F-35s Could Shoot Down North Korean Missiles

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

wolfpak

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 02:43

There are two TPY-2 (aka Tippy 2) radars in Japan to monitor North Korea. These are the same as those in a THAAD battery but configured for early warning. The THAAD battery in Korea also has one. These three should provide the early warning. If you are close enough to a launch site to use a AMRAAM then the shooting war has already started and it would be easier to use a JDAM to take out a missile on a TEL before launch. Here is the best site on the web for this type of info: https://mostlymissiledefense.com/

The TPY-2 can be used to provide the info for a cruiser or destroyer to fire a SM-3 or SM-6. The mode of operation is noted as "Launch on Remote." Don't forget any missile headed to CONUS will be fired with a northward trajectory to reduce the energy required to reach the target so the intercepts of these missiles would occur over China or Russia.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1679
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 03:33

The ability of the PRNK to manufacture nuclear weapons and long range precision missiles is all conspiracy theory.

With the latest launch the Chinese have gone full tilt propaganda machine to prepare their country for war. The PRNK is considered a puppet regime for good reason.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1113
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 04:08

I lost your reasoning there...
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

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1679
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 06:59

Marxist leadership isn't meant to be understood. They prefer to be feared.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3793
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 07:45

I have little doubt that under the right conditions the F-35 could shoot down a North Korean ICBM. Yet, that would be an extremely narrow window. Basically, you would have to be in the right place at the right time. So, while it's possible that hardly makes it practical.....


In short the F-35 would be far more useful. In taking out such missiles sites. Before they could launch their missiles in the first place!

"IMHO"
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Dec 2017, 20:28

Newly Revealed Experiment Shows How F-35 Could Help Intercept ICBMs
06 Dec 2017 Patrick Tucker

"In 2014, the sensor-studded plane demonstrated an ability to track missiles, leading to a “tactically significant” improvement in targeting.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., raised more than a few eyebrows (and drew a few rolled eyes) when he suggested in November that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could intercept North Korean missiles headed for the United States. Hunter cited analysis from Los Alamos National Labs and other sources, according to Inside Defense.

Turns out the F-35 may be an ICBM buster after all, or at least be helpful toward that end. On Tuesday, Northrop Grumman called a small group of journalists to its offices in Linthicum, Maryland, to show the results of a 2014 experiment conducted with the Missile Defense Agency, or MDA.

The U.S. has no foolproof way to down a North Korean ICBM. Physics says the best opportunity comes during “boost phase,” as the rocket is leaving the launch pad. But DPRK anti-aircraft defenses make it difficult for the U.S. to get a weapon close enough to do any good. That’s why the Pentagon is looking at elaborate, futuristic concepts like arming drones with missile-killing lasers.

But the F-35 is studded with sensors like no other aircraft, including the Distributed Aperture System, or DAS, a half-dozen 17-pound electro-optical and infrared sensors. These feed a helmet-mounted display that allows the pilot to effectively “see through the plane” and spot incoming aircraft and missiles.

In October 2014, Northrop and MDA launched FTX-20, an experiment to see, among other things, whether the DAS could track an enemy ICBM. They took data from the sensors, ran it through algorithms developed by Northrop and MDA’s Enterprise Sensor Lab, generated a 3D-moving picture of the missile’s trajectory, and conveyed it over the Link 16 tactical data exchange. This kind of targeting data can help cue the U.S. Navy’s anti-ballistic missile destroyers or short- and intermediate-range missile defenses like the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, missile battery deployed in South Korea.

The F-35 sensors aren’t meant to replace the infrared satellites that detect launches, or the sea-based X-Band Radar that can feed targeting data about missile launches to destroyers. Rather, Northrop officials said, the DAS data would help the other missile-defense gear get a targeting track on a missile more quickly, improving the odds of nailing the shot.

“That information can go straight to the Patriot [missile system], THAAD, or anywhere else, who has communication with that platform,” John “Bama” Montgomery, a business development manager at Northrop’s ISR & Targeting Division, said on Tuesday. “You can give that information to a shooter. That shooter now has information to go and put his information in the right place. Thus the radar doesn’t have to search. It goes, ‘I know where it is; it’s right there.’”

The end result is a “tactically significant” improvement in targeting, Montgomery said. Just how significant? It took several years to figure that out, and that’s one reason why the news is only being released now. “We wanted to get our understanding of how this could change the battlefield. We’ve since done a series of modeling and [simulation] events and teamed with other governmental partners and industry.” Those numbers, he said, are classified. But: “I can tell you right now that this system, as depicted here, really does help the ballistic missile environment.”"

Source: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... ms/144365/

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

usnvo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 01:15

Corsair1963 wrote:I have little doubt that under the right conditions the F-35 could shoot down a North Korean ICBM. Yet, that would be an extremely narrow window. Basically, you would have to be in the right place at the right time. So, while it's possible that hardly makes it practical.....


In short the F-35 would be far more useful. In taking out such missiles sites. Before they could launch their missiles in the first place!

"IMHO"


Well, if you were looking for missile launchers, you would be, pretty much by definition, in the right place at the right time. If you can kill it before it launches, so much the better. But, if you detect the launcher by the smoke trail of the missile, being able to detect and kill the missile shortly after launch has great utility as well, especially if the capability can be had for very minimal investment.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4337
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 02:48

wolfpak wrote:If you are close enough to a launch site to use a AMRAAM then the shooting war has already started and it would be easier to use a JDAM to take out a missile on a TEL before launch.


That'd be a good way to get a war STARTED. An F-35 patroling just outside NK airspace would be close enough to close the distance and launch against a boosting ICBM. Now if they had these they might have a better chance:

ALI1.jpg


ALI2.jpg


ALI3.jpg


These pictures are from 2005.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post08 Dec 2017, 02:55

Another DAS video from a few years ago:
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
Offline

barrelnut

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2015, 00:05

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 18:04

I'm wondering if the future long-range engagement weapon (LREW) will also have ABM mission, if it truly is a two stage missile it could be a successor for both AMRAAM and NCADE.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-442816/

Image
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Dec 2017, 23:33

If they were smart, they would slap a booster on a CUDA/SACM and cover the Short, Medium, and long-range engagements with a common front end.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19366
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 04:29

This story mentions a five minute window after launch for shoot down:
The F-35 could intercept a North Korean missile launch -- but it could bring an all-out war
08 Dec 2017 Alex Lockie

"...But before a ICBM accelerates to Mach 13, it takes off the launchpad & lurches [wut?] up to speed & the entire missile, warhead, & all is together in a single target. At that point, why not shoot it down with an air-to-air missile from an F-35?

The F-35 as a missile interceptor
The US Air Force has had air-to-air missiles that lock on to hot, flying targets for decades, and an ICBM is essentially that in its first stage. And it's not just a theory. In 2007, Lockheed Martin got $US3 million to look into an air-to-air hit-to-kill missile system. In 2014, a test seemed to prove the concept....

...Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was more open to speculating about why the Pentagon hadn't gone through with missile intercepting planes. "Very simple, what we're trying to do is shoot [air-to-air missiles] off F-35s in the first 300 seconds it takes for the missile to go up in the air," Hunter said during a November meeting on Capitol Hill with the Missile Defence Advocacy Alliance, Inside Defence noted. Hunter also pointed out that in some places, North Korea is just 75 miles across, well within the F-35's missile range, Aviation Week notes....

Source: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/f-35- ... 00920.html
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: 1113
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 05:32

IMO, the journalist who wrote that story did no follow-up with any technical folks, nor applied any critical thinking to the statements by the Honorable Mr. Hunter. And I don't think Mr. Hunter knows what he is talking about, technically. That is, I wouldn't trust any numbers from the fellow.

In my opinion, an ICBM is going to climb out faster than an Atlas V 401, the single-core version of the Atlas V without any solid rocket strapons. The Atlas V 401 reaches Max-Q (Mach 1.6ish) around 90 seconds after launch and is at 42,000 ft. By four minutes after launch, the Atlas V 401 is nominally at 370,000ft. Realistically, I think one only has about two, maybe three minutes to intercept that ICBM with an AIM-120 or any other currently fielded A2A missile.

For the curious, see p.19 of http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_li ... .guide.pdf
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

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1113
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 05:50

I think it's more challenging than what I just stated. I think the time to intercept is two minutes max, after that, the missile will be too high.

Question: just how high do you think an AIM-120 could intercept a missile? 70,000ft? 100,000ft? Higher?

P.3 of the PDF at this link: http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/block4/4.5_NMD_01a.pdf
4.5_NMD_01a.pdf
(517.13 KiB) Downloaded 9 times
provides some trajectory data from the old Titan II ICMB. It has what looks to be a nominal trajectory on the left, and a "fast-burn" trajectory on the right.

At 60 sec the "standard" Titan II is at 10km altitude (~32000 ft), and the "fast-burn" Titan II is at 18km altitude (58,000 ft). By two minutes standard is at 52km altitude and fast-burn is at 84km altitude. I recall reading that the old AIM-54 Phoenix flew a ballistic intercept trajectory where it went up to around 100,000 ft. Does the AIM-120 go that high? And that would be near the midpoint, not at the end-game of an intercept.

The Titan II is probably a reasonable first-cut guestimate of the performance of an NK ICBM, assuming the NORK rockets are burning UDMH + nitrogen tetroxide and are not solid propellant, which would climbout even faster. Therefore, I don't think an F-35 has but two minutes from ICBM motor ignition to effect an intercept.
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

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1113
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Dec 2017, 06:03

From the PDF in my previous post, this graphic suggests that any F-35 CAP would have to be uncomfortably close to China and/or Russia, if not over one or the other in order to simplify the intercept problem as much as possible (i.e. make it more of a 2D intercept problem than a fully 3D crossing intercept.)

NORK_ballistic_trajectory.PNG
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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests