and will, interdict China from beyond the first island chain. But the USN doesn't have to enter the SCS to achieve their potential war aims.

You can make the same argument for Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, or the Philippines.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation.


It depends on the RoEs. If all you're attempting is DCA then yes, what you say is true enough (although PLAN surface vessels could theoretically take the place of ground based surveillance radars here and OTH radars are still a problem).

My understanding of the conventional wisdom, though, is that you generally need to perform both DCA and OCA concurrently to achieve air superiority. That will mean going after PLAAF aircraft and ISR nodes at their source. Whether this can be achieved purely with standoff weapons like JASSM and Tomahawk I honestly don't know, but I would hope so. You'll also note my point holds for any confrontation with Russia.

To return to the matter at hand - I think AIM260 is your weapon of choice when going after 4.5 and 5th gen targets. It's more likely to have the legs, the sensors and the speed you want to achieve desired pK on a regular basis, all without putting the launch platform at undue risk.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3344
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Nov 2019, 02:59

boogieman wrote:
usnvo wrote:
boogieman wrote:
On day 1 (and maybe even day 30) they would be datalinked to mobile, digital VHF AESAs operating inside dense IADS coverage. The bandits might struggle to lock a weapon on you but they wouldn't always be oblivious to your presence, location or intentions.


This is probably the biggest fallacy of current thinking towards China. It will just be the opposite. In any currently theorized conflict, the Chinese will have a positive objective and the US/Co-Belligerents will have a negative objective. No one is looking to take over China, just keep them from taking over.

For instance, China wants to re-unify Taiwan. Taiwan does not want to take over mainland China (OK, they probably do but are rational enough to not try). The US doesn't have to attack China, they just have to keep China from conquering Taiwan. From Day 1, the Chinese have to bravely leave their own IADS and enter Taiwan's IADS. The US (or anyone else) doesn't need to gain air and sea control, they just have to stop the Chinese from doing so. If mainland China needs to be attacked to support that, you can do it with JASSM and Tomahawks.

Chinese aircraft, subs, and ships have to move beyond the first island chain to interdict the USN because the US can, and will, interdict China from beyond the first island chain. But the USN doesn't have to enter the SCS to achieve their potential war aims.

You can make the same argument for Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, or the Philippines.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation.


It depends on the RoEs. If all you're attempting is DCA then yes, what you say is true enough (although PLAN surface vessels could theoretically take the place of ground based surveillance radars here and OTH radars are still a problem).

My understanding of the conventional wisdom, though, is that you generally need to perform both DCA and OCA concurrently to achieve air superiority. That will mean going after PLAAF aircraft and ISR nodes at their source. Whether this can be achieved purely with standoff weapons like JASSM and Tomahawk I honestly don't know, but I would hope so. You'll also note my point holds for any confrontation with Russia.

To return to the matter at hand - I think AIM260 is your weapon of choice when going after 4.5 and 5th gen targets. It's more likely to have the legs, the sensors and the speed you want to achieve desired pK on a regular basis, all without putting the launch platform at undue risk.

OTH, VHF/UHF, SATCOM, and surface vessels will be hammered for at least the first 72-96hrs, whether it's China or Russia. That will create huge holes for B-2s (and eventually B-21 and PCA), and F-22/35s. As for NEZs and kinematics, I just don't see stealth fighters launching at each other at extended distances. It's the detection/tracking ranges that are the issue more than the kinematics of the missiles.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3291
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post24 Nov 2019, 03:27

I don’t think range is really going to be that big an issue against fifth gen aircraft. Detection range isn’t going to be very far. Large ranges and NEZ are for high speed non-stealthy targets.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post24 Nov 2019, 21:46

OTH, VHF/UHF, SATCOM, and surface vessels will be hammered for at least the first 72-96hrs, whether it's China or Russia.


True. It is important to note, though, that the Russians have constructed their doctrine around absorbing and/or deflecting that initial onslaught via a variety of means and I imagine the Chinese would be similar.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-t ... challenge/

How effective they would be is an open question, but it's important to note that our own critical assets and infrastructure would also be subject to pounding from OPFOR ballistic missile forces and airpower.

At any rate all I am trying to point out is that it is not safe to assume that F22 and F35 would be free to run around sneaking into Peregrine range of non-maneuvering, compliant J20s or Su57s. It is important to be prepared for the possibility that they will frequently be aware of our presence and capable of taking defensive measures early and often. Peregrine strikes me as a sub-optimal primary weapon in this context, even over the reduced engagement ranges you might predict in VLO aircraft encounters.

IF (as I suspect) Peregrine has range performance closer to that of Sidewinder than AMRAAM, then that will be an important difference between it and AIM260.

AIM260 ought to outperform it soundly not just in terms of NEZ but also in terminals, speed, warhead lethality and probably even countermeasure resistance. I can see an argument for Peregrine as a second tier WVR weapon for dealing with leakers (aka Sidewinder) but I doubt it will be an AMRAAM substitute/successor. Happy to be proven wrong mind you :wink:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3344
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Nov 2019, 22:25

boogieman wrote:
OTH, VHF/UHF, SATCOM, and surface vessels will be hammered for at least the first 72-96hrs, whether it's China or Russia.


True. It is important to note, though, that the Russians have constructed their doctrine around absorbing and/or deflecting that initial onslaught via a variety of means and I imagine the Chinese would be similar.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-t ... challenge/

How effective they would be is an open question, but it's important to note that our own critical assets and infrastructure would also be subject to pounding from OPFOR ballistic missile forces and airpower.

At any rate all I am trying to point out is that it is not safe to assume that F22 and F35 would be free to run around sneaking into Peregrine range of non-maneuvering, compliant J20s or Su57s. It is important to be prepared for the possibility that they will frequently be aware of our presence and capable of taking defensive measures early and often. Peregrine strikes me as a sub-optimal primary weapon in this context, even over the reduced engagement ranges you might predict in VLO aircraft encounters.

IF (as I suspect) Peregrine has range performance closer to that of Sidewinder than AMRAAM, then that will be an important difference between it and AIM260.

AIM260 ought to outperform it soundly not just in terms of NEZ but also in terminals, speed, warhead lethality and probably even countermeasure resistance. I can see an argument for Peregrine as a second tier WVR weapon for dealing with leakers (aka Sidewinder) but I doubt it will be an AMRAAM substitute/successor. Happy to be proven wrong mind you :wink:


I'm not so sure it's a matter of sneaking into Peregrine range, so much as that's how close you'll have to get to detect/track stealthy targets. I'm also not sure why you think these missiles have Sidewinder kinematics, when everything that's been said about them is AMRAAM range, AIM-9X agility, and high speed. As for system redundancy, the US completely outclasses anything Russia or China has fielded. Their OTH, and VHF/UHF will have very short life expectancies between sub and air launched Tomahawks/CHAMP, JASSM-ER/XR, and hypersonics, followed by JSM, JSOW-ER, AARGM-ER, and more hypersonics. With the ISR capabilities on B-2/21, F-22, and F-35, anything that emits is going to be eating missiles.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post25 Nov 2019, 00:14

wrightwing wrote:I'm not so sure it's a matter of sneaking into Peregrine range, so much as that's how close you'll have to get to detect/track stealthy targets. I'm also not sure why you think these missiles have Sidewinder kinematics, when everything that's been said about them is AMRAAM range, AIM-9X agility, and high speed.

I’m simply skeptical of this first claim. Like I said before, we’re talking about a weapon 2/3 as long as Sidewinder with a multi-modal seeker and a blast frag warhead. Even if it’s using a wider ~7in motor that’s still a very small missile with scarce volume available for propellant. Once again – I’d be happy to be proven wrong :wink:

wrightwing wrote:As for system redundancy, the US completely outclasses anything Russia or China has fielded. Their OTH, and VHF/UHF will have very short life expectancies between sub and air launched Tomahawks/CHAMP, JASSM-ER/XR, and hypersonics, followed by JSM, JSOW-ER, AARGM-ER, and more hypersonics. With the ISR capabilities on B-2/21, F-22, and F-35, anything that emits is going to be eating missiles.

True enough (although I think their newer mobile systems might be more survivable than this - they are anticipating precisely this sort of early blitz and have measures in place to deflect/absorb it). Our own ISR platforms and enablers are still going to be under pressure/pushed further afield thanks to heavy EW (Krasukha 2 & 4), very long range SAM (eg. 40N6, HQ9), and/or AAM (R37, PL21).

Key infrastructure (eg. airbases) is going to get hit by enemy BM, LACM & OCA which will make life complicated in terms of sortie generation rates and sustainment for tactical aircraft. You have to hope we don’t lose too many aircraft on the ground ourselves from this initial onslaught.

https://csbaonline.org/research/publica ... ompetition

I suppose the elephant in the room here is cost. If AIM260 turns out to be a particularly expensive missile (and it very well might with all the features it's set to have) then I can see an argument for putting something like Peregrine in the mix. Even then, though, if J20 and and Su57 are going to be in the neighbourhood you probably want to load up your F35s with 4 x Peregrine and 4 x AIM260 rather than lug a dozen Peregrines around.

In summary I think that enemy 5th gens present enough of a threat in this context to warrant hitting them with the best stick we have available. That stick is almost certainly going to be AIM260 rather than Peregrine, for multiple reasons including (but not limited to) range. Speed, terminals, warhead lethality and (maybe) countermeasures resistance are all likely to be superior whether we are hitting them from 5nm or 50.

Just my 2c...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 16:35

To return to the matter at hand - I think AIM260 is your weapon of choice when going after 4.5 and 5th gen targets. It's more likely to have the legs, the sensors and the speed you want to achieve desired pK on a regular basis, all without putting the launch platform at undue risk.[/quote]

Couldn't have said it better myself..

Although much is still unknown, it's clear AIM-260 is going to be far more capable than Perigrine. Where I think the latter excels is in engaging any fighters not destroyed by the initial AIM-260 salvo. That and as a matter of economics, Perigrine will be the bettter choice when engaging enemy 4th gen fighters. Or if we're talking about North Korea, Mig-15's LOL.

The big question in my mind is our allies: Do they get one of these 2 wonder weapons? Both of them? Right now the most capable F-35's are those flying with Meteor (not sure if that's happened yet). But until the AIM-260 and Perigrine get here, I'd imagine Meteor would be the most lethal..
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post29 Nov 2019, 01:23

Thanks. Personally I think that a TVC equipped AIM260 could be an extremely valuable weapon in that it would essentially deny red fighters access to the entire WVR domain against the F35. This is significant since their gameplan for dealing with our 5th gens appears to emphasise pushing aggressively to the merge (AFAIK).

The F35 has one particularly decisive advantage against any projected adversary in the WVR arena (with the possible exception of J20) and that is EODAS. The fact that it can obtain and keep an automated lock on everything and anything flying in that envelope at all times is something that should – in my opinion – be capitalised upon with a suitable missile.

Then again who knows, maybe a non-TVC AIM260 would be agile enough anyway (with Peregrine covering any gap left by its Rmin). There is certainly a precedent with the non-TVC ASRAAM.
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post29 Nov 2019, 14:34

[/quote]Couldn't have said it better myself..

Although much is still unknown, it's clear AIM-260 is going to be far more capable than Perigrine. Where I think the latter excels is in engaging any fighters not destroyed by the initial AIM-260 salvo. That and as a matter of economics, Perigrine will be the bettter choice when engaging enemy 4th gen fighters. Or if we're talking about North Korea, Mig-15's LOL.

The big question in my mind is our allies: Do they get one of these 2 wonder weapons? Both of them? Right now the most capable F-35's are those flying with Meteor (not sure if that's happened yet). But until the AIM-260 and Perigrine get here, I'd imagine Meteor would be the most lethal..[/quote]

Meteor isn't integrated yet. It will be in Blk.4, contracts are already awarded. Of F-35 operators only 2 have ordered Meteor, the UK and Italy. Only the UK has it in operation on Typhoon at present. South Korea is also ordering Meteor, and has recently asked MBDA to integrate Meteor on the KFX. Japan is as good as nailed on for a new version of Meteor developed with the UK called JNAAM. This will take the Meteor missile and integrate a new AESA seeker head.

The question will be what the long term intentions will be for Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. I suspect most will initially use the Amraam they have in stock already. As those come to need re-life they may consider Meteor as a replacement. Norway in particular I expect to move, they had to get AIM-9X in place of the IRIS-T they had procured for F-35, thats a bit of a retrograde step. They haven't been happy with Amraam's issues in cold environments for a while.

Future potential users of F-35 who would go to Meteor are Spain. They operate Meteor and their F-35B purchase if it ever happens will be tiny (for the NAvy only).

Poland will go with Amraam. Australia is an odd one. They have Asraam, and reportedly like it a lot, but they've bought a small number of AIM-9X for the F-18E/F/G (as Asraam isn't integrated). They already operate Amraam and have ordered AIM-120D, but they seem to be spending freely and proximity to China seems to be a driver for buying Meteor...

By the time any new US AAM's arrive the other nations may have already made their mind up.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post29 Nov 2019, 17:23

Thanks, that filled in a lot of blanks for me (and I'm sure others).

So that's interesting: Most US allies seem to be moving toward Meteor as their next gen air to air BVR weapon. Some like Poland will continue to use AMRAAM's and the US will be moving toward the AIM-260 and Perigrine. It's hard to imagine AMRAAM and especially the 9x/Sidewinder as out of the inventory. I know it'll take awhile, but they've been around for so long in so many different variations they almost seem like part of the planes themselves!

I wonder though, what Israel's going to do. I'm aware they're integrating Python, but what about BVR? Sticking with AMRAAM's seems decidedly second rate (especially with Meteor out there), and the Israeli's don't do 2nd rate anything. OTOH, I can't see them swallowing their pride and fielding Meteor's either. Surprised they don't have a BVR weapon to compliment Python-4, but perhaps they do and I'm just not aware of it. Something tells me they'll be the first (perhaps only) ally who gets the AIM-260 when it becomes available.

Finally, it was said the AIM-260 would be fast tracked and perhaps fielded as early as 2021. If memory serves, only the F-22 (and SH?) is fielding the AIM-120D today. I wonder if the real reason it took forever was concurrent development of the AIM-260. Had that failed, I'm sure we would field copious numbers of 120-D's. But since it didn't, the Pentagon doesn't want to spend all that $ on building thousands of 120D's.

The real reason perhaps, its taken so long??
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests