Forum: Technology

My personal opinion is that the US cannot sustain or afford both the future NCADE system plus the future JDRADM system at this time.

Why not adapt the NCADE platform as an atmospheric (and even surface) engagement capability? That would require far less R&D, training and maintenance expenditures than procuring two totally separate next gen weapons?

If the NCADE was a total flop or was otherwise cancelled for whatever reason, then perhaps a 'poor-mans' JDRADM could be developed from the off the shelf ESSM? An EASM blk2 (evoloved active sparrow missile), with dual-mode guidance incl IR seeker from the AIM-7R program and today integrated on the SM-2 IIIB could give 175km effective range, twice the warhead size and an earlier IOC date, at significantly less R&D costs required to deliver? My 2 foxes.

F-16.net Sponsor

NCADE has no warhead.

That's Correct. And as I didn't expand too much into the proposed NCADE-Air intercept variant example; such an hypothetical system would indeed necessarily trade some space - such as a small portion of the hyper-velocity increasing, liquid-rocket-fuel section of the body and possible removal of the rocket thruster nozzle control system (that required for high-atmospheric maneuvering), e.g., in exchange for the required warhead section. Cheers-

So more development funds need to be spent? Not only that, but the NCADE is IR only and cannot do the HARM mission. You are also forgetting that the 3rd stage is not designed to engage atmospheric maneuvering targets.

Sorry, but the NCADE is not a valid A2A or A2G missile.

Oops, my bad. I was going by memory and thought the NCADE's 2nd stage was based on a new liquid fuel propellant, which is not the case as it's reportedly based on a new light-weight, long-burn solid propellant developed to enable higher velocities and longer ranges.

And true Spud, the 2nd stage Thruster control (necessary for exoatmospheric maneuvering) would likely need to be replaced (as noted above), but perhaps it could be replaced by a more conventional Thrust vectoring mechansim akin to the ESSM and/or AIM-9X?

The point of suggesting NCADE-Air Intercept variant could possibly be based on an independent in-house project conducted by Raytheon, piggy-backing on the NCADE development. The reason being is that it might be able to offer an accelerated-operational timeframe capability well before a final JDRADM selection is ever operational and thus offer a unique alternative capability in a conveniently timely manner? (say by 2015-2016)?

A follow-on block enabling SEAD/surface capes could be a possibility then, if still required. But in short, NCADE air intercept capability (against VLO and supersonic CM, via employing LW IRST triangulation) might be able to be developed on already OTS tech, ie NCADE. (e.g. data-link, propellant, range, advanced passive seeker a la improved 9x, protective nose cone, etc). But as you said, there would be requirement for a warhead which would presumably come at the expense of some propllant, e.g. 18 sec 2nd stage thrust-vectoring burn, vs the current 25 sec. burn or something, as total conjecture.

This being said, this concept could arguably be a secondary priority to a possibly even more interesting Raytheon system capable for potential evolution: an air-launched Intercept ESSM variant. A block 1 could potentially utilize the same improved 9x seeker from NCADE and associated electronics in place of ESSM's semi-active radar guidance. This hypothetical system would seem to be capable of reaching even earlier operational status than all other proposals. It should be good for 150-175km effective range (on paper at least) and furthermore has twice the warhead of the 7" AMRAAM. Passive guidance, again exploited by triangulated LW IRST targeting, would seem to offer a layer of increasingly justified, 'extended-range' intercept capability the Services just don't have. imho. Your thoughts?

The ESSM is out due to being to large (10 in diameter) and too heavy (620 lbs) to fit internally in either the F-35 or F-22.

As a pure A2A IR missile, a new NCADE 2nd stage would have some good possibilities. This idea is right inline with my first post that started this thread about GD's AIM-152 proposal.

Holy Crap!! We agree on something Wink

Wow!

Now, back to things as usual... are you sure that a 10 in dia missile with folding fins would be larger than the standard C-5 and C-7 AMRAAM w/fixed fins? In another post, once upon a time, Dwightlooi IIRC seemed to argue that ESSM would potentially fit with even more to spare? Also, how is 620 lb too heavy for F-22(?), F-35 and for discussion... F-15E and Super Hornet? Perhaps such a high-end missile of this category though would more realistically be mixed in the case of F-22, under a 2 + 4 AMRAAM class (economical Med range) load, equalling 6 total?

There may be clearance issues in regards to how they fit in the bay and the door launcher is not rated for that amount of weight.

An airborne ESSM (with an AMRAAM seeker) launch would be an insanely long shot. It would be funny to see the look on the target's face when the missile comes screaming in from over 200nm away. Imagine an F-22 (50nm away from the enemy) launching these from follow-on F-35s, it would look like a modern-day version of "Missile Command".

They would have to develop an "ejector" version of the ESSM to get it to work. Instant US AWACS/Tanker killer... oh wait, that's the F-22/35 Wink

Again, perhaps you don't need to require all 6 shots in the F-22 bay to handle ESSM's load. 2 such 'high-end' rounds could suffice, mixed with 4 properly updated AMRAAMs to fill out said F-22's load... or with regards to F-35, a 2+2 Hi-Lo configured BVR loadout. So perhaps two ESSMs could be carried internally by the F-22 and F-35 (perhaps one with the NCADE's IR seeker (plus protective nose cone) and one w/ AMRAAM's RF seeker... but definitely consider NCADE's next gen. OTS passive seeker) .

Also, probably not 200nm effective range... but more like 150-175km effective and maybe something like 200km max range for air to ground/sea engagement? Superior nonetheless and fitting the requirements for the current JDRADM.

For internal mounting roles at least, yes, they'd have to develop an ejector variant.

As far as a specific LO platform being an 'instant Killer, X,Y,Z'... it's more so the stand-off weapons employed which would qualify a platform as fulfilling such a role.

I think you are underestimating the A2A effective range of what the ESSM would be. It has over twice the propellant (370 lbs vs 166 lbs) and better coasting aerodynamics (thanks to the strakes) than the 120.

Besides, 150km is at the high end of what the 120D is likely to have as range.

Here is a thread, with lots of numbers, about an ESSM in an F-22/35.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10195.html

SpudmanWP wrote:

I think you are underestimating the A2A effective range of what the ESSM would be. It has over twice the propellant (370 lbs vs 166 lbs) and better coasting aerodynamics (thanks to the strakes) than the 120.

Besides, 150km is at the high end of what the 120D is likely to have as range.

Here is a thread, with lots of numbers, about an ESSM in an F-22/35.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10195.html

I guess I was suggesting more along the lines of NEZ range, vs a max range, etc. So depending on which definition of range we're working with with, it would be greater than the AIM-120D in relative terms, yes.

shep1978 wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Just dug this up RE: JDRADM from
http://crai.com/uploadedFiles/RELATING_ ... ograms.pdf

Quote:

SDD award ~2015
LRIP award ~2020

Should be in service well before the shambles that is the Meteor missile then.

(yes, i'm well aware Metoer is meant to be ready by 2015 but it ain't gonna happen

And the evidence for such a claim is?????

mercuriuscantab wrote:

And the evidence for such a claim is?????

Common sense is what leads me to find the Meteor so unlikely to be operational by 2015.
Hold me to it though, this forum and this thread should still be here in 5 years time so we'll wait and see...

Reaction Jets confirmed as part of JDRADM study:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009psa_mar/kloeppel.pdf

shep1978 wrote:

Common sense is what leads me to find the Meteor so unlikely to be operational by 2015.
Hold me to it though, this forum and this thread should still be here in 5 years time so we'll wait and see...

You have rather subtly moved the goalposts from the missile being ready to the missile becoming operational. The missile is likely to be ready before 2015, but whether is purchasers will defer fielding it will be another issue, and one beyond the control of MBDA.

The UK schedule calls for the missile to be available for use in 2012, but entry into operational service with the UK has been deferred to 2015 due to lack of funding for integration on Typhoon. With the UK facing the certainty of large-scale government spending cuts, that integration could slip further, given the lack of an immediate threat requiring a Meteor-level of performance.

Only five more firings still need to be done to clear it for use on Gripen. An unidentified Swedish source told Jane’s earlier this year that in an emergency it could become operational on Gripen at short notice, presumably using preproduction rounds.

Forum: Technology

Perfect JDRADM Missile