Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind, few.

Take a SAM and make it an AAM, take an ABM and make it an AAM. How about just take an AAM?

F-16.net Sponsor

OK gents, thanks for the interesting discussion and the well articulated replies. I can tell at least one poster had a little fun too in responding, lol. All is fair.

I'd just like to make a few clarifications on alternative hypothetical AMRAAM/HARM replacement (supplemental) developments.

Quote:

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

I guess the main considerations and basis behind the viewpoints are to provide a potential 'hedge' in the development pipeline, even with a partial capability in dual-role comparison - in case JDRADM e.g, is deemed too complex, not effective and/or too expensive by the budget and policymakers that be, in the next 5+ yrs. Another hedge would be if indeed, an interim capability (available prior to a potentially delayed or cancelled JDRADM) and specialized more for A-A role was required to more effectively counter newly emerging tech 'developments' which were potentially not fully appreciated or understood when AMRAAM's replacement plan was initially planned.

Quote:

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

In some roles such as w/ future extended range mission requirements and with capacity for greater detection against future high-value threats/trgts and their respective counter-measures; bigger could actually be seen as more practical and potentially provide for more flexible upgrades and roles... not as cool.

Quote:

What about this makes sense? The NCADE is designed to... Its warhead has been removed and... Now you want to shoot it at ground targets? ... And... a later mod could add a warhead larger than that on the AMRAAM?! How the heck do you... fit that in? The only way they fit the kill vehicle onto the NCADE in the first place was by removing the...

Sorry ... the implication in regards to that example was that potential 'NCADE-DERIVED' tech might be able to migrate into and utilized in such an hypothetically evolved ESSM airframe (or other frame), especially if they are all of the same manufacturers lines of products and tech.

Quote:

Then... add a MMW seeker? ... 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

As above.. no such dual-mode seeker intended for NCADE, rather a hypothesized 'follow-on block' variant of said advocated (what I would classify as an MMM- multi-mission missile) missile could be conceived with a large aperture mmW seeker. One goal contemplated; to possibly employ improved A-A performance vs next-gen LO capes and tactics and vs engagements at greater ranges wherein data-link-update-dependence for engagements could be reduced too.

With a claimed 50 g limit and thrust-vectoring, coupled with recalibrated booster motor as discussed... I'm just in a camp of thought pondering the feasibility and reasoning justifying it (or similar type) and supporting a rigorous evaluation of the concept only.

Respects.

Ah, so we are indeed back to the ESSM again... lovely.

The kill vehicle concept of the NCADE is to give it the ability to kill ballistic missiles. It has zero applicability to hitting air breathing or surface targets.

NCADE by itself is an expensive and challenging program. Now you want to develop something similar with a wish list of next generation technologies as well?

A maneuvering kill vehicle with a multi-mode seeker and a warhead? Ignoring the kill vehicle part for a moment... How many air-to-air missiles do you see out there with multi-mode seekers? Do you not realize that that by itself is a very very complex problem to solve?

The bottom line is that you are proposing an incredibly technically challenging missile, incomprehensibly based off a naval SAM optimized for short range low altitude shots topped with a kill vehicle optimized for operation at the edge of space.

WTF? That is like proposing putting a Ferrari engine in a tractor because you want a fast boat.

You have some of the right ideas. The Air Force DOES want a longer-ranged, higher-speed missile that is capable of effectively engaging both air breathing and surface targets. The difference is that they seem to appreciate just how hard that will be to make. That is why they have been conducting R&D relevant to these requirements for years... and even so they may be reaching too far.

The last thing they need is to launch a competing program based on an unworkable concept.

hobo wrote:

Ah, so we are indeed back to the ESSM again... lovely.

Heh, you expected otherwise? Laughing

But here's an idea. Why not take a Pheonix missile, strap an SRB from a space shuttle on it, a warhead from a gbu-28 and use the hubble space telescope technology for the seeker. Paint a red go faster stripe on it too and voila, you have the ultimate air to air missile. Could be done in 2 years and all for under a 100 bucks. The Voyager spacecraft will be the launch vehicle.

Joking aside I gave up with it all as its pointless to argue with dreamers over unnecessary and ridiculous fantasy missiles.

Actually, I have an idea for a missile.

You would just take a Pershing missile, adapt it to be air launched, and replace its warhead/guidance section with a payload compartment. Inside that compartment would be an AIM-9x, a HARM, a NCADE, and a SDB. When you shot the missile it would race out to the target area, and then open up releasing its sub-munitions. The appropriate missile/bomb would then go on to kill the target.

Why hasn't the Air Force done this already? What a bunch of idiots they must be!

geogen wrote:

I guess the main considerations and basis behind the viewpoints are to provide a potential 'hedge' in the development pipeline, even with a partial capability in dual-role comparison - in case JDRADM e.g, is deemed too complex, not effective and/or too expensive by the budget and policymakers that be, in the next 5+ yrs. Another hedge would be if indeed, an interim capability (available prior to a potentially delayed or cancelled JDRADM) and specialized more for A-A role was required to more effectively counter newly emerging tech 'developments' which were potentially not fully appreciated or understood when AMRAAM's replacement plan was initially planned.

Sorry geogen, but this doesn't make any sense.
1. Starting expensive development is a good way to put JDRADM project into trouble: "Another hedge would be if indeed, an interim capability (available prior to a potentially delayed or cancelled JDRADM)"
You can't have 10 advanced AAM development projects going on in the same time. I think you know the best that there is not enough money for that.

2. And what about that: "equired to more effectively counter newly emerging tech 'developments' which were potentially not fully appreciated or understood when AMRAAM's replacement plan was initially planned."? I don't know if I understand you, but do you think the AIM-120C/D does not deliver enough capability, and the USAF should develop something better quickly?

Why all the hatred for an ESSM-based AAM or an AIM-120 with a 10" dia. booster? It's not like there have never been any 600lb AAMs before. And it's not like anybody is suggesting loading a dozen of them on an F-16.

sferrin, I think the larger issue is that in developing near-term stop gaps, we endanger the more revolutionary programs down the line. By investing in some halfway point, we end up having to wait a lot longer (and still pay a lot) for the next generation, which is what we really want.

Maybe this was mentioned before, but do we know the diameter of the JDRADM?

bruant328 wrote:

Maybe this was mentioned before, but do we know the diameter of the JDRADM?

I've heard 7"

sferrin wrote:

I've heard 7"

Same thing I told my ex...

PhillyGuy wrote:

sferrin wrote:

I've heard 7"

Same thing I told my ex...

Must be why she left ya.

sferrin wrote:

PhillyGuy wrote:

sferrin wrote:

I've heard 7"

Same thing I told my ex...

Must be why she left ya.

You do have to take thd internal configuration, into consideration.

sferrin wrote:

Why all the hatred for an ESSM-based AAM or an AIM-120 with a 10" dia. booster? It's not like there have never been any 600lb AAMs before. And it's not like anybody is suggesting loading a dozen of them on an F-16.

There is no "hatred," people are just sick of hearing about it. It isn't a practical idea and yet people insist on bringing it up over and over again.

You could make an argument for a somewhat larger diameter AAM.(NOT based on an ESSM.)

This has obviously been considered at points but US designers obviously felt that 7" was the best balance. (As did the Meteor design team.) An 8" diameter missile is also plausible of course as demonstrated by the PL-12 and AA-12. On the other hand a 6" missile is possible as well as seen in the cases of the Derby and Mica.

Just remember that bigger is not always better. If anything missiles are getting smaller. (Compare the missiles listed above to those they replace.)

sferrin wrote:

Why all the hatred for an ESSM-based AAM or an AIM-120 with a 10" dia. booster? It's not like there have never been any 600lb AAMs before. And it's not like anybody is suggesting loading a dozen of them on an F-16.

Fair point, sferrin.

I would concur w/ hobo though, that those who might be against the proposal (a requirement for an enhanced ESSM-based AAM/mulit-mission missile) are probably more in a 'critics' camp of thought.

What I was more frustrated over in the discussion though would be what one may observe as straw man and red herring arguments making up a large part of the 'criticism'.

But as you note, no, there is nothing really extreme or impractical about a 650lb AAM/MMM concept being part of a load-out (internal or external) and as you say, nobody is suggesting 10 rounds on an F-16. (although, 6x on a block 50/52+ or blk60+ could imho be assessed as an asymmetrical, force-multiplying stopgap)??

Moreover, it's not like Ground/surface launched missiles haven't been adapted for air-launch operation either. (e.g., AGM-78 ). And it's not like different seeker types haven't been adapted to common missile airframes. The latter example being a very common practice of course.

Just saying legit research for an 'interim' stopgap and/or hedge against JDRADM overruns/ineffectiveness, or delays, etc, could be based on an in-house program, potentially in conjuction with joint USAF/USN design funding too. If valid, then it could be argued as a viable independent (or if need be, an alternative) project.

Something which could come in far less than JDRADM and fielded 1-2 yrs sooner as a bonus. imho.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

AMRAAM/HARM Replacement