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

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

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 02:06

marauder2048 wrote: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.


Agree, why I disparage them as 'hype' missiles. Not a lot of money has been allocated to address these thus far. Frankly even Australia's spending allocation on hypersonic research and missile defenses, as recently announced, is a more surprising and impressive commitment (around $40 billion in total programs). Otherwise it looks more like business-as-usual missile defense developments most of the time. I'm also hoping™ that a new A2A missile on F-35, and F-22A, addresses the boost-phase response, in as much as it realistically can be.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1419
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 06:49

element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote: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.


Agree, why I disparage them as 'hype' missiles. Not a lot of money has been allocated to address these thus far. Frankly even Australia's spending allocation on hypersonic research and missile defenses, as recently announced, is a more surprising and impressive commitment (around $40 billion in total programs). Otherwise it looks more like business-as-usual missile defense developments most of the time. I'm also hoping™ that a new A2A missile on F-35, and F-22A, addresses the boost-phase response, in as much as it realistically can be.



What came across in the NAP analysis* is that RCS reductions applied to non-maneuvering hypersonic cruise/glide
weapons dramatically shrink the engagement ranges for ground based SAMs..practically to the point of negligible
utility.

Now NAP models a track-via-missile SAM system (maybe S-300 or S-400?) and the modern systems with
faster missiles, active seekers and guided by larger radars (TPY-2) would be more capable.

But it still strikes me that an airborne weapons layer would be useful given the radar/optical horizon
limitations of ground-based systems.

* https://www.nap.edu/read/6195/chapter/10
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3604
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 06:59

marauder2048 wrote:



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?


Well it's not unfathomable, that JATM or a JATM variant might be useful for a boost phase intercept, and that falls into the 2025 window. As for being good for boost = good for terminal, yes that's incorrect. If you catch a missile in boost phase depending on your range, you're dealing with a M1 to M4 target, that's non-manuevering. An RV in terminal phase is a M10+ target, that's agile. That's a far more difficult intercept, and seeing as how the likelihood of having aircraft flying over an intended target, at the precise moment needed for an intercept, it's an altogether silly notion. Having aircraft orbiting launch sites and lower/slower targets, is far more plausible.
I'd love to see those passages.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1419
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 09:21

wrightwing wrote:Well it's not unfathomable, that JATM or a JATM variant might be useful for a boost phase intercept, and that falls into the 2025 window. As for being good for boost = good for terminal, yes that's incorrect. If you catch a missile in boost phase depending on your range, you're dealing with a M1 to M4 target, that's non-manuevering.


Consider a purely endo-atmospheric interceptor like NCADE.
It had a max altitude around 30 km and lets say a minimum alt of 10 km.
Solid rockets in boost can cover the gap between 10 km and 30 km in 30 seconds.

That means NCADE would have to *average* 1.5 km/s to intercept a boosting solid
rocket target some 50 km away.

Since 50 km range isn't typically deemed adequate, you need higher velocities and/or wider
engagement altitudes. That all drives you towards higher velocity interceptors described
above.

wrightwing wrote:An RV in terminal phase is a M10+ target, that's agile.

And is matched by the Vbo of the interceptors described above in Corbett and Zachran.

wrightwing wrote:That's a far more difficult intercept, and seeing as how the likelihood of having aircraft flying over an intended target, at the precise moment needed for an intercept, it's an altogether silly notion.


For an ICBM strike on CONUS you have ~ 20 minutes to get aircraft in position
assuming a complete bolt-from-the-blue attack.

The passage in Corbett and Zachran posted gives an operational area of the interceptor
which they say is mounted on air defense alert aircraft.

wrightwing wrote:Having aircraft orbiting launch sites and lower/slower targets, is far more plausible.


Which has its own challenges of finding the launch site, penetrating and persisting.
And if you are orbiting the launch site why aren't you attacking the missile left of launch?

The general premise of boost phase is that you don't know the launch site and have
to spec-out the interceptor based on finite reaction times and some guess as to how close you
think the platform will be on average to a launcher.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 10:13

marauder2048 wrote: ... And if you are orbiting the launch site why aren't you attacking the missile left of launch? ...


If there's a series of F-35s in the area, continuously, on a BM launcher monitoring task, each logging 1 terabyte per mission, and someone then launches a BM, or a few ... a log will already exist of the transit of the launch vehicle to that site.

So develop an algorithm to check the cumulative data logs to determine exactly when that launcher appeared at or near the launch site. Then go backwards in time from its arrival time in the cumulative area log, to see were it came from to get to this launch area. That origin (or area) is where a bunch of BMs and launchers are probably based and stored.

If the all weather sensors, ID capability, and data-fusion are as good as advertised, then F-35 should (quietly) find and ID mobile launchers before they fire. Thus go backwards in time for each launcher found, and find out exactly where each came from, and monitor that location or area, to pin-point what to hit, etc.

So if or when BM hostilities commence, F-35 can kill any boosting BMs, kill the known launchers, and destroy their bases quickly.

Considerably simplifies the terminal-engagement technical challenge.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post13 Aug 2020, 10:37

marauder2048 wrote: ... Which has its own challenges of finding the launch site, penetrating and persisting. ...


Yes and no. The jet has passive RF sensors and aspect control to keep the jet out of radial engagement envelopes, or even radar tracking bubbles, or even detection bubbles. They may know you're there (geez, they should), but are they going to admit it? Who are they going to tell? Are they going to launch a MiG29 after an F-35? Fire an expensive SAM at it which still won't hit? Penetrating is not a problem, persisting might not be much of a problem either. Depends how many you need. Two every 3 hours would probably do. 24 aircraft each 24 hours - maximum. 2 squadrons could do it and have reserves for a fast strike.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 890
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post11 Oct 2020, 14:33

Is there any chance that boost phase intercept isn't dead completely?
Ej6fPBDWAAEjH6q.jpg
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1419
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post11 Oct 2020, 19:06

garrya wrote:Is there any chance that boost phase intercept isn't dead completely?
Ej6fPBDWAAEjH6q.jpg


Probably not for the Air Force which just saw an airbase pummeled by ballistic missiles.
A high Vbo missile like AIM-260 would have residual capability against boosting missiles.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2811
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Oct 2020, 03:37

It wasn't like there was no equipment available to counter those ballistic missiles.

Our allies didn't have enough motivation to allow us to field them, which makes me trust them accordingly.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24792
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Oct 2020, 04:26

Back on page FIVE this thread there was mention of ORANGE FLAG recently.
Orange Flag brings test data to warfighter
19 Oct 2020 2nd Lt. Christine Saunders, Air Force Test Center Public Affairs

"EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- Units from across the country converged at Edwards Air Force Base in September to execute the multi-domain, large force test series exercise known as Orange Flag. The latest feat involved a dramatic change in how test professionals engage with test data. Orange Flag is an exercise born from a need to maximize resources across air, land, sea, space and cyber domains to include joint and coalition forces. The exercise aims to bring test as close as possible to the warfighter through combat relevant testing early in the development cycle.

This iteration of the exercise integrated five land units, space and cyber capabilities and more than 40 aircraft. The test activities spanned over 40,000 square miles of California and Nevada test ranges. "Orange Flag is an opportunity for participants to integrate technology into operationally representative scenarios at any and all technology readiness levels,” said Maj. Brandon “Siphon” Burfeind, Orange Flag director. “Our goal is to disrupt traditional test timelines and expose technologies to difficult situations early and often.”...

...Notable successes in the 2020 test series include the progress made in connecting F-35 Lightning IIs directly to Army fires without human-in-the-loop intervention and the way complex kill webs are analyzed. The next Orange Flag exercise is scheduled for February 2021.

Graphic: https://media.defense.gov/2020/Oct/16/2 ... 3-0303.JPG

Source: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... arfighter/
Attachments
201016-F-FL013-0303 16col.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Previous

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests