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

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 21:50

Put the NCADE front-end on an ESSM back-end
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 22:52

SpudmanWP wrote:Put the NCADE front-end on an ESSM back-end


ESSM's motor probably isn't suited for the temperatures at the
altitudes where NCADE needs to operate.

What hurt NCADE was the liquid upper stage and the Navy's allergy to liquid propellants
aboard ship.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 23:04

Maybe a CUDA frontend (with IR Seeker) and an ESSM backend?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Feb 2019, 23:42

SpudmanWP wrote:Maybe a CUDA frontend (with IR Seeker) and an ESSM backend?


Given that the Navy did not competitively award the AARGM-ER propulsion stack, I hope
that means that NG's stack is ready-ish.

I suspect CUDA would not have the divert capability at the higher altitudes.

But that doesn't mean you couldn't have two weapons: one for endo and one for exo.
As opposed to NCADE which was a THAAD-style endo/exo interceptor.
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 02:42

I don't have patience to read this thread the whole way through. But the F-35 as a anti ballistic missile platform is going to require 2 things. 1) to be close to the ballistic missile launch position, and 2) a hypersonic weapon.

Item 2 can be engineered. Item 1 depends on being deep inside enemy territory and being near the launching missile. Is an F-35 going to penetrate china and loiter near a missile launch site? No. Maybe a small nation like Iran, but Russia or China, no.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2133
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 03:30

crosshairs wrote:I don't have patience to read this thread the whole way through. But the F-35 as a anti ballistic missile platform is going to require 2 things. 1) to be close to the ballistic missile launch position, and 2) a hypersonic weapon.

Item 2 can be engineered. Item 1 depends on being deep inside enemy territory and being near the launching missile. Is an F-35 going to penetrate china and loiter near a missile launch site? No. Maybe a small nation like Iran, but Russia or China, no.


Previous discussion here and possibly in a different thread centered on the context of North Korea. Iran might also be appropos. I do not recall anyone suggesting F-35's capping Russian or Chinese missile fields. There were also some swags on how close an F-35 would have to be to have any chance whatsoever at engaging a climbing ICBM. I seem to recall the numbers were around 50-75nm of the launch site, downrange, and that an AIM-120 would have to engage somewhere in the 40-60,000 ft altitude range. HUGE swags here. Really YUGE. I think the idea was it would only make sense if there was a shooting war going on. Some aircraft might be assigned to try to CAP or OCA the missile fields whilst everyone else went hunting to try to put bombs on silos. FWIW.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2133
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 03:35

marauder2048 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Maybe a CUDA frontend (with IR Seeker) and an ESSM backend?


Given that the Navy did not competitively award the AARGM-ER propulsion stack, I hope
that means that NG's stack is ready-ish.

I suspect CUDA would not have the divert capability at the higher altitudes.

But that doesn't mean you couldn't have two weapons: one for endo and one for exo.
As opposed to NCADE which was a THAAD-style endo/exo interceptor.


I am confused by your statement I emboldened. How would miniature solid rocket motors firing transversely to the missiles longitudinal axis NOT have "divert capability"? If anything... divert motors maintain, possibly enhance, controllability and maneuverability as the air gets thinner the higher it flies. The aerodynamic effectiveness of fins and cross-body flow decrease with altitude, but divert motors should be good to go. What am I missing?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 03:37

crosshairs wrote:I don't have patience to read this thread the whole way through. But the F-35 as a anti ballistic missile platform is going to require 2 things. 1) to be close to the ballistic missile launch position, and 2) a hypersonic weapon.

Item 2 can be engineered. Item 1 depends on being deep inside enemy territory and being near the launching missile. Is an F-35 going to penetrate china and loiter near a missile launch site? No. Maybe a small nation like Iran, but Russia or China, no.



The existence and proliferation of an air-launched boost-phase interceptor might still have a pindown effect on
enemy launchers in Russia and China since they would have to treat any aircraft (say an intermittent contact)
in the vicinity of a launcher as a threat.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2133
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 03:45

marauder2048 wrote:The existence and proliferation of an air-launched boost-phase interceptor might still have a pindown effect on
enemy launchers in Russia and China since they would have to treat any aircraft (say an intermittent contact)
in the vicinity of a launcher as a threat.


I might buy what you're selling if and when the B-21 is well into service.

IMO, the problem with your statement is range -- you seem to be suggesting that F-35's could be lurking "near" Russian or Chinese missile fields that have got to be at least a 1000 miles from the nearest border or coastline. If not 1500 miles. F-35 doesn't have the gas to fly that far and orbit. Unless Skonkworks has developed and deployed a super stealth tanker. But then... why not sling the air-launched boost-phase interceptors under said super stealth tanker?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 05:59

steve2267 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Maybe a CUDA frontend (with IR Seeker) and an ESSM backend?


Given that the Navy did not competitively award the AARGM-ER propulsion stack, I hope
that means that NG's stack is ready-ish.

I suspect CUDA would not have the divert capability at the higher altitudes.

But that doesn't mean you couldn't have two weapons: one for endo and one for exo.
As opposed to NCADE which was a THAAD-style endo/exo interceptor.


I am confused by your statement I emboldened. How would miniature solid rocket motors firing transversely to the missiles longitudinal axis NOT have "divert capability"? If anything... divert motors maintain, possibly enhance, controllability and maneuverability as the air gets thinner the higher it flies. The aerodynamic effectiveness of fins and cross-body flow decrease with altitude, but divert motors should be good to go. What am I missing?


Divert velocity. The ACMs on Cuda aren't intended to achieve that as much as they are
responsiveness early and late in flight but only comparatively low in the atmosphere.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 06:31

steve2267 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The existence and proliferation of an air-launched boost-phase interceptor might still have a pindown effect on
enemy launchers in Russia and China since they would have to treat any aircraft (say an intermittent contact)
in the vicinity of a launcher as a threat.


I might buy what you're selling if and when the B-21 is well into service.

IMO, the problem with your statement is range -- you seem to be suggesting that F-35's could be lurking "near" Russian or Chinese missile fields that have got to be at least a 1000 miles from the nearest border or coastline. If not 1500 miles. F-35 doesn't have the gas to fly that far and orbit. Unless Skonkworks has developed and deployed a super stealth tanker. But then... why not sling the air-launched boost-phase interceptors under said super stealth tanker?


Or the B-2. Or any aircraft (or expendable/deception jammer simulating that aircraft) that's managed to penetrate.
Some of the interceptors that have 5 km/s Vbo and 2 km/s divert are in the 1100 lbs/14 feet length
variety which can be carried on just about anything.

But you need these interceptors to be widely proliferated for the threat to be convincing.

The argument for fast jets for boost phase intercept is that they can quickly maneuver/climb/accelerate
to shoot/and or get an improved sensor read which helps the shot and can defend themselves.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2133
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 14:45

marauder2048 wrote:
Or the B-2. Or any aircraft (or expendable/deception jammer simulating that aircraft) that's managed to penetrate.
Some of the interceptors that have 5 km/s Vbo and 2 km/s divert are in the 1100 lbs/14 feet length
variety
which can be carried on just about anything.


I am unfamiliar with any missiles around 14' in length that can do 17 Mach, not including additional divert velocity. Are these in production? Experimental / development stage? Or just on the drawing board?

I have mused about the flight portion (above the booster segment) of an SM-3 Blk IA/IB or Blk IIA fitting into an F-35 weps bay (161" or 13.4'), but think they would still be too long. Or are you writing about a CUDA or something like it atop an ESSM stage?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post27 Feb 2019, 01:00

All airborne boost phase interceptors are drawing board albeit with components or critical technologies
tested to varying degrees.

The interceptor I'm describing is from Garwin:

https://fas.org/rlg/refine.pdf

A 2 km/sec divert velocity is believed to be attainable for a KV with the NCADE upper stage
configuration; the axial propulsion velocity seems to be attainable if you hit the KV weight.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2133
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post27 Feb 2019, 01:31

marauder2048 wrote:All airborne boost phase interceptors are drawing board albeit with components or critical technologies
tested to varying degrees.

The interceptor I'm describing is from Garwin:

https://fas.org/rlg/refine.pdf

A 2 km/sec divert velocity is believed to be attainable for a KV with the NCADE upper stage
configuration; the axial propulsion velocity seems to be attainable if you hit the KV weight.


Thanks for the link. I've got a bit of reading to do now.

I must admit, I am rather dubious that something like NCADE in an AMRAAM airframe can reach 5km/s. Perhaps the ALHTK, based on a PAC-3, can get close. My ideas I have written about earlier revolved around leveraging the SM-3 Blk IIA/B, and chopping that down so that it might fit inside the F-35 weapons bays. Width-wise, it oughta fit. But even if something like a chopped SM-3 fits in an F-35... an aircraft like the B-21 with much longer weapons bays and much longer loiter times would seem to be a better airborne launch vehicle for defense of ICBM's, such as from North Korea. Then F-35's can be free to roam around and directly attack the launch sites. But even there, one probably requires the range of a B-21 to go missile hunting deep within other nation states. FWIW.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post27 Feb 2019, 09:00

It's more a JSOW-sized weapon with an NCADE upper stage though I've seen
some wild variations in Vbo even for the "classic" NCADE + AMRAAM booster stack.

I tend to think that fast jets like the F-35 might still be preferred because they are much less
reliant on offboard cues, operate in pairs so stereo ranging is there, can readily position for
a shot and can impart their higher velocity to the interceptor.

We've talked mainly about boost phase intercept but there's no reason the F-35 wouldn't
be very good in the terminal phase as well with a shortened PAC-3 MSE like interceptor.

Corbett and Zarchan have a number of studies out there on these topics; Corbett was the
NCADE program manager at MDA.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest