Lockheed Martin reveal hypersonic weapon for F-35

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5443
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 May 2019, 02:33

gc wrote:Have the Navy considered slinging a SM-6 under the F-35 wing for near term anti-air and surface capability? They can get a Mach 3.5 missile with a range way greater than 250nm (this is the surface launched range) with some software tweaks i suppose.


No. It's a horrible idea.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post08 May 2019, 02:52

marauder2048 wrote:Or the inlet design is proprietary (3D?) and they don't want to share it.

As far as i know, HSSW is a different program
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2334
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 May 2019, 02:58

garrya wrote:
madrat wrote:I really thought we'd see hypersonic weapons more akin to rocketpacks by now. INS with DU tips and delayed fuses. Hitting from 20km at Mach 5+ to crack concrete bunkers wide open on the cheap.

a small DU dart will be fairly ineffective against bunker


A tiny hole to insert the delayed fuse package is actually quite sound. The over-pressure then near instant partial vacuum effects of a contained explosion would clean a bunker out.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5443
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 May 2019, 03:52

madrat wrote:
garrya wrote:
madrat wrote:I really thought we'd see hypersonic weapons more akin to rocketpacks by now. INS with DU tips and delayed fuses. Hitting from 20km at Mach 5+ to crack concrete bunkers wide open on the cheap.

a small DU dart will be fairly ineffective against bunker


A tiny hole to insert the delayed fuse package is actually quite sound. The over-pressure then near instant partial vacuum effects of a contained explosion would clean a bunker out.


A Mach 5 SDB.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 May 2019, 04:04

eloise wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Or the inlet design is proprietary (3D?) and they don't want to share it.

As far as i know, HSSW is a different program



It is. My point was that they aren't showing you much of the inlet there either.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 May 2019, 09:13

sferrin wrote:
madrat wrote:
madrat wrote:I really thought we'd see hypersonic weapons more akin to rocketpacks by now. INS with DU tips and delayed fuses. Hitting from 20km at Mach 5+ to crack concrete bunkers wide open on the cheap.

A tiny hole to insert the delayed fuse package is actually quite sound. The over-pressure then near instant partial vacuum effects of a contained explosion would clean a bunker out.


A Mach 5 SDB.



Depends on what impact velocity the penetrator can survive. Previously, practical penetrator designs were
limited to ~ 4000 fps but I swear that I read something about Sandia reliably hitting 5000 fps with some new materials.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post08 May 2019, 10:45

sferrin wrote:
gc wrote:Have the Navy considered slinging a SM-6 under the F-35 wing for near term anti-air and surface capability? They can get a Mach 3.5 missile with a range way greater than 250nm (this is the surface launched range) with some software tweaks i suppose.


No. It's a horrible idea.

Why is it horrible?
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 265
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post08 May 2019, 14:44

SM-6 is some 3x heavier than even an AIM-54, and that's not even considering the weight of a hypothetical carriage solution. It's an utter nonstarter.

Not even going to get into the engineering, logistical, and certification challenges that would suddenly make this a not-very-quick-and-cheap idea. Oh yeah, and in a world where saturation is ever more the name of the game, you want to bank on a deployment scheme that is anything but conducive to it?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 May 2019, 16:02

SM-6 is listed at 3300lbs but that likely included the booster which would not be needed for airborne use.

Whatever is left over is well within the weight limits of the inner pylon of any F-35 (5k lbs).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post08 May 2019, 16:19

Just a question. Do they still have black weapon programs and procurement?
Aussie fanboy
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 May 2019, 16:38

What is this "black program" you speak of? :roll:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5443
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 May 2019, 16:49

SpudmanWP wrote:SM-6 is listed at 3300lbs but that likely included the booster which would not be needed for airborne use.

Whatever is left over is well within the weight limits of the inner pylon of any F-35 (5k lbs).


It's definitely sans-booster (you could even put a twin launcher on the inboard pylons) but it's still a terrible idea. Lots of money and not much capability in this role. A LRASM would be far superior in every regard but speed.
"There I was. . ."
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 May 2019, 19:25

well, LRASM can't hit a plane or missile/rocket.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5443
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 May 2019, 19:30

SpudmanWP wrote:well, LRASM can't hit a plane or missile/rocket.


True. And in that regard (at least conceptually) an SM-6 minus booster might not be a bad Band-Aid for anti-air. (Assuming smaller, 2-stage, weapons are off the table.)

To attack a ship though, LRASM would be the better choice.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post09 May 2019, 04:35

which is better
Image
Image
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: f-15c85-0114 and 5 guests