F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19379
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 11:41

F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles [BEST READ IT ALL AT SOURCE]
04 Dec 2017 James Drew

"Imagine if seconds after North Korea’s Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile lifted off on Nov. 28, a Lockheed Martin F-35 armed with four Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) engaged the missile and destroyed it. This isn’t some far-fetched concept or marketing ploy. It is one way the U.S. Defense Department could conduct “kinetic” intercepts of North Korean or Iranian missiles in the future.

In early November, at an event in Washington hosted by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) threw his support behind this concept. He said F-35s should be shooting down missiles before they can escape the atmosphere with their devastating nuclear payloads. Hunter said North Korea is only 75 mi. (120 km) wide in some places, well within the range of an AIM-120D, and Iranian missiles can be targeted from inside Kuwait....

...“It’s like an act of God,” Hunter says. “You have F-35s, you have Amraams, and you can shoot these things down as they go up.”

Tom Lawhead, who heads the Air Force Joint Strike Fighter Integration Office, says Northrop Grumman has been testing the F-35’s ability to detect and track ballistic missiles for several years. The company developed the F-35’s six-sensor, electro-optical/infrared AAQ-37 distributed aperture system and APG-81 active electronically scanned fire control radar, and it has been investing in applications for missile defense.

In October 2014, Northrop conducted an end-to-end test of this concept, using a ground-based distributed aperture system and radar-equipped testbed aircraft. The information was correlated via datalink to produce intercept-quality targeting data, accurate enough for an Amraam or Aegis guided-missile destroyer to use.

Lawhead says missile defense isn’t part of the F-35 program of record, and much more analysis needs to be done. But he says it is feasible, and Northrop believes it would take about three years from start to integration to unlock this potential in the F-35. He says operational F-35 squadrons would need to be trained on how to perform this mission, and pilots must have the authority to shoot the missiles down the moment they pop up. “Deep-strike missions really are the bread and butter of the F-35,” he notes....

...Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, says his office has been working with the Los Alamos and Livermore national laboratories to come up with a road map for using AIM-120-equipped F-35s for missile defense. The distributed aperture system was introduced to detect rocket and artillery fire and cue countermeasures, but the technology has far more applications...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-c ... n-missiles
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 11:50

spazsinbad wrote:
F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles [BEST READ IT ALL AT SOURCE]
04 Dec 2017 James Drew

"Imagine if seconds after North Korea’s Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile lifted off on Nov. 28, a Lockheed Martin F-35 armed with four Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) engaged the missile and destroyed it. This isn’t some far-fetched concept or marketing ploy. It is one way the U.S. Defense Department could conduct “kinetic” intercepts of North Korean or Iranian missiles in the future.

In early November, at an event in Washington hosted by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) threw his support behind this concept. He said F-35s should be shooting down missiles before they can escape the atmosphere with their devastating nuclear payloads. Hunter said North Korea is only 75 mi. (120 km) wide in some places, well within the range of an AIM-120D, and Iranian missiles can be targeted from inside Kuwait....

...“It’s like an act of God,” Hunter says. “You have F-35s, you have Amraams, and you can shoot these things down as they go up.”

Tom Lawhead, who heads the Air Force Joint Strike Fighter Integration Office, says Northrop Grumman has been testing the F-35’s ability to detect and track ballistic missiles for several years. The company developed the F-35’s six-sensor, electro-optical/infrared AAQ-37 distributed aperture system and APG-81 active electronically scanned fire control radar, and it has been investing in applications for missile defense.

In October 2014, Northrop conducted an end-to-end test of this concept, using a ground-based distributed aperture system and radar-equipped testbed aircraft. The information was correlated via datalink to produce intercept-quality targeting data, accurate enough for an Amraam or Aegis guided-missile destroyer to use.

Lawhead says missile defense isn’t part of the F-35 program of record, and much more analysis needs to be done. But he says it is feasible, and Northrop believes it would take about three years from start to integration to unlock this potential in the F-35. He says operational F-35 squadrons would need to be trained on how to perform this mission, and pilots must have the authority to shoot the missiles down the moment they pop up. “Deep-strike missions really are the bread and butter of the F-35,” he notes....

...Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, says his office has been working with the Los Alamos and Livermore national laboratories to come up with a road map for using AIM-120-equipped F-35s for missile defense. The distributed aperture system was introduced to detect rocket and artillery fire and cue countermeasures, but the technology has far more applications...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-c ... n-missiles


I find this claim to be a bit skeptical. The speed a rocket needs to break earth orbit is mach 11, well beyond that of the AIM-120. And that's assuming an F-35 is in the air and in position to target the ballistic missile. While theoretically possible, it's not probable.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 12:16

Honestly?

We can not afford to shoot at those missiles. (not at this stage anyway)

If we "miss" ? ? ? That clown is gonna thing he's invisible.

One mlss is going to make him the "hero of the century".
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 13:22

An ICBM uses a few minutes to accelerate, so the AMRAAM would have maybe a minute or two to get going. if the launch is detected early - and F-35 sensors have shown to be capable, it's certainly possible - if the shooter is close enough.

And come on, air forces don't do stuff because it's easy... ;)

And vilters, if he shoots one with a real aimpoint, and you do nothing, he still wins. And potentially hundreds of thousands die. Not trying is not an option.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4343
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 14:29

A shame they made the bone-headed decision to kill NCADE.

NCADE1.jpg


NCADE2.jpg


NCADE3.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 14:49

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
I find this claim to be a bit skeptical. The speed a rocket needs to break earth orbit is mach 11, well beyond that of the AIM-120. And that's assuming an F-35 is in the air and in position to target the ballistic missile. While theoretically possible, it's not probable.

Ballistic missiles don't leave the launch pad at Mach 11. There's a window while they're still accelerating, where they're vulnerable to being shot down.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1134
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 16:47

Interesting that NCADE interceptor configuration included an aerospike. I'm scratching my head a bit, though, wondering how that would play with an Imaging Infrared Seeker trying to look out the front at the same time.

Whether the ICBM is solid fueled or liquid fueled is also a factor. A solid fuel ICBM is likely to accelerate much quicker, where as a liquid fueled ICBM will have a much more leisurely (by comparison) climbout, me thinks.

I know NK has liquid fueled (variations on hydrazine) ICBM motors, because there were some press articles in the past year where people were crying foul that someone had assisted NK in getting the secret formula to Aerozine-50 and/or figuring out how to manufacture UDMH (unsymmetricaldimethylhydrazine) -- basically what the old Titan II burned.

Exact numbers escape me, but a Titan II probably takes 60-90 seconds to get to 30K feet. Take that with a BIG grain of salt. It will be doing Mach 1 somewhere around there. Much beyond 120 seconds and I think it is well and gone -- think Mach 3-4 and 80-100K feet. Again, take these numbers with a huge grain of salt.

I seem to recall reports that NK was working on solid fueled ICBM motors. I have no idea if they have built / flown those yet. I figure they are going to get up and go much quicker than the liquid variety.

How closely are you going to CAP NK ICBM fields? 200nm? Too far, IMO. 100nm? Still too far, me thinks. Well... maybe not. Maybe around 100nm if you are down range (ICBM is coming towards you) and loitering (!?) at 50,000 ft you might have a shot. I don't see any tactical / practical ability to loiter closer (50nm?) as you would be over NK airspace the whole time. Even 100nm seems awfully close to NK airspace.
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.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 17:51

vilters wrote:Honestly?

We can not afford to shoot at those missiles. (not at this stage anyway)

If we "miss" ? ? ? That clown is gonna thing he's invisible.

One mlss is going to make him the "hero of the century".


We should let them fly and kill people because that's better


You're an idiot.

We are talking about airborne interception meaning the rocket is in the air, and war is on. He'll be dead soon after one way or another because NK will lose

Vilters. Worst poster here by far
Choose Crews
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 18:16

Call me whatever you want or like, or whatever makes you feel hot.

Shooting at launch is not an option because he fires from within his mainland; and :
a) You are NOT there
b) Reaction time from at least 300 km out? Come on with the Joke.
c) The missile is too high and too far outbound when you finally realize something went up, AND had the time to respond.

Shooting at inbound?
a) Your system has to be in the exact spot/area of re-entry.
b) Of course you should try if he aims at population or something essential.
c) Well, try. Because real life succes rate is to cry for.
d) Hide when you miss. => His neck will explode and that's harder then the missile hit.

With a 120?
That's a glider.
Warhead too small.
WAY and WAY too slow to get an ICBM.
You really HAVE to be within 10nm, because that ICBM is coming vertically down at extremely high Mach Numbers.
You"ll never-ever hit an inbound ICBM with a 120 or something alike.

Only option is to go in before launch.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4343
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 18:45

vilters wrote:Shooting at launch is not an option because he fires from within his mainland; and :
a) You are NOT there
b) Reaction time from at least 300 km out? Come on with the Joke.
c) The missile is too high and too far outbound when you finally realize something went up, AND had the time to respond.


While this is the most difficult phase to hit something in, given the launch would be detected virtually at ignition, it's far from impossible. Yes, with current missiles (AIM-120) you'd have to have an F-35 near the coast, but more importantly, the decision would have to have already been made to attempt a shootdown if detected. There would be no time to radio Washington. With SM-6 on Aegis just offshore you might have a better chance, but we're still talking seconds. What they needed was KEI on a Zumwalt.

vilters wrote:Shooting at inbound?
a) Your system has to be in the exact spot/area of re-entry.


You mean your defenses have to be in the target area? What a novel concept. BTW, GBI in Alaska can cover the entire Continental US from the base in Alaska. You might want to get up to speed on current technology.

vilters wrote:With a 120?
That's a glider.
Warhead too small.
WAY and WAY too slow to get an ICBM.
You really HAVE to be within 10nm, because that ICBM is coming vertically down at extremely high Mach Numbers.
You"ll never-ever hit an inbound ICBM with a 120 or something alike.


It's more about being in the right place at the right time. You'll note a Major League catcher doesn't have to be able to run a hundred miles an hour to catch a fastball.

vilters wrote:Only option is to go in before launch.


Wrong.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 19:13

vilters wrote:Call me whatever you want or like, or whatever makes you feel hot.

Shooting at launch is not an option because he fires from within his mainland; and :
a) You are NOT there
b) Reaction time from at least 300 km out? Come on with the Joke.
c) The missile is too high and too far outbound when you finally realize something went up, AND had the time to respond.

Shooting at inbound?
a) Your system has to be in the exact spot/area of re-entry.
b) Of course you should try if he aims at population or something essential.
c) Well, try. Because real life succes rate is to cry for.
d) Hide when you miss. => His neck will explode and that's harder then the missile hit.

With a 120?
That's a glider.
Warhead too small.
WAY and WAY too slow to get an ICBM.
You really HAVE to be within 10nm, because that ICBM is coming vertically down at extremely high Mach Numbers.
You"ll never-ever hit an inbound ICBM with a 120 or something alike.

Only option is to go in before launch.



Wrong yet again. Tell us more about the P-47s against Isis or coca cola 737s

You're a joke
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

doge

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:03

Is it the same content as this video? (It is a thing posted just now.)
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:24

Either, you go in before launch, or you start fabricating body-bags.

All the rest is unproven theory and wishful thinking.
Yeah, I like the slide shows too, but I know they are just that: Slideshows.

Once an ICBM is in the air? Whatever or how many buttons you push until your fingertip turns blue?
You are a bystander waiting for the impact.

Facts and figures !
Not talking about prepared tests at all.
During a test you can prove whatever you want however you want.
Simply adapt the ROE's until you are right and get the money to continue.
( Or make a better slideshow) LOL.

How many ICBM's have been shot down during a "real" conflict?

Ok?

Go in before launch, hope for a technical failure, or start building body-bags.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:35

vilters wrote:
How many ICBM's have been shot down during a "real" conflict?

Ok?
.



How many ICBMs have been fired in a "real" conflict?

Ok?

This is all vilters backpedaling as his original issue had nothing to do with technical ability but how things would "look" which krovik and I both noticed and commented on.


Typical vilters says stupid things then the next five posts are pretending he didn't say it.

Beyond the technical issues of which I recognize it's just dumb as hell to mention
Choose Crews
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 662
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:43

What was the answer?? ?
How many ICBM's have been shot down in real conflict?
How many??

All an F-35 (that would have to be accidently in the air and looking in the right direction) could do?

Is detect the launch, turn all radio's ON and YELL : "INCOMING".

Then look at its nav and search for a deversion base.
Next

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hornetfinn, viper12 and 3 guests