CUDA, would it work?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_45MlUHYbNw


Even with inert warheads, the damage is pretty catastrophic.

I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.

I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.

On the contrary, SACM seems optimized to kick it's target in the butt..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

AFRL would design a small, low-weight ordnance with hyper-agility, increased range, high loadout and a compressed carriage capability. Slides describe a missile with “dramatically improved high off bore sight for rear hemisphere kills” and “lower cost per kill.” The missile would also incorporate energy optimizing guidance, navigation and control, according to AFRL.

I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.

On the contrary, SACM seems optimized to kick it's target in the butt..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

AFRL would design a small, low-weight ordnance with hyper-agility, increased range, high loadout and a compressed carriage capability. Slides describe a missile with “dramatically improved high off bore sight for rear hemisphere kills” and “lower cost per kill.” The missile would also incorporate energy optimizing guidance, navigation and control, according to AFRL.

Doesn’t that mean rear hemisphere of the launching plane? That’s how I read that.

Doesn’t that mean rear hemisphere of the launching plane? That’s how I read that.

Doesn't seem logical to me, specially if used with a 5Gen jet. Even with the LO advantage, the smart play is to sneak up from the rear minimizing risk of detection. If over-the-shoulder shots become a frequent occurrence maybe a rethink is needed as to why a threat aircraft is managing to get in a threatening position?

Hemisphere of the launch aircraft, not the target.

Hemisphere of the launch aircraft, not the target.

Yeah.. re-read it several times now.. makes sense in affording the widest engagement envelope..

Anyway, the point being that the HTK missile is probably flying sideways through the target rather than hitting it nose on. As such, it will sweep out a larger volume even without explosives.

At 1:31, approximately 1-2 frames before missile impact on the QF-4, a fireball appears that is quite distinct from the QF-4. Any idea what that is?

Almost certainly a divert motor firing. When a PAC-3 "unzips" going after a soft target it's much more dramatic. (will post a video later) PAC-3 does have a "lethality enhancement" mechanism so it doesn't just punch a hole through a soft target but it doesn't look like they activated it for this shot. You'll see.

This is more what I was thinking (starting at 0:18):

Screenie from above PACman Video:

That looks exactly like EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) used in anti-tank missiles and mines. That would make sense since HTK missile tech would make such a warhead very effective as it would point directly towards most vulnerable parts of the target. Then launching copper or tantalum slug weighing few pounds towards it at Mach 6 would make enormous damage as that could take out many armoured ground vehicles with ease.

I think that in just about any aspect other than a tail chase, a HTK missile is going to slam into the target with a pretty significant angle of attack, due to last second maneuvering.

On the contrary, SACM seems optimized to kick it's target in the butt..
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

AFRL would design a small, low-weight ordnance with hyper-agility, increased range, high loadout and a compressed carriage capability. Slides describe a missile with “dramatically improved high off bore sight for rear hemisphere kills” and “lower cost per kill.” The missile would also incorporate energy optimizing guidance, navigation and control, according to AFRL.

Rear hemisphere of the launching plane (i.e. over the shoulder shots).

:devil: Screenie from above PACman Video:

It hits that target like Thor's hammer. In the video you can even see the shock wave from the impact propagating through the atmosphere.

Are you serious? Nope, hit-to-kill doesn't work at all:

Hardly a like-for-like example. PAC 3 is over 5m long and 0.25m wide, CUDA is smaller and lighter than a sidewinder.

Good observation and question.

AIM-9B was not designed to kill with kinetic energy and was thus ineffective when it hit the MiG-17 and didn't detonate. Problem was that it was slow, even top speed was just about Mach 1.7 or so AFAIK and it would quickly lose speed when rocket motor burned. It was also not very dense and thus the kinetic energy was very low when it hit. HTK missiles need speed as kinetic energy is quadrupled when speed is doubled. CUDA would likely have something like 3-4 times higher speed than AIM-9B meaning about 10-20 times higher kinetic energy. That's like difference between getting hit with 12.7 mm machine gun round vs. 5.56 assault rifle bullet wearing body armour.

HTK missiles will also be designed to kill with kinetic energy only, which means they will also have far more effects when they hit. They could be frangible like FAPDS rounds which means they would disintegrate into high velocity fragments which would make a lot of damage to any aircraft. Basically fragmentation warhead effects without explosives.

I think it would work very well, especially against fighters and other relatively small targets. Not sure if HTK is going to be enough against large aircraft like transports though.

Point taken but the speed estimate seem a little optimistic if it's intended for medium-long range with a rocket motor and DACT. 4x would put it a Mach 7. And there will obviously be a range where its speed drops back down to Mach 2ish but botsing makes a valid point, it's probably design to be frangible to maximise impact damage.