F-16.net

http://alert5.com/2017/09/07/darpas-fly ... more-64806

DARPA’s Flying Missile Rail

DARPA is showing an interesting project for a Flying Missile Rail (FMR) that carries at least one AIM-120 air-to-air missile and can fly on its own for 20 minutes at Mach 0.9.

Video Player

image: http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... humb42.jpg



Video: DARPA

The FMR is to be carried on hardpoints certified for 2,000lb weapons. DARPA is looking at mounting it on the F-16 and F/A-18. The objective is to churn out 500 such rails in a month. The research agency is not mandating any manufacturing process.

Read more at http://alert5.com/2017/09/07/darpas-fly ... xAITgzV.99

I lol'd when I saw the flying wing layout... No way that's hitting mach 0.9

Here is the direct Youtube link



More info

https://sbir_industryday.darpa.mil/Topi ... _Jones.pdf

https://sbir_industryday.darpa.mil/Pres ... _Jones.pdf



The only way I see this as happening is an RPV shaped like a Tomahawk with a high mounted wing, top mounted intake, and the two AMRAAMs mounted in semi-conformal rails at the 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions. Being semi-conformal reduces drag and more importantly reduces asymmetrical drag once the 1st AMRAAM is launched when the RPV is flying on it's own.

Definitely good for a laugh. Unfortunately the money isn't being spent on a more practical solution.

Totally real. Here is the SBIR topic:
https://sbir.defensebusiness.org/topics?topicId=28896

The concept they show in the slides/video look all wrong, though. It needs to have a low physical cross section, probably folding wings, and really should carry the missiles conformally.

sferrin wrote:Definitely good for a laugh. Unfortunately the money isn't being spent on a more practical solution.

It's a $220,000 project (for now, and per awardee). An actual missile costs more than they are spending at this stage.

It's like a Bomarc missile under each wing. If two AIM-120 is possible, then surely 3-4 shorter CUDA-like missiles would allow you to literally box in any target. The other thought is a solid rocket booster wouldn't be easily hidden, but perhaps a miniature turbojet could boost it to 100,000 feet to release a spread of missiles for maximum effect. Even a pair of missiles released at high subsonic speeds in the stratosphere would add tremendously to the range for the missiles to bracket a target while maintaining kinetic energy as it approaches it's target. Meteor becomes less interesting.

At a targeted price of US$2M apiece these would appear to offer more bang for the buck.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... ber-drone/

This seems pointless compared to something like LCAAT. From the presentation it seems this is more of a manufacturing tech thing anyway... "Operational analysis and effectiveness are not a part of any deliverable..."

madrat wrote:It's like a Bomarc missile under each wing.

Yeah, a subsonic, 25,000ft, 20 minute endurance drone is exactly like a Mach 3+, 100,000ft, 440 mile range missile.

madrat wrote:It's like a Bomarc missile under each wing. If two AIM-120 is possible, then surely 3-4 shorter CUDA-like missiles would allow you to literally box in any target. The other thought is a solid rocket booster wouldn't be easily hidden, but perhaps a miniature turbojet could boost it to 100,000 feet to release a spread of missiles for maximum effect. Even a pair of missiles released at high subsonic speeds in the stratosphere would add tremendously to the range for the missiles to bracket a target while maintaining kinetic energy as it approaches it's target. Meteor becomes less interesting.

I think it is super awesome
20 minute at Mach 0.9 is around 318 km
FMR produces little to no IR signature after launched from mother aircraft
You can attack from extremely long range, yet keep the high PK of AIM-120 launched at close range
You can arrange attack from multiple direction