Budget victim: Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile

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

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1487
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 00:06

"Funding for the next-generation missile was “removed from the budget” owing to “affordability” demands, says Marilyn Thomas, deputy budget director for the Air Force. The weapon, once dubbed the Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile, was intended to merge the functionality of two workhorse weapons: the Raytheon AIM-120 series for medium-range attack (aka, the Amraam series) with that of the anti-radiation HARM missiles designed to destroy air defense sites.

The service has long contended a single weapon is needed to do both of these missions in order to maximize the use of the small weapons bays of the stealthy F-22 and forthcoming F-35 fighter."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ,%20Bomber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9821
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 00:14

Interesting slant from above article:

"...Meanwhile, the Air Force decreased its planned buy of F-35As from 24 to 19 aircraft for fiscal 2013; this is up one from 18 approved in the fiscal 2012 budget.

The Navy, however, is boosting its buy of F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions from three in fiscal 2012 to six in the 2013 request. This increase was made possible by progress from Lockheed Martin and the government program office in tackling a host of F-35B development problems that plagued the flight test effort in 2010. Those problems prompted then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates to put the variant on “probation” pending a turnaround.

The U.S. Navy, meanwhile, is keeping its buy of carrier variants to four aircraft in 2013. This brings the total F-35 procurement request in fiscal 2013 to 29 at $6.15 billion, substantially lower than Lockheed Martin had hoped for early in the program. Research and development is slated to continue at nearly $2.7 billion between the two services in fiscal 2013...."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 01:33

A BVR and WVR missile have different parameters needed to be good and those are different than what an ARM needs. Is this surprising?

Also, how good is the 120D? Do we really need JDRADM?
Offline

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 01:46

AIM-120D is good, but JDRADM was to be optimized from the start to fit into internal bays and be superior in terms of kinematic performance and range.

All of the technologies involved with JDRADM were relatively well matured so I seriously don't see why this program was axed so easily.

It would have the ability to perform quite well in both BVR and WVR ranges and its selectively aimed warhead would have helped against a multitude of targets including ground-based radars. It's a shame that such an available advancement in technology is once again axed.
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 01:59

How much $ to finish the program?

How much per missile?
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 814
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 02:29

I almost started screaming at my computer when I read this. -120D is good, sure, but a) it's probably an interim until JDRADM and b) can it also nail SAM sites??
Offline

popcorn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2876
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 02:54

I was expecting this when I'd read that it was a candidate to be cut. It would have been an advantage being carried internally. So we can look forward to AMRAAM undergoing enhancement with a longer range and multiple impulse motor and who knows what else. The E variant of the AGM 88 is actually a very advanced and capable missile supporting 2-way data links and an active mmW seeker.ll
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 03:01

I think that this is a case where the requirement survives but the project didn't.
In that case I think that a similar project with similar goals will pick up and move on in the future.
Since the budget is out of easy fat to cut there is only meat left.
JDRADM must have been sacrificed to keep the destination platform alive.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 06:23

shingen wrote:A BVR and WVR missile have different parameters needed to be good and those are different than what an ARM needs. Is this surprising?

Also, how good is the 120D? Do we really need JDRADM?


If you don't mind F-35s flying into the teeth of an IADN with fat AGM-88s on the external wing stations, then no, you don't.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 11:23

I guess this is a result of the SDB 2 doing so well in testing. I wonder if they can fit 4 aim120's + 4 SDB internally in the future though.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1578
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post15 Feb 2012, 05:27

Salute!

The seeker/missile form fit is not a problem, but I can't speak to the warhead size specifically. So I see the program back on its feet in a year or so.

We had "home on jam" missiles 40 years ago besides the Shrike and STD ARM. We even used IR missiles like the AIM-4 to hit campfires in the 'nam era. Imagine that?

Without the "statement of work" to look at, it's hard to see what the problems could be.

My own experience in the business is that DoD keeps changing the specs and "requirements" after the programs are in progress.

Many classified details to understand, so I won't go any further.

Gums sends...

P.S. For those still interested in the "Thumper Buster" ( a means of zapping those dudes with the 140 dB thumping speakers next to you at a traffic signal), maybe we could develop a mini-missile with a modified iPod seeker. I still prefer a focused RF beam that introduces the same 140 dB into the system as we saw in "Back to the Future", heh heh.
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

destroid

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2011, 11:20

Unread post15 Feb 2012, 05:47

Interesting, does this mean the Euros will be able to lay claim to best BVR missile in the Meteor?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 9821
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀

Unread post15 Feb 2012, 05:54

"Gums sends...
P.S. For those still interested in the "Thumper Buster" ( a means of zapping those dudes with the 140 dB thumping speakers next to you at a traffic signal), maybe we could develop a mini-missile with a modified iPod seeker. I still prefer a focused RF beam that introduces the same 140 dB into the system as we saw in "Back to the Future", heh heh."

I want to see a 'CONE of SILENCE' GizMo to use on all those doods talking to themselves loudly (yeah yeah talking on mobile phones) in inappropriate places (use youse imagination/creativity/experience). GET SMART seemed to have a good working prototype for said "Cone". :D

Fahgeddabout the 'shoe fone' idea though. Will never work - pong attack! :twisted:
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1501
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post15 Feb 2012, 15:10

munny wrote:I guess this is a result of the SDB 2 doing so well in testing. I wonder if they can fit 4 aim120's + 4 SDB internally in the future though.


As soon as the 3 AIM-120s per bay get funded, yeah. 3 AIM-120s in one bay and 1 AIM-120 with 4 SDBs in the other.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4631
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Feb 2012, 16:53

Personally, I am not too worried about the delay in NGM funding.

With the delay in F-35 IOC, the timeline for the need for NGM is also pushed to the right.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests