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

[milosh]

I really don't see point making some new long range missile when you can add booster to Peregrine or CUDA or this mini R-77 and have superb range with all benefits of small highly agile missile.

[count_to_10]

I really don't see point making some new long range missile when you can add booster to Peregrine or CUDA or this mini R-77 and have superb range with all benefits of small highly agile missile.

I’ve had the same thought. What bugs me though is that all of the two stage missile designs I have seen have to be rail launched. It might not be possible/feasible to make a two stage missile that can withstand ejection from a launch bay.
On the other hand, maybe you could make a container that can be ejected, and also serves as protection for the missile.

[timmymagic]

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??

It's a bit of a mixed bag. The nations who haven't moved towards Meteor yet have Amraam in service already. As Meteor isn't integrated on F-35 yet, they may just be biding their time. If they have Amraam C-5's and C-7's they'll have a few years left to make their decision. If they have Amraam B in the inventory they may need to make their decision a little sooner. That may make some sales for Amraam D or even C-7.

An example of this would be the recent UK purchase of c200 Amraam D. The UK has made a big move away from US air weapons in recent years, partly as a result of ITAR and the Asraam debacle. Any purchases that have been made have tended to be small, where integration costs are not worth spending for the capability offered or to cover gaps until a new UK solution arrives. The reason for the Amraam D purchase is because the UK's existing stocks of Amraam C-5's (the ex-FAA Amraam B having been retired a while ago) would need re-lifing. The decision was taken to spend funds on new missiles rather than an expensive re-life for an older missile. The necessity for this purchase is the fact that Meteor won't be available on F-35 until 2025, and the UK's Typhoon Tranche 1's won't ever get Meteor. As soon as the decision was made to retain T1's until 2030+ an Amraam re-life or new buy became essential, otherwise they would have had Asraam only, with the bonus that F-35 would have a decent medium-long range missile until Meteor arrives.

Poland is in this same boat. Their Amraam are comparatively new so they won't need a new missile for a long time. For Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark a lot will depend on the age and model of their existing Amraam stockpile. If they can keep them going and competitive until 2026ish they may leave their decision for a while. If not they may be forced to buy some Amraam at least. The Australians have already gone for Amraam D to arm their SH and F-35. But they could buy more missiles as their older Amraam models reach end of life.

I suspect the JNAAM development of Meteor with a new AESA seeker (and possibly IR as well), which should arrive in 2024/5 could be come a compelling argument to switch over. The performance difference over Amraam D should be considerable.

As for Israel? The air launched Stunner has died a death surprisingly. That leaves them with Amraam and Derby. Derby is very anaemic on range but is doing ok in the export market. For F-35 though they have to go with US weapons. Integration of Israeli weapons would cost a lot, and there is unlikely to be any export orders from other F-35 users, with the possible exception of South Korea (but they seem to have their A2A missiles covered). The Israelis would also find it near impossible to buy Meteor, political considerations in Europe would make a sale impossible. If the Israelis are going to integrate anything it would be A2G munitions like the smaller Spice 100. Talk of Israeli external tanks or conformals seems to have gone very quiet.

[wrightwing]

US weapons will be the least costly to acquire and integrate. They'll also provide better magazine depth. I doubt many customers will switch to European weapons.

[boogieman]

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.

I would be surprised to see us go for Meteor (barring some kind of immediate national security crisis). My understanding is that we will divest ourselves of ASRAAM along with the classic Hornets and keep AIM9X in its place. If I had to guess I'd say we will end up investing further in AIM120D if missile stocks demand it and then switch to AIM260 once it becomes available. Wouldn't be surprised if we are one of the earliest international customers ala the 120D.

[mixelflick]

I'd agree with that, the Aussie's have proven very reliable allies with impressive capabilities. The AIM-260 is probably necessary too, given the vast expanse of ocean along with proliferation of Chinese/"other" countries Flankers and possibly - the SU-57 exported in that neck of the woods too.

The whole AIM-120D saga interests me. Clearly some US allies are going to be using it along with US F-22's and SH's. As such I wonder how good it really is at range. As the stated ranges get longer and longer, are these weapons less and less lethal? Could these ultra long range missiles deployed by Russia, the US and China be nothing more than a reincarnation of the Phoenix?

That missile was widely considered to be unreliable and missed more than it hit, albeit the Iranians might argue. Still, as an F-14 pilot told me once, "We think the Phoenix's reputation was far better than its performance, but if that keeps the enemy away... then so be it".

SImilar situation for the AIM-260? I guess time will tell...

[boogieman]

I'd agree with that, the Aussie's have proven very reliable allies with impressive capabilities. The AIM-260 is probably necessary too, given the vast expanse of ocean along with proliferation of Chinese/"other" countries Flankers and possibly - the SU-57 exported in that neck of the woods too.

The whole AIM-120D saga interests me. Clearly some US allies are going to be using it along with US F-22's and SH's. As such I wonder how good it really is at range. As the stated ranges get longer and longer, are these weapons less and less lethal? Could these ultra long range missiles deployed by Russia, the US and China be nothing more than a reincarnation of the Phoenix?

That missile was widely considered to be unreliable and missed more than it hit, albeit the Iranians might argue. Still, as an F-14 pilot told me once, "We think the Phoenix's reputation was far better than its performance, but if that keeps the enemy away... then so be it".

SImilar situation for the AIM-260? I guess time will tell...

I think you'll find that the max range stats for all of these weapons is pretty misleading as they don't give any indication of the launch parameters required to achieve it. If you look at historical kills made with AMRAAM, for example, most (if not all?) of them involved shots taken within 15nm of the target aircraft. I think you'll find that even today's most modern medium range missiles (AIM120D, R77-1/M, PL15... even AIM260) would still be getting the bulk of their kills at distances below 20nm against alerted fighter type targets. VLO aircraft might be able to stretch this a bit with sneak attacks.

The other exception would be larger long range missiles like the R37, Chinese VLRAAM or possibly LREW. Weapons like this could well threaten lumbering HVA aircraft from much further away. The trick there would be keeping the missile supplied with accurate targeting data over the course of a relatively long flight time.

To my mind the more important stat for targeting other fighters is the size of the NEZ, as it is inside this range that the target aircraft's capacity for defensive maneuver gets dwarfed by the kinematic capabilities of the incoming missile. This can fluctuate rather wildly based on launch parameters so it is difficult to make apples to apples comparisons between missiles here. Theoretically it's where a ramjet based weapon like Meteor should really shine though.

I really don't see point making some new long range missile when you can add booster to Peregrine or CUDA or this mini R-77 and have superb range with all benefits of small highly agile missile.

A larger single stage missile lets you use a larger warhead and guidance/seeker setup. By the time you put a 40~50lb warhead and multi mode AESA/IIR seeker in a missile the size of Peregrine you'll have next to no space left for propellant. No-warhead HTK is all well and good for ABM purposes where just about every intercept will be a high velocity head-on collision but I'm not sold on it for AAMs. There are too many scenarios where the closure rate at impact will be drastically lower. I'd add that the target set includes some very large aircraft (Flankers, Foxhound, J20 and Felon) that warrant being hit hard to ensure they go down. I'd also prefer we didn't donate any of our best missiles to red team AIM9B style...

[timmymagic]

US weapons will be the least costly to acquire and integrate. They'll also provide better magazine depth. I doubt many customers will switch to European weapons.

Integration costs on US platforms is usually an irrelevance as the US has already paid for it. But if its not a US platform....Also cost of acquisition isn't necessarily true. And if you want performance to counter a threat US AAM's are not what you're looking at.

Magazine depth? On which platform? AIM-9X takes up a rail, as does Asraam, IRIS-T, Python 5. Amraam takes up a pylon or semi conformal station same as Meteor. The ability to carry additional Amraam in the F-35 bay hasn't been developed or ordered yet, and its not clear if it will enable carriage of other munitions other than Amraam.

[timmymagic]

[/quote]I would be surprised to see us go for Meteor (barring some kind of immediate national security crisis). My understanding is that we will divest ourselves of ASRAAM along with the classic Hornets and keep AIM9X in its place. If I had to guess I'd say we will end up investing further in AIM120D if missile stocks demand it and then switch to AIM260 once it becomes available. Wouldn't be surprised if we are one of the earliest international customers ala the 120D.[/quote]

No nations want to have too many varieties of munitions for the same job. But the Asraam is likely to stay in service for a fair while longer. The Australian ones aren't that old. Its integrated on F-35 so no need to ditch a decent AAM with a fair amount of life left in it, even as the switch over to F-35 takes place.

With the AIM-120D the SH buy means that was always in pole position, add in F-35 integration from Australian IOC and its a decision that makes itself. But its interesting that the nations with money to burn and a nearby threat (Japan and SK) when given a choice are going elsewhere.

As to the AIM260? I think the jury is out on that one. The timeline is very aggressive, with an element of unrealistic thrown into the mix. Unless the tech is there right now and is available off the shelf the IOC mentioned is laughable. It sounds like its a mash up of different US missile components, or its taking elements from resurrected older programmes. If its fitting in the same form factor as Amraam the only possible configuration that makes sense is a 2 stage missile, and that comes with a lot of negatives. Any talk of newer propellants I suspect is not true, there is no secret sauce. I'm not convinced to say the least. It has the sound of a programme that has been cooked up in desperation more than anything else.

[madrat]

Keeping R&D rolling is pretty important. If new hostilities ever break out I'd want Plan B as an ace in the hole.

[milosh]

I really don't see point making some new long range missile when you can add booster to Peregrine or CUDA or this mini R-77 and have superb range with all benefits of small highly agile missile.

A larger single stage missile lets you use a larger warhead and guidance/seeker setup. By the time you put a 40~50lb warhead and multi mode AESA/IIR seeker in a missile the size of Peregrine you'll have next to no space left for propellant. No-warhead HTK is all well and good for ABM purposes where just about every intercept will be a high velocity head-on collision but I'm not sold on it for AAMs. There are too many scenarios where the closure rate at impact will be drastically lower. I'd add that the target set includes some very large aircraft (Flankers, Foxhound, J20 and Felon) that warrant being hit hard to ensure they go down. I'd also prefer we didn't donate any of our best missiles to red team AIM9B style...

Yes if missile seeker is "big" as in AIM-120/R-77, but if you use smaller seeker:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/VVT/9B1103M1 ... 017_01.jpg

you can make seeker and warhead as monoblock (warhead around seeker) and still it would take less space then 150mm MESA seeker. So with short seeker and no warhead behind seeker you get decent space for for rocket fuel.

Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)

Small IC seeker isn't good option against fighters. DIRCM would work quite well against it. So dual seeker configuration is waste of space.

Only reason to have large single stage missile is hypersonic capability of course if plane is capable to reach Mach 2 without big fuel penalty then you can use long missile with dual ramjet engine, but I think hypersonic AAM is overkill, booster mini AAM missile would be more then enough.

[boogieman]

Yes if missile seeker is "big" as in AIM-120/R-77, but if you use smaller seeker:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/VVT/9B1103M1 ... 017_01.jpg

you can make seeker and warhead as monoblock (warhead around seeker) and still it would take less space then 150mm MESA seeker. So with short seeker and no warhead behind seeker you get decent space for for rocket fuel.

Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)

Small IC seeker isn't good option against fighters. DIRCM would work quite well against it. So dual seeker configuration is waste of space.

Only reason to have large single stage missile is hypersonic capability of course if plane is capable to reach Mach 2 without big fuel penalty then you can use long missile with dual ramjet engine, but I think hypersonic AAM is overkill, booster mini AAM missile would be more then enough.

You raise some interesting points, but I am not totally convinced;

- VLO targets definitely present a problem for radar guided missiles. It's for this reason that you would still want a larger, higher powered AESA seekerhead to give you the largest possible radar return from the target and in turn as large of a terminal homing basket as possible.

- I'm not sure that SARH mode would provide much of an advantage, since the missile seeker still has to be able to see the radar energy reflected off the target by the radar of the launch aircraft which is much further away than the missile itself. This might work well for close range shots but in BVR scenarios? Not so sure.

- I wouldn't rule out IIR seekers too quickly. The only threat aircraft currently projected to have DIRCM (AFAIK) is the Su57 (101KS-O). Even this, however is paired with a UV based MAWS (101KS-U) which is well suited to detecting missile motor ignition at close range (think AIM9X) but poorly suited to tracking missiles themselves, or directing DIRCM energy at a missile launched from further away.

- Hypersonics have their own issues AFAIK - the main one being the ionization of the air surrounding the missile due to frictional heating of the weapon's skin. This complicates onboard sensing and makes it extremely difficult to transmit data to or from the weapon while it is in flight. I understand the Russians had to use an extremely high power datalink to get around this with Zircon, for example. This is fine for attacking large and slow/immobile targets but not ideal for an AAM.

[marsavian]

Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)

Not SARH but continual datalink positional updates to the missile. Something like an F-35 armed with 2-way datalink missiles like Meteor/Aim-120D would be very good at this because of its 360 degree RF/IR fused sensors so even when maneuvering it will still have a good idea where you are and the missile will tell it whether it is locked on or not so even missile countermeasures could be overcome with further datalink updates.

[boogieman]

Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)

Not SARH but continual datalink positional updates to the missile. Something like an F-35 armed with 2-way datalink missiles like Meteor/Aim-120D would be very good at this because of its 360 degree RF/IR fused sensors so even when maneuvering it will still have a good idea where you are and the missile will tell it whether it is locked on or not so even missile countermeasures could be overcome with further datalink updates.

So quasi command/track-via-missile guidance then? I think this is effectively how 2-way datalink equipped MRMs tend to work these days, but AFAIK you still need the missile to "find" the target so that it can fine tune its course in the terminal phase. Hence why I think you'd want a high powered AESA coupled with an IIR seeker to give the missile the best possible chance of rejecting countermeasures and picking up the target early.

[milosh]

Seeker size isn't so important because even that small (100mm) AESA seeker have similar range as 150mm MESA seekers but neither is capable against stealth targets, you would need to use for example SARH mode to guide them versus close stealth targets (if stealth is in scanning field of main radar that is why rotating PESA/AESA radar or side AESA radars are good thing to have)

Not SARH but continual datalink positional updates to the missile. Something like an F-35 armed with 2-way datalink missiles like Meteor/Aim-120D would be very good at this because of its 360 degree RF/IR fused sensors so even when maneuvering it will still have a good idea where you are and the missile will tell it whether it is locked on or not so even missile countermeasures could be overcome with further datalink updates.

That is command guidence which have lag, it is all nice when it is used against non VLO (lock target from 15km so lag isn't such issue) but what about VLO which almost all BVR seekers can lock for 5km or even less.

@boogieman

Su-35 MAWS is IR based capable detect missile from 60km, so expecting Su-57 have only 360deg ultraviolent coverage is problematic. And if you check last MAKS you will see what company which made 101KS-O wrote, analog to OLS with DIRCM. So 101KS-O very likely have IR sensor.