CUDA, would it work?

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.

That's the impression I got. A bit like a top-attack TOW warhead.

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.

That's the impression I got. A bit like a top-attack TOW warhead.

USAF developing next generation air dominance missile
BY: Leigh Giangreco 30 May 2017

...

Based on AFRL and Carlisle’s description, SACM could have shades of the USAF and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s defunct joint dual-role air dominance missile (JDRADM) programme, which sought a combined air-to-air and air-to-ground missile for the F-22A and F-35, and external carriage on selected legacy aircraft. The air force effort spun a DARPA programme, the triple target terminator (T3) programme, which pursued a missile that could combine the capabilities of Raytheon’s AIM-120 and AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... il-437728/

Would such an EFP warhead, packaged to fit in a 6" dia (or perhaps 7" dia) SACM / CUDA missile be large enough to destroy an MBT or at least an APC from a top attack? If so, an F-35 with upwards of twelve SACM / CUDA missiles would seem to be a tremendous CAS / Air-to-air threat. Even two AIM-120C7 or D with four SDB-II (or SPEAR) and four SACM/CUDA would be a very flexible arrangement. At only ~155lb each, payload weight would not be an issue. Could an innovative payload rack be created that enables small munitions such as these to be loaded two deep vertically? Mechanical simplicity probably goes out the window, so from that perspective KISS would seem to be violated. May not be worth the engineering efforts / costs.

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.

EFP doesn't make sense. It looks to me like a small explosive charge turned the PAC3 missile body into a shotgun blast of high velocity projectiles. ~100 lbs worth of Mach 3 CUDA shredded into a thousand pieces would be like hitting the target with a thousand .50 BMG rounds. For the much bigger PAC3 missile, it is complete overkill. If that drone had been a piloted aircraft, there might have been some teeth left in the fireball, but I don't think the hair or eyeballs would have made it.

Would such an EFP warhead, packaged to fit in a 6" dia (or perhaps 7" dia) SACM / CUDA missile be large enough to destroy an MBT or at least an APC from a top attack?

depends on where it hits. The issue with EFP is that it bores a straight line through what it hits. I've seen a HMMWV hit by a 6-in EFP where it went at an angle up through the door and out the roof and hit nothing vital. I've seen an M1 hit by a half-dozen 6-in EFP where all it hit was metal (no fuel, ammo, equipment, machinery, or personnel).

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.

Another thing to consider is even a 5lb warhead going off inside the aircraft is going to be deadly. There's also the notion, that I'd heard about forever ago, but not recently, that AAMs/SAMs these days are specifically designed to hit the cockpit area.

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.

EFP doesn't make sense. It looks to me like a small explosive charge turned the PAC3 missile body into a shotgun blast of high velocity projectiles. ~100 lbs worth of Mach 3 CUDA shredded into a thousand pieces would be like hitting the target with a thousand .50 BMG rounds. For the much bigger PAC3 missile, it is complete overkill. If that drone had been a piloted aircraft, there might have been some teeth left in the fireball, but I don't think the hair or eyeballs would have made it.

IMO that's what's going on here. Also, there have been a couple blue-on-blue PAC-3 shots and the pilots didn't survive. (Then there was the F-16 that took out a Patriot radar. . . )

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.

EFP doesn't make sense. It looks to me like a small explosive charge turned the PAC3 missile body into a shotgun blast of high velocity projectiles. ~100 lbs worth of Mach 3 CUDA shredded into a thousand pieces would be like hitting the target with a thousand .50 BMG rounds. For the much bigger PAC3 missile, it is complete overkill. If that drone had been a piloted aircraft, there might have been some teeth left in the fireball, but I don't think the hair or eyeballs would have made it.

yeah, I recall reading that the intent was simply to provide a compact cloud of fragments increasing impact probability. Forward momentum of the fragments would largely be imparted by missile velocity,

http://www.rocket.com/patriot-pac-3-mse

The Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) provides performance enhancements to the battle-proven Patriot Advanced Capability – 3 (PAC-3) missile which will counter evolving threat advancements. Aerojet Rocketdyne has qualified a larger advanced two-pulse solid rocket motor for the MSE upgrade. Aerojet Rocketdyne has also qualified the Lethality Enhancer (LE) for the MSE missile. The LE is a small directional warhead that launches a stream of low-speed steel fragments in the direction of the target in order to enhance the kill probability for certain target types. These MSE upgrades will support both the existing PATRIOT systems. The MSE missile is also the baseline interceptor for the multi-national Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).

Some vision systems (irrespective of the part of the spectrum they operate in) employ centroid tracking. In other words they track the center of mass or center of the distribution of the pixels of the scene. For a fighter aircraft that's not to far aft of the cockpit and right where the wing carry through structure, engine faces and fuel tanks are. Upper hemisphere hit would be deadly and a lower hemisphere hit would certainly damage components and potentially start fires. If the lethality enhancer is in part made of zirconium the following from Wiki applies:
"The high reactivity of zirconium with oxygen at high temperatures is exploited in some specialised applications such as explosive primers and as getters in vacuum tubes. The same property is (probably) the purpose of including Zr nano-particles as pyrophoric material in explosive weapons such as the BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb."

Some sophisticated EFP warheads have multiple detonators that can be fired in different arrangements causing different types of waveform in the explosive, resulting in either a long-rod penetrator, an aerodynamic slug projectile, or multiple high-velocity fragments. A less sophisticated approach for changing the formation of an EFP is the use of wire-mesh in front of the liner: with the mesh in place the liner fragments into multiple penetrators.
In addition to single-penetrator EFPs , there are EFP warheads whose liners are designed to produce more than one penetrator; these are known as multiple EFPs, or MEFPs. The liner of an MEFP generally comprises a number of dimples that intersect each other at sharp angles. Upon detonation the liner fragments along these intersections to form up to dozens of small, generally spheroidal projectiles, producing an effect similar to that of a shotgun. The pattern of impacts on target can be finely controlled based on the design of the liner and the manner in which the explosive charge is detonated.

Couple of interesting patents for warheads:

MEFP (Multiple EFP):
https://www.google.ch/patents/US5191169

Wide area dispersal warhead especially for HTK missiles:
https://www.google.ch/patents/US7717042

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.

Another thing to consider is even a 5lb warhead going off inside the aircraft is going to be deadly. There's also the notion, that I'd heard about forever ago, but not recently, that AAMs/SAMs these days are specifically designed to hit the cockpit area.

I'm sure that's a fact with the asraam and not a notion. It does target a part of the plane. I recall it has an image library onboard. This was from DSTO articles/reports. In a quick google to find what I read years ago, I saw they had a recent update for the newer infrared countermeasures. https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/projects ... ile-asraam
I think the asraam got a bit ahead of the aim-9 there for a while. I would think the block 2 aim-9x also uses the IIR and suitable software now, for identifying the target and where it wants to hit it.

I think the kinematic damage is more than enough but IMHO, the main issue is engagement distance, range likely shorter than AIM-120 unless they figure out some new super powerful propellant

I think the kinematic damage is more than enough but IMHO, the main issue is engagement distance, range likely shorter than AIM-120 unless they figure out some new super powerful propellant

A rocket motor is a controlled exothermic chemical reaction. Getting a better energy density/mass ratio while being able to control this energy is key to future missile speed and range. It will also be interesting if we will see more (sc)ram jet designs in future missiles

Another area for enhancement is aerodynamics, variable fin shape and size and another body shape might give a better speed, maneuverability and range optimization.

The mentioning of targeting the cockpit is quite interesting, killing the pilot in a manned aircraft would be considered the optimal goal of an anti-air missile.

I think the kinematic damage is more than enough but IMHO, the main issue is engagement distance, range likely shorter than AIM-120 unless they figure out some new super powerful propellant

A rocket motor is a controlled exothermic chemical reaction. Getting a better energy density/mass ratio while being able to control this energy is key to future missile speed and range. It will also be interesting if we will see more (sc)ram jet designs in future missiles

Several USAF generals (or soon to be retired generals) have made comments about stuff in the lab, things I can't talk about, hypersonics, and (alluded to) scramjets. Maybe not all in the same sentence, but in adjacent or "near" sentences. Who knows.

The concept that has been postulated in these parts of a two-stage SACM (Raytheon version of the CUDA concept?) whereby a boost or hypsersonic cruise stage drops a SACM in the target breadbasket hundreds of kilometers out would be one such use for a scramjet cruise stage.

The mentioning of targeting the cockpit is quite interesting, killing the pilot in a manned aircraft would be considered the optimal goal of an anti-air missile.

So much for the "gentlemanly" view of air-to-air combat. I suppose that died with WWI, though there were some examples of chivalry in WW2.

there were some examples of chivalry in Ww2.

The most famous one I can think of was the German fighter pilot escorting a damaged bomber out of German airspace.

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_B ... r_incident