Long shot - Flying missile rail

DARPA's LongShot plans to flight demo a weapon system thatwill significantly increaserange and effectiveness against air threats by creating new engagement concepts for multi-modal, multi-kill systems, launched from fighters and bombers, that can engage more than 1 target. Probably the improve version of the flying missile rail?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228725223568105475

Could be very useful against these bomber with high powered laser

DARPA's LongShot plans to flight demo a weapon system thatwill significantly increaserange and effectiveness against air threats by creating new engagement concepts for multi-modal, multi-kill systems, launched from fighters and bombers, that can engage more than 1 target. Probably the improve version of the flying missile rail?

Capture.PNG

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228725223568105475

Could be very useful against these bomber with high powered laser

FLying missile rail.png

Where is this picture from? (fmr used to engage the HEL platform)

1 page PDF excerpt attached below with this text etc....

Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimates
Feb 2020 DARPA

Title: LongShot
Description: The goal of the LongShot program is to develop and flight demonstrate a weapon system using multi-mode propulsion that significantly increases engagement range and weapon effectiveness against adversary air threats. LongShot will explore new engagement concepts for multi-modal, multi-kill systems that can engage more than one target. LongShot can be deployed either externally from existing fighters or internally from existing bombers. An air system using multi-modal propulsion could capitalize upon a slower speed, higher fuel-efficient air vehicle for ingress, while retaining highly energetic air-to-air missiles for endgame target engagements. This approach provides several key benefits, which ultimately increase weapon effectiveness.

First, the weapon system will have a much-increased range over their legacy counterparts for transit to an engagement zone.

Second, launching air-to-air missiles closer to the adversary increases energy in terminal flight, reduces reaction time, and increases probability of kill. The program will also evaluate other applications of multi-mode propulsion. Potential transition partners include the Navy and Air Force...."

Title: Gunslinger
Description: The Gunslinger program will develop and demonstrate technologies to enable an air-launched tactical range missile system capable of multi-mission support. This system will utilize the high maneuverability of a missile system coupled with a gun system capable of scalable effects and engagement of multiple targets. These mission sets addressed will include counter insurgency (COIN) operations, close air support (CAS) and air-to-air engagements. The metrics associated with this system include total range (which includes transit to target, loiter and engagement) and weapon system effectiveness. The program will address the system and technology issues required to enable development of a robust missile system considering (1) vehicle concepts possessing the required aerodynamic, propulsion, and payload capacity for a wide operational envelope, (2) the algorithms that support maneuvering and target recognition to enable expedited command decision making for selecting and engaging targets and (3) approaches to incorporating modularity of design to reduce cost throughout the design and development process. The anticipated transition partners for this effort are the Air Force and the Navy...."

Source: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals ... B_2021.pdf (5.8Mb)

More of the same.

DARPA to Design Two Unique New Missiles for USAF
20 Feb 2020 Rachel S. Cohen

"DARPA wants to bring a gun to a missile fight [“Gunslinger”].....

...DARPA asks for $13.3 million to start the program in 2021. The design is one of the latest ideas in the military’s push toward weapons that carry other munitions and payloads, or that network between munitions in new ways. The agency didn’t say which aircraft could carry the new missile.

The Air Force and Navy are also potential customers for DARPA’s LongShot program, another weapon effort slated to start in 2021.

LongShot would use “multi-mode propulsion” to significantly boost its range and effectiveness against multiple airborne threats at once, according to the agency’s budget request. The program calls for $22 million in its first year.

“LongShot will explore new engagement concepts for multi-modal, multi-kill systems that can engage more than one target,” DARPA wrote. “LongShot can be deployed either externally from existing fighters or internally from existing bombers.”

The futuristic development agency imagines the weapon could travel slower to its destination to burn less fuel, then zip toward its target once it’s close.

“This approach provides several key benefits,” DARPA said. “First, the weapon system will have a much-increased range over their legacy counterparts for transit to an engagement zone. Second, launching air-to-air missiles closer to the adversary increases energy in terminal flight, reduces reaction time, and increases probability of kill.”..."

Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/darpa-to-de ... -for-usaf/

Like a Sizzler for planes.

Design Gets Underway on DARPA’s ‘LongShot’ Drone
Feb. 8, 2021

Development of a new breed of unmanned aircraft is now underway, as three major defense companies earned contracts to start designing a future system known as “LongShot.”

The LongShot program wants to create an unmanned weapons porter that can be shot from another plane before firing multiple air-to-air missiles itself, according to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which runs the effort.

DARPA announced Feb. 8 it has funded General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman to start design work in the project’s first phase, but did not disclose how much money is part of those contracts.

“The objective is to develop a novel [unmanned air vehicle] that can significantly extend engagement ranges, increase mission effectiveness, and reduce the risk to manned aircraft,” DARPA said in a release. “It is envisioned that LongShot will increase the survivability of manned platforms by allowing them to be at standoff ranges far away from enemy threats, while an air-launched LongShot UAV efficiently closes the gap to take more effective missile shots.”....

https://www.airforcemag.com/design-gets ... hot-drone/

Or use an AMRAAM-ER to go the same or even greater distance, but twice as fast, thus greatly extending effective BVR range. Or a David's-Sling booster approach for a much cheaper engagement and development cost, with a small very fast missile interceptor and faster production rate?

Presumably this is not for killing hard to hide 4th-gen fighters. Production speed will matter in any protracted conflict if only to rapidly replace what you use in the post-fight situation. Complexity and advanced systems slows production, and makes it easier to disrupt.

I'm also wondering about what happens to the VLO launcher, after firing off two, in this conceptual case CUDA, at one or more high value A2A targets? Or is that the point? Launch unseen with very low sig and transonic cruise for a very long-range flight to an undetected release point against a HF target track, to kill AEW and tanker? So use VHF/HF to datalink update location to +/-1 nm^2, and a nose IRST on launcher to locate, then fire the CUDA?

In which case, I can see the value of that in not being seen until the last moment. As opposed to AMRAAM-ER, or a missile with a booster.

However, a boosted shot taking a hit-to-kill EO-locked datalink-cued passive interceptor to Mach 10, in a very high-altitude loft, and getting out to a target at 125 km much faster than that target can get a weapon back towards you (let alone give it a lock once it gets there) seems to be the more useful tool against a VHF cue tracked fighter. i.e. CUDA with booster inside F-35A (or F-22A) would work very nicely.

Or, just replace AIM-120 with AMRAAM-ER (ESSM BkII) with no booster involved. Which would again fit inside F-35A and probably F-22A. Or is the coasting mass the limit on terminal agility against fighters, and better for a bomber or support type?

In which case, a Mach 10 hit-to-kill CUDA with booster to get it above Mach 4 and 80,000 ft, before the CUDA engine itself fires, to take it to Mach 10 for killing the 5th-gen fighters first with an EO passive lock. i.e. sensor on F-35A/B/C, not on the missile (much harder to locate and dazzle), plus makes the missile even lighter, simpler, cheaper, more agile, leaving room for a terminal burn if needed to zap an EO locked 5th-gen.

Or use an AMRAAM-ER to go the same or even greater distance, but twice as fast, thus greatly extending effective BVR range. Or a David's-Sling booster approach for a much cheaper engagement and development cost, with a small very fast missile interceptor and faster production rate?

Presumably this is not for killing hard to hide 4th-gen fighters. Production speed will matter in any protracted conflict if only to rapidly replace what you use in the post-fight situation. Complexity and advanced systems slows production, and makes it easier to disrupt.

I'm also wondering about what happens to the VLO launcher, after firing off two, in this conceptual case CUDA, at one or more high value A2A targets? Or is that the point? Launch unseen with very low sig and transonic cruise for a very long-range flight to an undetected release point against a HF target track, to kill AEW and tanker? So use VHF/HF to datalink update location to +/-1 nm^2, and a nose IRST on launcher to locate, then fire the CUDA?

In which case, I can see the value of that in not being seen until the last moment. As opposed to AMRAAM-ER, or a missile with a booster.

However, a boosted shot taking a hit-to-kill EO-locked datalink-cued passive interceptor to Mach 10, in a very high-altitude loft, and getting out to a target at 125 km much faster than that target can get a weapon back towards you (let alone give it a lock once it gets there) seems to be the more useful tool against a VHF cue tracked fighter. i.e. CUDA with booster inside F-35A (or F-22A) would work very nicely.

Or, just replace AIM-120 with AMRAAM-ER (ESSM BkII) with no booster involved. Which would again fit inside F-35A and probably F-22A. Or is the coasting mass the limit on terminal agility against fighters, and better for a bomber or support type?

In which case, a Mach 10 hit-to-kill CUDA with booster to get it above Mach 4 and 80,000 ft, before the CUDA engine itself fires, to take it to Mach 10 for killing the 5th-gen fighters first with an EO passive lock. i.e. sensor on F-35A/B/C, not on the missile (much harder to locate and dazzle), plus makes the missile even lighter, simpler, cheaper, more agile, leaving room for a terminal burn if needed to zap an EO locked 5th-gen.

I can see various important advantage of this system over conventional AAM:
1- Much longer range even at very low altitude while retain high agility at end game
2- Can attack target from several directions many of which isn't the location of your fighter. This triple the fear factor, making enemy think they are surrounded even when they aren't. This is also useful to deal with bomber equipped with directed energy weapon turret.
3- Almost no extra infrared signature at launch.

3D model of the concept from DARPA







The full set can be seen here -
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/B1W1b4

I like it. Four hittiles to bleed down the target's energy state so a near miss warhead can clean up if necessary. Also provides a secondary purpose for it to divert to a ground target either as an option or on purpose.

Maybe it can drop four ASM in a ground strike role in future revisions. Five separate targets in one strike.