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

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

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 02:57

marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Nobody is talking about using aircraft for terminal phase defense. Boost phase is the only thing that's been discussed.


The team behind NCADE proposed aircraft for terminal phase defense since only aircraft can position
an interceptor for high-aspect shots. And because an airborne layer needs very good sensors and very
good fire control and very high speed interceptors for boost...it translates pretty naturally into terminal.

bmd-corbett.png

NCADE was a boost phase weapon, not terminal phase. Nobody is suggesting intercepting RVs with aircraft. What is being suggested, is using aircraft to target missiles once they've launched, and are still at low altitudes/speeds/predictable flight profiles.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 03:27

wrightwing wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Nobody is talking about using aircraft for terminal phase defense. Boost phase is the only thing that's been discussed.


The team behind NCADE proposed aircraft for terminal phase defense since only aircraft can position
an interceptor for high-aspect shots. And because an airborne layer needs very good sensors and very
good fire control and very high speed interceptors for boost...it translates pretty naturally into terminal.

bmd-corbett.png

NCADE was a boost phase weapon, not terminal phase. Nobody is suggesting intercepting RVs with aircraft.




Feel free to read the attached papers and disabuse yourself of this notion.
The authors are exactly proposing intercepting RVs with aircraft.

NCADE was for boost, ascent and terminal btw.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 04:34

marauder2048 wrote:




Feel free to read the attached papers and disabuse yourself of this notion.
The authors are exactly proposing intercepting RVs with aircraft.

NCADE was for boost, ascent and terminal btw.

https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defe ... ent-ncade/

"The NCADE is being designed to intercept short and medium-range ballistic missiles in their ascent- and boost-phase."

Spare me the sh*t posting condescension, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is suggesting using F-35s to intercept RVs. Period. Boost phase is the ONLY phase, where aircraft are being considered for use.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 05:01

From the Raytheon press release:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/82223/thruster-tested-for-amraam-anti_missile-variant.html

NCADE is an air-launched weapon system designed to engage short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the boost, ascent or terminal flight phases.


From the Aerojet press release

https://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-grows-missile-defense-propulsion-business

NCADE is an air-launched weapon system designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost or terminal flight phases, thus increasing the effectiveness of the country's ballistic missile defense.


Since you refuse to read the papers I posted let me give you a summary
(from: The Defense Department and Innovation: An Assessment of the Technical and Policy Challenges
of Airborne Boost-Phase Intercept by Samuel S. Lacinski)

Mike Corbett, the former Director for Advanced Technology Weapons at MDA from 2006
through 2009, and Paul Zarchan, a technical staff member at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Lincoln Laboratory, based upon the threat models in the 2004 APS report,
concluded kinetic hit-to-kill interceptors launched from airborne platforms (either manned or
unmanned) directed by an infrared search and track sensor suite could perform boost, ascent, and
terminal engagements of threat missiles


All emphasis mine.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 05:52

marauder2048 wrote:From the Raytheon press release:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/82223/thruster-tested-for-amraam-anti_missile-variant.html

NCADE is an air-launched weapon system designed to engage short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the boost, ascent or terminal flight phases.


From the Aerojet press release

https://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-grows-missile-defense-propulsion-business

NCADE is an air-launched weapon system designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost or terminal flight phases, thus increasing the effectiveness of the country's ballistic missile defense.


Since you refuse to read the papers I posted let me give you a summary
(from: The Defense Department and Innovation: An Assessment of the Technical and Policy Challenges
of Airborne Boost-Phase Intercept by Samuel S. Lacinski)

Mike Corbett, the former Director for Advanced Technology Weapons at MDA from 2006
through 2009, and Paul Zarchan, a technical staff member at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Lincoln Laboratory, based upon the threat models in the 2004 APS report,
concluded kinetic hit-to-kill interceptors launched from airborne platforms (either manned or
unmanned) directed by an infrared search and track sensor suite could perform boost, ascent, and
terminal engagements of threat missiles


All emphasis mine.

Feel free to to point out the sentence/paragraph, where it discusses NCADE as a terminal phase interceptor for manuevering RVs, travelling at 15,000-20,000 feet per second (or any aircraft/interceptor combination being used for that purpose, for that matter.)
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 06:59

wrightwing wrote:Feel free to to point out the sentence/paragraph, where it discusses NCADE as a terminal phase interceptor for manuevering RVs, travelling at 15,000-20,000 feet per second (or any aircraft/interceptor combination being used for that purpose, for that matter.)


Feel free to point out where I suggested NCADE had utility against ICBM delivered MaRVs.

I've discussed interceptors with a Vbo between 3.5 - 5 km/sec against ICBM delivered ballistic RVs.
AWL, described in the excerpt from Corbett below is an F-35 launched interceptor with a Vbo of 3.5 km/s.

As discussed, If you want utility against MaRVs it's a many-interceptor:1 engagement.
But that's also not likely to be the common RV.
Attachments
icbm-intercepts.png
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2797
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 12:18

Could they have negated threats like Iran sent at American assets in Iraq?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 15:06

marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Feel free to to point out the sentence/paragraph, where it discusses NCADE as a terminal phase interceptor for manuevering RVs, travelling at 15,000-20,000 feet per second (or any aircraft/interceptor combination being used for that purpose, for that matter.)


Feel free to point out where I suggested NCADE had utility against ICBM delivered MaRVs.

I've discussed interceptors with a Vbo between 3.5 - 5 km/sec against ICBM delivered ballistic RVs.
AWL, described in the excerpt from Corbett below is an F-35 launched interceptor with a Vbo of 3.5 km/s.

As discussed, If you want utility against MaRVs it's a many-interceptor:1 engagement.
But that's also not likely to be the common RV.

You've shifted goalposts significantly from your original premise (i.e. the window of only a few seconds, due to the aforementioned speeds/target types/terminal manuevering.)
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 19:00

wrightwing wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Feel free to to point out the sentence/paragraph, where it discusses NCADE as a terminal phase interceptor for manuevering RVs, travelling at 15,000-20,000 feet per second (or any aircraft/interceptor combination being used for that purpose, for that matter.)


Feel free to point out where I suggested NCADE had utility against ICBM delivered MaRVs.

I've discussed interceptors with a Vbo between 3.5 - 5 km/sec against ICBM delivered ballistic RVs.
AWL, described in the excerpt from Corbett below is an F-35 launched interceptor with a Vbo of 3.5 km/s.

As discussed, If you want utility against MaRVs it's a many-interceptor:1 engagement.
But that's also not likely to be the common RV.

You've shifted goalposts significantly from your original premise (i.e. the window of only a few seconds, due to the aforementioned speeds/target types/terminal manuevering.)


Completely untrue. The Vbo range I described above were the ones described at the very beginning.
I don't think anyone was talking about non-ballistic RVs until element1loop started discussing "agile" RVs.

I've given the relevant technical background and the papers I've provided that substantiate my claims are
written by authors with impeccable credentials on the matter.

If you don't like the sources and their analyses please provide a rebuttal.

Though quite why someone who can't get background on NCADE right is suddenly
the arbiter of truth on this topic is unclear.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 20:12

marauder2048 wrote:


Completely untrue. The Vbo range I described above were the ones described at the very beginning.
I don't think anyone was talking about non-ballistic RVs until element1loop started discussing "agile" RVs.

I've given the relevant technical background and the papers I've provided that substantiate my claims are
written by authors with impeccable credentials on the matter.

If you don't like the sources and their analyses please provide a rebuttal.

Though quite why someone who can't get background on NCADE right is suddenly
the arbiter of truth on this topic is unclear.

The topic of discussion was clearly ICBMs prior to you suggesting NCADE being used as a terminal interceptor. There is no air launched weapon that's a terminal phase interceptor, that will be ready by 2025. What IS being talked about, is using F-35 sensors in Theater to detect ballistic missile launches, so that they can either engage with onboard weapons (i.e. boost phase), or hand off the targeting data to PAC-3, THAAD, AEGIS, or GBI assets. Nobody is talking about F-35s flying around potential missile targets, and performing terminal phase interceptions. I guarantee you won't find that in any source you care to cite.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post12 Aug 2020, 21:21

wrightwing wrote:The topic of discussion was clearly ICBMs prior to you suggesting NCADE being used as a terminal interceptor.


NCADE was designed with the ability to be used as a terminal interceptor. Do you now accept that?
Nowhere did I suggest that NCADE was useful against ICBMs. In fact, I explicitly stated that it wasn't.

The point of course is that a boost/ascent phase air-launched interceptor is also what you want
for terminal. That's what NCADE was about for SRBMs: boost/ascent/terminal.

mixelflick mentioned the F-35 contributing to missile defense over CONUS. It was asked: how is this possible?

I gave a pretty detailed response.

wrightwing wrote:There is no air launched weapon that's a terminal phase interceptor, that will be ready by 2025.


Or boost, the Extended Range Weapon ERWn, was cancelled back in 2019 when the Air Force
and the contractor couldn't agree on terms. Should we close the topic then?

If it's good for boost it will be good for terminal. Do you deny that?

wrightwing wrote:Nobody is talking about F-35s flying around potential missile targets, and performing terminal phase interceptions. I guarantee you won't find that in any source you care to cite.


That's exactly what is being described in the excerpt I posted above!
I can highlight the passages in Corbett and Zachran in bright yellow if that will help you.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1557
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 00:50

Just to add that the hit-to-kill engagement of NCADE does suggest terminal intercepts at high altitude were intended, as there's little reason to go after a boost-phase rocket with hit-to-kill vehicle complexity and expense at less that 100,000 ft, possibly even 125,000 ft, against a target with predictable track. If the intent of NCADE was to fly up with a low-hypersonic burn-out speed above that, then hit-to-kill would be needed. But once NCADE is ballistic above about 100,000 feet, the course is set so I can see that going wrong against staging, and a still accelerating target which accelerates even faster as the fuel mass burns down. The burn-out location and orientation of the NCADE hit to kill vehicle would have to be perfect (plus it would not work too well at Mach 5 to 6 burn-out, up high, but still below 100,000 ft, with thermal issues and coasting drag to slow it rapidly, and mess up a crossing-shot's timing on a staging and rapidly accelerating BM. This terminal concept has major problems to address. So I'm not sure killing boost-phase would work acceptably unless it's hit below 125,000 ft, with a directed frag warhead. SM3 hit-to-kill works because the speed and engagement location are precisely predictable. Boost phase may follow a predictable track, but the speed variation, plus the acceleration variation, are large.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 01:13

element1loop wrote:Just to add that the hit-to-kill engagement of NCADE does suggest terminal intercepts at high altitude were intended, as there's no reason to go after a boost-phase rocket with hit-to-kill vehicle complexity and expense at less that 100,000 ft, possibly even 125,000 ft, against a target with predictable track. If the intent of NCADE was to fly up with a low-hypersonic burn-out speed above that, then hit-to-kill would be needed. But once NCADE is ballistic above about 100,000 feet, the course is set so I can see that going wrong against staging, and a still accelerating target which accelerates even faster as the fuel mass burns down. The burn-out location and orientation of the NCADE hit to kill vehicle would have to be perfect (plus it would not work too well at Mach 5 to 6 burn-out, up high, but still below 100,000 ft, with thermal issues and coasting drag to slow it rapidly, and mess up a crossing-shot's timing on a staging and rapidly accelerating BM. This terminal concept has major problems to address. So I'm not sure killing boost-phase would work acceptably unless it's hit below 125,000 ft, with a directed frag warhead. SM3 hit-to-kill works because the speed and engagement location are precisely predictable. Boost phase may follow a predictable track, but the speed variation, plus the acceleration variation, are large.



NAP says that NCADE was not intended for intercepts much above 30 km aka ~ 100,000 ft.
That's consistent with the other published data.

Getting high Vbo tends to push air launched interceptor designs towards minimizing inert
masses like warheads. So that requires directional warheads + exquisite fuzing or hit-to-kill.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1557
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 01:23

marauder2048 wrote:Completely untrue. The Vbo range I described above were the ones described at the very beginning.
I don't think anyone was talking about non-ballistic RVs until element1loop started discussing "agile" RVs.


Agree, RV agility was not a concept being discussed much in 2008 or 2013 papers, but in 2020 it's a kerfuffle.

Getting high Vbo tends to push air launched interceptor designs towards minimizing inert
masses like warheads.


I can see why a less complicated multipurpose new A2A missile would be more attractive.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 01:49

element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Completely untrue. The Vbo range I described above were the ones described at the very beginning.
I don't think anyone was talking about non-ballistic RVs until element1loop started discussing "agile" RVs.


Agree, RV agility was not a concept being discussed much in 2008 or 2013 papers, but in 2020 it's a kerfuffle.



You'd have to show that MaRVs are going to be a major constituent of strategic launcher throw weight.
I can't find anything to suggest that's the case.

BGVs are bigger and heavier than MaRVs so there's fewer of them per strategic launcher..maybe only one.

20 years ago, NAP was suggesting, with analysis, that hypersonics were will within the terminal
intercept capability of contemporary systems. And that emerging systems like THAAD would have
even better capability.

element1loop wrote:
Getting high Vbo tends to push air launched interceptor designs towards minimizing inert
masses like warheads.


I can see why a less complicated multipurpose new A2A missile would be more attractive.


That and the Air Force's steady state interest in an airborne weapons layer for BMD of any type
seems to be wobbly. ERWn being but a recent example.

But I would *hope* that the MRBM (IRBM?) attack on the US air base in Iraq would be a wakeup call.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests