Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

wrightwing wrote:

Like I said, AAM seekers are only going to matter in ther terminal phase(I.e. less than 10sec to impact). Prior to that, they'll be using datalinks, INS/GPS, HOJ, and use their own seeker once well within detection range.

But my question is and I am not stating an opinion but asking a question(which geogen did answer), would a larger power source in the missile end game(i.e. terminal phase) aid in tracking a VLO craft?

How about 125nm range? Very Happy

F-16.net Sponsor

bruant328 wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

Like I said, AAM seekers are only going to matter in ther terminal phase(I.e. less than 10sec to impact). Prior to that, they'll be using datalinks, INS/GPS, HOJ, and use their own seeker once well within detection range.

But my question is and I am not stating an opinion but asking a question(which geogen did answer), would a larger power source in the missile end game(i.e. terminal phase) aid in tracking a VLO craft?

How about 125nm range? Very Happy

In the terminal phase, the missile is already within a few thousand meters, so seeker size will only provide nominal improvements(but at what trade off- agility?), and it's also getting datalink info too, assisted by GPS/INS updates.

I'll go ahead and reiterate the point I made earlier regarding VLO vs VLO fights- nobody is going to detect/track/engage at anywhere near 125nm. They'll be lucky to see each other at 20-30nm. This is why I said it's sensor limitation, not missile range, that is the deciding factor.]

With the advent of better datalinks, AAMs travel in a more arching profile to achieve max range (think AIM-120D with it's GPS based INS). Doing this will mean that they end up in the endgame (pardon the pun) attacking from above (where the RCS is the largest) instead of the front (where RCS is the smallest).

...Why not bring back the good ol' Phoenix?

geogen wrote:

Quote:

How does one conduct OCA against an adversary equipped with double digit SAMs without VLO manned aircraft?

That's a relevant question, although I personally don't like to conjecture about such detailed concepts of such nature in public - even at the hypothetical level. I'd be happy to share some developed views in private.

Look, don't take this the wrong way... but you clearly aren't about to give away anything of value. The people who actually spend all day working on these problems are so far ahead of you you can't even see them from where you are.

You act like missiles are made out of Legos and that you can just mix and match capabilities.

Once you were done replacing everything that needed to be replaced on your ESSM idea almost nothing would be left. Even the booster itself would need to be replaced with one optimized for long range flight rather than a short trip out to the horizon starting from zero altitude and zero airspeed.

This would be neither inexpensive nor quick to implement. If you wish the US would develop a super long ranged air-to-air missile, just say so, but spare us all this BS about getting one on the cheap by adapting a totally unsuitable missile to the job.

Quote:

There is a whole list of good reasons why the air forces of the world aren't flying around with giant air-to-air missiles under their wings and it sure as heck isn't because nobody thought of it.

Quote:

imho, some of the more significant reasons for this is that 1) such capabilities are extremely expensive and not readily affordable by many air forces to begin with and 2) the technology just hasn't been mature enough at an affordable level, to give such systems an effective pK value.

I guess the argument however would be that fairly reliable and effective technology/components are either available today, or applicable tech under development. A near-term platform such as an upgraded F-15E (F-22 escorter) comes to mind, with long-range sensing (APG-82/LW IRST) and data-linking being more practical in such engagements.

Ok, look, you are clueless. In your opinion today's technology is ready to develop such a missile? Based on what?

The simple fact is that while people have been kicking around concepts for very long ranged missiles since the 50s, nobody has ever been able to get them to work in a cost effective way.

People have thrown out huge missiles, ram-jet powered missiles, and even missile concepts not unlike the SS-N-27b where a turbo-jet powered cruise stage carries a short range missile near its target before launch.

You act like this is some brilliant idea you just came up with. This is something countless billions of dollars have been spent working on for many decades.

The bottom line is that it is an extremely complex and expensive problem to solve with a missile. You end up with giant, extremely expensive, missiles that are very difficult to employ effectively in the real world and that don't honestly offer that much.

It CAN be done, but think of it as something more on par with an air launched ASAT weapon. It would not be cheap or easy to develop, and the resulting missiles would be too huge and expensive for regular use.

Even the Meteor isn't about extending its maximum employment range nearly so much as it is about improving its capabilities in more challenging geometries and reducing its time of flight.

Quote:

With regards to the question of developing, assembling and integrating actual capabilities into various modified missile bodies in existence today... that is arguably more of a doctrinal-related point and not related to it being technologically plausible. And of course, doctrines and paradigms do shift, across the services.

Um, no this isn't about doctrines. This is about technology. You can't just mix and match capabilities to build a super weapon and you certainly can't do it on the cheap.

Oh, please, please, PM or email me with your secrets of how aerial warfare can be conducted.

Either post it here or get out. Stop acting like you have secret info when your other posts out you as an outsider from the mainstream of modern thought on aerial warfare.

Quote:

shabah_cactus
..Why not bring back the good ol' pheonix?

I'm guessing you're speaking with your tongue in cheek there, but on the off chance you're not...
The AiM-54 Phoenix was specific to the F-14 Tomcat and it's AN/AWG-9 Radar (and latter the F-14D's AN/APG-71 radar). The AiM-54 Phoenix won't work without that radar (or for that matter any other aircraft see http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/we ... 24.shtml).
There was a proposed Advanced Air to Air Missile or AAAM whose goal was to replace the Phoenix with something that could be carried on many different aircraft not just the F-14. But with the USAF lack of interest and the cancellation of the F-14 (and thus, any advanced derivatives) the AAAM, also known as the AiM-152 never went anywhere and was also canceled. Doh

OK, I've allowed this topic to remain in the F-22 Forum even though the discussion has little to do with the Raptor. So while it's here, let's simmer down some of the temper that's starting to brew.

I Copy that, Scorpion1alpha, thanks for the interesting discussion here.

Shingen/Hobo, thanks. I greatly respect your obvious expertise, service and experiences. I'll just say that, contrary to any quick knee-jerk assessment to any of my own personal opinions and support for various alternatives I discuss, no I don't claim to have some magical all-knowing 'best case scenario' view points.

I have my convictions as the best of us, that is clear, but my convictions are only based on personal critical assessments which would accept any plausible alternative (be it modified ESSM for F-22/F-35 or another design). As for one guys assessments and reasoning over another guys.. well to begin with, there is never an absolute right or wrong and even the biggest official support behind one project or another can be reversed eventually for something else, after tons of work and investment spent.

Anyway, yes Hobo, I perfectly realize that there would be plenty of development work ahead to integrate various off the shelf components into a modified ESSM airframe... including the recalibrated booster. And I understand it would not be cheap or free, sorry if that was being implied. However, I would have supported starting this accelerated project 2-3 yrs ago and I would still argue that such a mid-term advanced capability could be fielded, less complex than and prior to JDRADM and at significantly less cost. That is my opinion as I have stated it. And I feel it would be a rational 'hedge' and insurance, as well as potential for an over-lapping mid-term asymmetrical capability.

Perhaps NCADE-derived tech could be utilized? An initial variant could include he improved 9x seeker and a derivative of the uplink? GPS/inertial would be a given. Follow-on software mods could allow for ground tgt engagement utilizing a warhead larger than AMRAAM? Later variants could include a larger 180-190mm aperture mmW seeker in addition to increased peak power to enable superior detection performance vs LO objects? NEZ range could be 25%+ greater than AIM-120D?

And as it pertains to true multi-mission "Long Range" capability utilizing today's (and near-term) unprecedented technologies including powerful AESA, precise geolocating RWR and LW IRST... sure, I would support that camp of thought as well to equip future F-22/F-35 upgrades to employ these as well. One obvious off the shelf airframe which could possibly be modified, could include the 2nd stage main body of RIM-174. Not 500nm range but such systems could give perhaps double NEZ range of AIM-120D as well as double AGM-88. (note: this conjecture would be better for another thread of course (e.g., Modern military aircraft future weapons, etc) as it would not replace AMRAAM class).

And in closing, shingen, I will present to you in a day or two via PM, some hypothetical tactics and and capabilities with regards to how other non-LO aircraft (as a plan B to operational F-35s being available by 2017/2018) could effectively participate in your future scenario (e.g., in extreme case, as a retaliatory counter-strike deterrence, or vs renegade force). Note: scenarios would of course involve the coordinated involvement of multi-mission F-22 and other hypothetical plan b capabilities as substitute to F-35. Respects.

With the continued development of AMRAAM (beyond even the D), the upcoming JDRADM, and the increased time it would take to develop a whole new missile..... What gap in capability are you trying to fill?

Geogen, could you explain why do you think the USAF need another AA missile development?

Quote:

Geogen, could you explain why do you think the USAF need another AA missile development?

As near as I can tell he thinks bigger missiles are cool.

This is a classic case of a solution in want of a problem. The US already has the gold-standard for BVR missiles.

It does not need an interim missile, especially one that would be too large and specialized to serve as a proper AMRAAM replacement.

As near as I can tell he just likes daydreaming about how various systems could be adapted to do things they were never intended to without worrying about what is actually possible in the real world...

Quote:

Perhaps NCADE-derived tech could be utilized? An initial variant could include he improved 9x seeker and a derivative of the uplink? GPS/inertial would be a given. Follow-on software mods could allow for ground tgt engagement utilizing a warhead larger than AMRAAM? Later variants could include a larger 180-190mm aperture mmW seeker in addition to increased peak power to enable superior detection performance vs LO objects? NEZ range could be 25%+ greater than AIM-120D?

This is a perfect example.

What about this makes sense?

The NCADE is designed to kill boosting ballistic missiles in near space. Its warhead has been removed and replaced with a second stage kill vehicle designed to operate in the extreme upper atmosphere.

Now you want to shoot it at ground targets? What the heck would be the point of that? Why shoot a million dollar warhead-less missile at a ground target?

And you think a later mod could add a warhead larger than that on the AMRAAM?! How the heck do you figure you could fit that in? The only way they fit the kill vehicle onto the NCADE in the first place was by removing the warhead, now you think you can fit in an even larger warhead?

What good do you think a larger warhead would do anyway? It would still be poorly suited and too expensive for ground targets and it isn't like a larger warhead would do any good against a towed decoy. In most cases a missile won't even fuse as it passes a decoy and even if it did the decoy will be too far from the aircraft for any reasonably sized warhead to be effective. Don't forget that towed decoys have done all of their work to date against radar guided SAMs, essentially all of which have larger warheads than you will ever fit onto an AMRAAM sized missile.

Then you want to add a MMW seeker? WTF!? Do you have any idea how complex and expensive it would be to try to add a MMW seeker to an IR guided kill vehicle sitting on top of an AMRAAM booster?

Finally, how do you figure the NEZ would increase at all, let alone increase by any specific amount? NCADE is designed to operate against boosting missiles in the upper atmosphere... not maneuvering fighters. Nothing about the range figures of the NCADE are applicable to air-breathing targets.

Quote:

One obvious off the shelf airframe which could possibly be modified, could include the 2nd stage main body of RIM-174.

Huh? What about that is "obvious" to you?

Last edited by wrightwing on Feb 25, 2011 - 04:31 PM; edited 1 time in total

Another issue with these bigger missiles, is that you're either going to carry fewer of them, or you'll have to carry them externally(giving up stealthy advantages). Secondly, what good does it do to have missiles with considerably more range, than an enemy target can be detected? Thirdly, with limited budgets, why do you want to take money from the JDRADM program, to develop something less capable?

hobo wrote:

Quote:

Geogen, could you explain why do you think the USAF need another AA missile development?

As near as I can tell he thinks bigger missiles are cool.

This is a classic case of a solution in want of a problem. The US already has the gold-standard for BVR missiles.

It does not need an interim missile, especially one that would be too large and specialized to serve as a proper AMRAAM replacement.

As near as I can tell he just likes daydreaming about how various systems could be adapted to do things they were never intended to without worrying about what is actually possible in the real world...

Quote:

Perhaps NCADE-derived tech could be utilized? An initial variant could include he improved 9x seeker and a derivative of the uplink? GPS/inertial would be a given. Follow-on software mods could allow for ground tgt engagement utilizing a warhead larger than AMRAAM? Later variants could include a larger 180-190mm aperture mmW seeker in addition to increased peak power to enable superior detection performance vs LO objects? NEZ range could be 25%+ greater than AIM-120D?

This is a perfect example.

What about this makes sense?

The NCADE is designed to kill boosting ballistic missiles in near space. Its warhead has been removed and replaced with a second stage kill vehicle designed to operate in the extreme upper atmosphere.

Now you want to shoot it at ground targets? What the heck would be the point of that? Why shoot a million dollar warhead-less missile at a ground target?

And you think a later mod could add a warhead larger than that on the AMRAAM?! How the heck do you figure you could fit that in? The only way they fit the kill vehicle onto the NCADE in the first place was by removing the warhead, now you think you can fit in an even larger warhead?

What good do you think a larger warhead would do anyway? It would still be poorly suited and too expensive for ground targets and it isn't like a larger warhead would do any good against a towed decoy. In most cases a missile won't even fuse as it passes a decoy and even if it did the decoy will be too far from the aircraft for any reasonably sized warhead to be effective. Don't forget that towed decoys have done all of their work to date against radar guided SAMs, essentially all of which have larger warheads than you will ever fit onto an AMRAAM sized missile.

Then you want to add a MMW seeker? WTF!? Do you have any idea how complex and expensive it would be to try to add a MMW seeker to an IR guided kill vehicle sitting on top of an AMRAAM booster?

Finally, how do you figure the NEZ would increase at all, let alone increase by any specific amount? NCADE is designed to operate against boosting missiles in the upper atmosphere... not maneuvering fighters. Nothing about the range figures of the NCADE are applicable to air-breathing targets.

Quote:

One obvious off the shelf airframe which could possibly be modified, could include the 2nd stage main body of RIM-174.

Huh? What about that is "obvious" to you?

The whole point of all the speculation is that what is being proposed is:

1. Not F-35
2. Not JDRADM
3. Not 120D
4. Has nothing to do with the reality of defense procurement.
5. So much smarter than what the "idiots" who work at the Pentagon, LM, etc do

shingen wrote:

The whole point of all the speculation is that what is being proposed is:

1. Not F-35
2. Not JDRADM
3. Not 120D
4. Has nothing to do with the reality of defense procurement.
5. So much smarter than what the "idiots" who work at the Pentagon, LM, etc do

Exactly! It's as if he thinks that none of his concerns have occurred to anyone in the DOD, be it recapitalization, current/projected threats, spiral upgrades, US weapon capabilities(current/projected), etc....

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

AMRAAM/HARM Replacement