F-35 Ready For Missile Defense By 2025: MDA Chief

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21224
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Apr 2018, 23:44

F-35 Ready For Missile Defense By 2025: MDA Chief
11 Apr 2018 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"CAPITOL HILL: F-35 Joint Strike Fighters could detect, track, and, possibly, even shoot down ballistic missiles by 2025, the Missile Defense Agency director told Congress this morning. “I’d say six to seven years to essentially work out the Concept of Operations (and) develop the capabilities — (whether) it’s sensor-based or a new fast missile that’s hung on the bottom of an F-35 for the BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense) mission — integrate those capabilities, test them, and deliver them into a theater of operations,” Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves told the Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense. “We see that deployed capability as, if not a game changer, then a significant contributor to future ballistic missile defense.”...

...The AMRAAM missile isn’t designed to chase an ICBM into space, so it would have a narrow window to kill one before it escaped the atmosphere. Greaves’s wording suggests using the F-35 to shoot ICBMs might require developing “a new fast missile,” which would take years to develop.

What the F-35 can already do is act as a sensor. Its Distributed Aperture System (DAS) can pick up the infrared emission of a boosting rocket, its computers can pinpoint the threat’s location, and its network connections can transmit tracking data to the rest of the force. What’s more, since the US military is buying a projected 2,443 F-35s — 1,763 for the Air Force alone — there’ll be lots of them in danger zones around the world. Developing a new weapon to turn them into missile killers would be expensive, but tweaking them to make them missile trackers is probably not, and it would add a whole new kind of sensor to the global missile defense system....

...“Our job is to look outside of the classic missile defense system” — Patriot, THAAD, GBI — “and look for sensors and shooters that would be able to contribute when integrated into the BMDS, and we see F-35 as one,” Greaves said. “We’ve been working with the Air Force at least the last few months, and we did a test (with the Navy) a few years ago.”...

...Besides the Air Force, Greaves said the regional Combatant Commanders (COCOMs) would play a vital role, specifically in figuring how to use the F-35 in real-world missions: “The Concept of Operations (CONOPS) is not my area; that is for the combatant commander,” Greaves said.

Greaves didn’t say so explicitly, but the commander in question is almost certainly that of Pacific Command, which confronts North Korea. Unlike Russia or China with their vast territories and massive anti-aircraft defenses, North Korea’s launch sites are relatively close to US airbases and could even be targeted by fighters outside North Korean airspace."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/f-3 ... mda-chief/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1648
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Apr 2018, 04:31

I thought we had hashed this all out over in the NORK thread... AIM-120 would have to be no more than ~50nm from the launch site to have a chance. Depending on where the launch sites are located in NORK... that would mean flying a missile CAP over NORK or PRC which we agreed would be very difficult to do.

A new fast shooter? Maybe. I nominate one of the hypersonic jobbies Raytheon or LM Skunkworks is cooking up. Still think you're going to have to be relatively close to the launch site... which to me means the new missile would have to be internal carriage. Now can you fit a Mach 6+ air launched ABM into the F-35 weapons bay? What would that be, about 24" max diameter, and 14-15' max length?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

sunstersun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 144
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post12 Apr 2018, 06:57

F-35 + super long range new missile = :D
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1256
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post12 Apr 2018, 07:11

F-35 + super quick* new missile = :D
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post12 Apr 2018, 09:55

No one said a missile, except the journo chumming.

Is F-35 DIRCM still cued for BkIV? If so, what if it's 30 kilowatts? With growth room. Let's see, flight of 16 x F-35s over central Norkistan:

16 x 30 = 480 kilowatts ... minus high-altitude path losses.

Imagine that focused on yer nozzle.

(presuming it even gets into the air, if the ISR and SA is all it's cracked up to be)
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2459
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Apr 2018, 07:03

Why not use the currently available AMRAAM-ER missile for this at least initially? It uses ESSM rocket motor which gives much higher speed (Mach 4+ vs. something like Mach 2.5 or so) and range (about twice the range) than AMRAAM from surface launch and I'm sure it would have similarly better range and speed performance from air launch. It has dimensions that should be compatible with F-35 weapon bays and still be able to carry 2 AMRAAMs on bay doors.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7385
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Apr 2018, 07:37

hornetfinn wrote:Why not use the currently available AMRAAM-ER missile for this at least initially? It uses ESSM rocket motor which gives much higher speed (Mach 4+ vs. something like Mach 2.5 or so) and range (about twice the range) than AMRAAM from surface launch and I'm sure it would have similarly better range and speed performance from air launch. It has dimensions that should be compatible with F-35 weapon bays and still be able to carry 2 AMRAAMs on bay doors.


Raytheon says "nyet"...

http://alert5.com/2017/11/17/raytheon-n ... amraam-er/
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2459
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Apr 2018, 08:48

Probably because there has not been any real interest from services for such a weapon. AIM-120C7/D and Meteor are great air-to-air missiles and larger AMRAAM-ER would likely not give any major advantages against normal target set. I just think that it might be a right kind of missile for this particular need. It's fast and long ranged missile with great agility and has a large warhead. It is also about largest sized anti-air missile that can fit inside F-35. At least it could well be a great starting point for specialized anti-ballistic missile.

Of course there might be some technical issues with air-launched AMRAAM-ER and going for something else would be better. For example the rocket motor design might not be optimal for high-altitude launch.
Offline

stevedapirate

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2018, 17:11

Unread post16 Apr 2018, 17:01

hornetfinn wrote:I just think that it might be a right kind of missile for this particular need. It's fast and long ranged missile with great agility and has a large warhead. It is also about largest sized anti-air missile that can fit inside F-35. At least it could well be a great starting point for specialized anti-ballistic missile.


I don't know that agility or a large warhead would be priorities if the goal is to hit ascending ballistic missiles. They don't engage in any radical maneuvers on the way up, and could be dispatched easily via a hit-to-kill dart to the boost segment.

Accordingly, I'd think you could save significant weight by eliminating the warhead and high agility requirements and focus on maximizing acceleration and ∆v.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7385
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 00:32

What about using Meteor in a lofted launch profile that maximizes range?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2459
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 13:41

stevedapirate wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I just think that it might be a right kind of missile for this particular need. It's fast and long ranged missile with great agility and has a large warhead. It is also about largest sized anti-air missile that can fit inside F-35. At least it could well be a great starting point for specialized anti-ballistic missile.


I don't know that agility or a large warhead would be priorities if the goal is to hit ascending ballistic missiles. They don't engage in any radical maneuvers on the way up, and could be dispatched easily via a hit-to-kill dart to the boost segment.

Accordingly, I'd think you could save significant weight by eliminating the warhead and high agility requirements and focus on maximizing acceleration and ∆v.


HTK works best when it can hit targets head-on to maximize kinetic energy on impact. This would be difficult to do with ascending ballistic missile and likely the hit would need to come from side. Of course it might work as even small amount of damage would likely kill the BM. That kind of new missile would need quite a long development time as that would be totally new kind of missile. I was pointing out a missile that might be good enough and much quicker solution to the problem as the missile actually exists right now. From all current missiles it has the best qualities for interception and there speed, agility and big warhead would be beneficial. Agility is probably the least needed for most BMs, but for example Iskander and Chinese DF-11 can make quite hard maneuvers even when ascending as these are not really ballistic missiles but can fly very different and alterable trajectories.

Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1648
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Apr 2018, 01:20

As I paper-napkinned some numbers here: viewtopic.php?p=382962#p382962, a liquid-fueled ICBM is going to be out of reach much beyond 60-120sec. By that time, it will be Mach 3+ and accelerating, and be 80,000+ feet in altitude and climbing fast. A solid fueled ICBM will be harder still (higher velocity, acceleration and climb rate). I doubt a Mach 4 missile with lots of range buys you much -- by the time you traverse that extra range, even at Mach 4, the target is too high, too fast. I am guessing you need a Mach 6-8 missile if you want to increase ABM range to significantly more than 50nm, or you need to move to DEW's.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7385
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Apr 2018, 02:26

There is talk of Japan considering a UAV fleet armed with a new high-speed missile specifically tasked to do the BPI mission. Possible joint venture opportunity.
Last edited by popcorn on 18 Apr 2018, 13:33, edited 1 time in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

taog

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36

Unread post18 Apr 2018, 13:30

hornetfinn wrote:Why not use the currently available AMRAAM-ER missile for this at least initially? It uses ESSM rocket motor which gives much higher speed (Mach 4+ vs. something like Mach 2.5 or so) and range (about twice the range) than AMRAAM from surface launch and I'm sure it would have similarly better range and speed performance from air launch. It has dimensions that should be compatible with F-35 weapon bays and still be able to carry 2 AMRAAMs on bay doors.


NCADE : Don't forget me.
Offline

taog

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2013, 17:36

Unread post18 Apr 2018, 13:41

steve2267 wrote:As I paper-napkinned some numbers here: viewtopic.php?p=382962#p382962, a liquid-fueled ICBM is going to be out of reach much beyond 60-120sec. By that time, it will be Mach 3+ and accelerating, and be 80,000+ feet in altitude and climbing fast. A solid fueled ICBM will be harder still (higher velocity, acceleration and climb rate). I doubt a Mach 4 missile with lots of range buys you much -- by the time you traverse that extra range, even at Mach 4, the target is too high, too fast. I am guessing you need a Mach 6-8 missile if you want to increase ABM range to significantly more than 50nm, or you need to move to DEW's.


viewtopic.php?f=58&t=53346&p=385176&sid=bbf1a84371e79b3a30780b7e1010556a#p385176

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests