F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2541
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 00:00

vilters wrote:Thaad 14 succesfull test?

Did you read my first comment?
Did you read the question at all?

Tests are tests and prove NOTHING.
a) you know what (you know the tech spec of your target better then the manufacturer.)
b) you know when
c) you know from where
d) you are prepared and have all the solutions properly planned AND X-checked months before the "test"
e) manuals and manuals of ROE's.

Our clown is completely unpredictable and he has no ROE's.

AGAIN, the DAZ "slideshow".
Nice, and with what are you gonna shoot and when?

Shooting during the launch phase is excluded. There simply is NO time.

Shooting at a multi-mach re-entry?
Wanna put your "hope" on that?
Tell your population that you are "hoping".


Tests prove nothing? They let you know that your system works as designed. Multiple tests let you know that it wasn't a fluke.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2541
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 00:13

vilters wrote:Decades ago, there were great slideshows about the Patriot and other systems too.

Gents, testing has its purposes; but in this case?

An "unknown" missile, with unconfirmed range, unknown tech specs, with unknown warhead but could be atomic.

At launch, presume you "see" the launch, you even have no idea about the target until re-entry.

At long distance?
Is it gonna be San Francisco or LA?
Less then 0.5 degree difference.
Wanna gamble?
Be my guest.

When there is even the slightest hint?
Take out the missile capability BEFORE launch. It's your ONLY option.

PAC 1s weren't designed for use against ballistic missiles, but did a pretty good job tracking them. The issue was fusing/warhead. Later model Patriots have a very good record. The PAC-3 has had a near 100% success rate in Saudi Arabia, against Yemeni SCUDs (the Saudis and UAE have shot down over 150 missiles.)
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6959
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 00:24

Pac-3 MSE & THAAD go one step further and get rid of the fusing all together by going with a HTK endgame.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4336
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 00:37

SpudmanWP wrote:Pac-3 MSE & THAAD go one step further and get rid of the fusing all together by going with a HTK endgame.


As does the standard PAC-3, SM-3, and GBI. Now if we could get THAAD-ER (KEI is too much to hope for).
"There I was. . ."
Offline

lbk000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 00:46

Revive YAL-1 :wink:
Offline

usnvo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 01:17

kimjongnumbaun wrote:They don't start at mach 11, but they accelerate VERY quickly. Here is the space shuttle, and while not a ballistic missile, did need to break orbit. By the first minute it's already breaking mach 1, and by the second minute it's at mach 3 and at 120,000 feet MSL. There is a very small window to intercept a ballistic missile in the launch phase.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/466711main_AP_ ... Ascent.pdf


OK, lets assume that you have roughly 60 seconds to intercept the ICBM before it is going too fast and is too high for an AMRAAM. So lets look at the physics of the problem. To keep it simple, lets assume that the missile will be travelling at Mach 1 at 100,000ft and is roughly 5nm from the launch site when it has been flying for 60sec.
- The missile, to be a threat, has to be launched toward somewhere the US cares about, so it will be flying East.
- North Korea is a little over 200nm North to South but, where you could launch the missile from is somewhat restrictive for a variety of reasons. Let's say you have to contend with a missile coming anywhere from a 60nm x 100nm Box.
- Assume 15 seconds for target identification and firing. then an AMRAAM would be able to fly, assuming Mach 3 speed, roughly 20nm to intercept the missile. So each F-35 would cover a roughly circular area 40nm is diameter offset 5nm to the East.
- So you would probably need no more than 6 F-35s (two lines of 3) orbiting in specific points over North Korea or just off the coast, offset roughly 25nm East from your potential launch sites to ensure that any ICBM is engaged by a minimum of 4 AMRAAMs.
- Figure a minimum of 32 F-35s dedicated to the mission to be able to maintain the standing patrol (6 on patrol, 2 refueling or as in-air spares, probably another 2-4 on quick alert.
- Can we all agree that a AMRAAM will have no real problem intercepting a non-maneuvering ICBM flying at Mach 1 at less than 100,000ft? So at the worst, you could expect a Pk of something approaching 1 from 4 AMRAAMs but you would have to fly over NK to ensure you covered all possible launch sites.
- Of note, if you could limit the potential launch site like something 20nm x 20nm, you could have a pair of F-35 orbiting to the East of the site and have a minimum of 8 shots.
- From a known coastal testing site, you could easily stand off in international airspace and shoot down the ICBM.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3789
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 04:54

usnvo wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:They don't start at mach 11, but they accelerate VERY quickly. Here is the space shuttle, and while not a ballistic missile, did need to break orbit. By the first minute it's already breaking mach 1, and by the second minute it's at mach 3 and at 120,000 feet MSL. There is a very small window to intercept a ballistic missile in the launch phase.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/466711main_AP_ ... Ascent.pdf


OK, lets assume that you have roughly 60 seconds to intercept the ICBM before it is going too fast and is too high for an AMRAAM. So lets look at the physics of the problem. To keep it simple, lets assume that the missile will be travelling at Mach 1 at 100,000ft and is roughly 5nm from the launch site when it has been flying for 60sec.
- The missile, to be a threat, has to be launched toward somewhere the US cares about, so it will be flying East.
- North Korea is a little over 200nm North to South but, where you could launch the missile from is somewhat restrictive for a variety of reasons. Let's say you have to contend with a missile coming anywhere from a 60nm x 100nm Box.
- Assume 15 seconds for target identification and firing. then an AMRAAM would be able to fly, assuming Mach 3 speed, roughly 20nm to intercept the missile. So each F-35 would cover a roughly circular area 40nm is diameter offset 5nm to the East.
- So you would probably need no more than 6 F-35s (two lines of 3) orbiting in specific points over North Korea or just off the coast, offset roughly 25nm East from your potential launch sites to ensure that any ICBM is engaged by a minimum of 4 AMRAAMs.
- Figure a minimum of 32 F-35s dedicated to the mission to be able to maintain the standing patrol (6 on patrol, 2 refueling or as in-air spares, probably another 2-4 on quick alert.
- Can we all agree that a AMRAAM will have no real problem intercepting a non-maneuvering ICBM flying at Mach 1 at less than 100,000ft? So at the worst, you could expect a Pk of something approaching 1 from 4 AMRAAMs but you would have to fly over NK to ensure you covered all possible launch sites.
- Of note, if you could limit the potential launch site like something 20nm x 20nm, you could have a pair of F-35 orbiting to the East of the site and have a minimum of 8 shots.
- From a known coastal testing site, you could easily stand off in international airspace and shoot down the ICBM.


How about the F-35 using it's MADL to pass on targeting data to Land or Sea Based platforms. Like in the latter case an SM-6....

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video- ... al-warfare
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 05:24

Corsair1963 wrote:
How about the F-35 using it's MADL to pass on targeting data to Land or Sea Based platforms. Like in the latter case an SM-6....

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video- ... al-warfare


That is what I was thinking. The F-35 flying a CAP and its sensors being used as early warning to everyone else.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1109
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 05:55

In my opinion, you are looking at a target in an ICBM that is passing Mach 1 by or before 30,000ft in or around 60sec. At 100,000ft it is most likely Mach 3+, maybe as high as Mach 5. A lot depends on whether it is liquid fueled (slower) or solid fueled (most likely faster).

I am not as familiar with solid fueled motors, but a liquid fueled booster is likely to be very thin skinned (to save weight), and so is potentially very susceptible to shrapnel. A solid fueled booster is probably somewhat more rugged. But this is a lot of conjecture on my part.

I do not see the practicality in orbiting F-35s near NK missile pads. If you are not over NK proper (which would be an act of war, and heaven forbid someone gets shot down by lil' rocketman's minions), then you would very likely have to be very close to shore. Still a no go.

Even using F-35s as an "early warning sensor" via it's DAS sensors is probably not a good use of the F-35. While the sensor technology has been demonstrated in some testing, I do not know that it would be any better than SIBRS (Space Based Infra Red satellites already orbiting the Earth). That is to say, IMO not much is gained, if anything at all, from orbiting F-35s near NK compared to other early-warning systems already designed and in operational use for this very purpose.

So if NK appears to be prepping for a launch, and one has real reason (e.g. intelligence from somewhere) to believe they are actually going to try to drop a nuke on the US or someone else, OR to try a high-altitude EMP attack, and one has the intestinal fortitude to strike first... then F-35's taking out as many ICBM's and ICBM support infrastructure would seem the better play.

If an all-out shooting war has started, or something along the lines of Gulf War 1 and Scud hunting is in play, then assigning F-35's and/or F-22's as a missile CAP where one could be close enough to the launch sites (because the shooting has already started) may be a viable tactic.

Using F-35's to cue SM-3 shots from AB's east of NK may also be an option. I don't think SM-6's are your best choice there. SM-3 Blk II or IIA would be the most capable.

Someone mentioned THAD-ER... how does that compare to SM-3 Blk II / IIA or Aegis / SM-3 Ashore? Does THAD-ER buy you something that you don't already have in SM-3?
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5156
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 19:21

wrightwing wrote:
vilters wrote:Decades ago, there were great slideshows about the Patriot and other systems too.

Gents, testing has its purposes; but in this case?

An "unknown" missile, with unconfirmed range, unknown tech specs, with unknown warhead but could be atomic.

At launch, presume you "see" the launch, you even have no idea about the target until re-entry.

At long distance?
Is it gonna be San Francisco or LA?
Less then 0.5 degree difference.
Wanna gamble?
Be my guest.

When there is even the slightest hint?
Take out the missile capability BEFORE launch. It's your ONLY option.

PAC 1s weren't designed for use against ballistic missiles, but did a pretty good job tracking them. The issue was fusing/warhead. Later model Patriots have a very good record. The PAC-3 has had a near 100% success rate in Saudi Arabia, against Yemeni SCUDs (the Saudis and UAE have shot down over 150 missiles.)


Don't go bringing facts into this, vilters made up his mind.
Choose Crews
Offline

usnvo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 19:33

Corsair1963 wrote:
How about the F-35 using it's MADL to pass on targeting data to Land or Sea Based platforms. Like in the latter case an SM-6....

https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video- ... al-warfare


Sure, a F-35 could pass information to another platform but without the forward missile launching capability, the target missile is quickly outside your altitude limits For instance, lets say a SM-6 flies at Mach 4 which is roughly 40nm per minute. Then a ship 60nm requires roughly 90 seconds to intercept the ICBM and at that point it is already well above your engagement limits. That has always been the problem with Boost Phase intercepts, the interceptor does not have enough time to reliably intercept the target. To intercept with a run of the mill AIM-120, you need to be close to the target to kill it before it gets too high and too fast.

Of course, it would be easy to test. Write a patch for the software to identify and calculate intercept for a ballistic missile so the AMRAAM can get to the right basket, that should be fairly straight forward. Then, the next time they do a Trident or Minuteman OT launch, have an F-35 or two try to shoot it down. You could even load up the F-35 with a combination of telemetry and warshot missiles to see how well your missile guides as well as warhead terminal effects. You may lose a data point on missile reliability but at this point they have an extensive data set, missing part of one test should be no big deal.
Offline

usnvo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post06 Dec 2017, 19:45

steve2267 wrote:If an all-out shooting war has started, or something along the lines of Gulf War 1 and Scud hunting is in play, then assigning F-35's and/or F-22's as a missile CAP where one could be close enough to the launch sites (because the shooting has already started) may be a viable tactic.



I see it as a wartime/high tension contingency. While you are doing your best to destroy leadership and missile launchers, you set up the missile CAP to try to further attrite any launches. The good thing is it also works for SRBM/MRBM/IRBMs headed toward Japan or South Korea. Of course you are talking about tying up a couple of F-35 squadrons minimum to keep your missile defense grid up and they are then not able to actively try to kill the bad guys. So it is a balancing act but it does give you an essentially free additional layer in your missile defense shield.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6926
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 00:31

Time is a critical factor to success so a new missile that affords a larger intercept window makes sense. The Japanese and US could share the expense as part of a drone fleet dedicated to the boost-phase intercept mission. A missile with twice the velocity of AMRAAM and capable of endo/exo-atmospheric kills firs the bill. Don;t expect it to fit inside a F-22 or F-35 though.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/g00 ... bS5waC8%3D
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

white_lightning35

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 00:45

Image

My miniature brain had an idea similar to this, except it was for carriers. Have some long endurance drones with some missiles constantly monitoring the area.

Is this a bad idea?
Offline

usnvo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 02:01

popcorn wrote:Time is a critical factor to success so a new missile that affords a larger intercept window makes sense. The Japanese and US could share the expense as part of a drone fleet dedicated to the boost-phase intercept mission. A missile with twice the velocity of AMRAAM and capable of endo/exo-atmospheric kills firs the bill. Don;t expect it to fit inside a F-22 or F-35 though.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/g00 ... bS5waC8%3D


The problem with any new boost phase program, especially one that does intercepts outside the atmosphere, is that they will cost like crazy regardless of the fact that most of the technology has been proven or is borrowed from other systems. So to ask the eternal question, what do you want to give up to get this capability? I would guess at least $5 billion to start and then go up from there regardless of the laughable estimate from the linked article. After all you need a fleet of drones, new superwhammodyne missiles, an entirely new control system, new basing, etc. Just targets to test your system on will cost hundreds of millions.

The benefit of a F-35/AIM-120 solution is it would cost a very small amount to develop the software patch and test the technology and being software, it would be virtually free to update the aircraft, no new aircraft, no new pilots, no new weapons, no new bases, no change to the FYDP. Plus, it adds flexibility. If your F-35s are an attack mission and a ballistic missile pops off, you can take it down. So a limited capability based on the F-35 comes with a vastly lower opportunity cost (and also an admittedly much less effective weapon system for the mission, especially for peacetime operations.). However, there is also nothing that says you can't do both.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests