New long-range missile project emerges in US budget

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5601
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 17:34

steve2267 wrote:SpaceX is overrated.

If you want to go that route, I would look to either Skunk Works or Phantom Works.


LOL. Interesting that their combined might hasn't enabled ULA to cough up a real competitor to SpaceX.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3667
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 17:56

The article clearly states that 3 new weapons are under development. A long range weapon (longer than AIM-120D/Meteor class), SACM (this missile combines AIM-9X agility in WVR, and AIM-120C BVR range), and MSDM (these are designed to shoot down incoming AAMs and SAMs.)
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 18:08

sferrin wrote:
steve2267 wrote:SpaceX is overrated.

If you want to go that route, I would look to either Skunk Works or Phantom Works.


LOL. Interesting that their combined might hasn't enabled ULA to cough up a real competitor to SpaceX.


SpaceX builds launch vehicles. I see very little overlap between a very large launch vehicle and a long range air-to-air missile. Skunk Works and Phantom Works are small(er), agile design shops working in the arena of combat aircraft. They are familiar with the environment, design requirements, etc. SX is not. I would have suggested Raytheon or Orbital ATK or Aerojet Rocketdyne, but I am unaware if they have separate, agile design shops that can cut through bureaucratic red tape. SW or PW should be able to do that, and pull in the necessary expertise from the missile airframers and/or propulsion shops. LM SW is almost an all-in-one deal here in that LM also builds missiles etc, but SW probably would have to look outside itself for some help.

How did you pull ULA into this thread? SW and PW have absolutely zero insight or input into or relationship with ULA. Entirely separate companies.

WRT your swipe at ULA... How long has F-35 development drawn on? 10 years? More? Complex aerospace machinery is not conjured up overnight with the waving of a wand. Of all people, SF, I would have thought you would understand that concept.

Launch vehicles that don't go boom are not conjured up over night. Falcon 9 was not developed over night, but it has gone boom at least once.

Falcon 9 development began in 2006, first flight was 2010. ULA began Vulcan development in mid/late 2014 and are targeting 2019 for first flight. Nearly everyone pokes fun at ULA or whines that ULA hasn't done anything. Again, brand new launch vehicles are not conjured up overnight. If ULA launches Vulcan in 2019, that will be on the order of a five year development program, which is pretty damn good. Not quite as fast as Falcon 9, but certainly no slouch.

I do think ULA underestimated Musk. I do not believe they take him lightly now. What Musk has accomplished is amazing. But I do think Space X is overrated, and Musk is every bit a showman. I still do not fully grasp the financial arrangements that were SpaceX - Tesla - Solar City. An MBA I spoke with was not complimentary.

The original thread was about a long range missile, and some commented about using a two stage design with a booster. IMO, Skunk Works and Phantom Works would be two aerospace design shops that could crank out a new concept with quickly and cheaply. Aerojet Rocketdyne / ATK probably need to be involved, but I am not aware those companies having shops similar to SW and PW.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5601
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 23:00

steve2267 wrote:How did you pull ULA into this thread? SW and PW have absolutely zero insight or input into or relationship with ULA. Entirely separate companies.


The two companies (Boeing and LM) still have ownership of ULA. It stands to reason they'd have access to SW or PW.

steve2267 wrote:WRT your swipe at ULA... How long has F-35 development drawn on? 10 years? More? Complex aerospace machinery is not conjured up overnight with the waving of a wand. Of all people, SF, I would have thought you would understand that concept.


Not sure the relevance here. Both Boeing and LM have been in the space launcher business FAR longer than SpaceX.

steve2267 wrote:But I do think Space X is overrated,


Overrated compared to who? Who else is landing space launchers (on ships no less) and reusing them?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post03 Nov 2017, 23:36

I’ll reiterate what I wrote in the V-280 thread: the mock-up at thr AUSA conference in DC had what appeared to be two CUDA mounted on it.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests