Is the future 'small'..?

Nobody’s asking you to engage in asphyxia. However, your rosy picture of a nice, cosy F-15 CAP always being there for the ground attack jockeys is what happens on the theory board but not always in a shooting war. Firing off a couple of wingtip Sidewinders and then finding yourself defenceless and still surrounded by a bevy of hostiles is not the option of choice for your average pilot.

And what competant commander would send attack aircraft unescorted into an area in which his strike aircraft are likely to need MORE than two or four AAMs? :rolleyes:

Like I said, we seem to have here a scenario where the technology, the financial incentive and the mission benefit all co-incide. That only usually ever means one thing.

Like I said, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that technology has advanced much further than it actually has.

Why? It’s not like they’re going to have single-pilot aircraft flying 14 hour missons. “Okay we want you to CAP over here for six hours (while toting your 8000lbs of bombs around) and then fly 500 miles into enemy territory, take out this SAM site, go over here and bomb this factory, then come back for four more hours of CAP and then RTB”. Please. An aircraft on a bombing mission carrying AAMs has them for self defense. It’s NOT going to go looking for aircraft to shoot down. IF an aircraft is going into an area where enemy fighters are expected (and it’s not a stealth aircraft) it will likely go in escorted. During Desert Storm even A-10s went in with AAMs and who got the kills? The F-15s escorting everybody. The odd kill from others was the exception not the rule. The Hornets that shot down a couple Mig-21s on their way to the target area only made it to the target area because the kills were easy ones. If they’d had to jettison their bombs to mix it up with the fighters they’d have failed their primary mission. Again, attack aircraft do NOT go LOOKING for trouble.

Dispute away. There’s making something and then there’s making something cheap enough to field. Sure they’re working on credit-card sized turbine engines using micro-machine technology, always on smaller electronics, and so forth but making it all small enough and cheap enough to have a bullet that can fly around corners and so forth to take out a single man? I’m not holding my breath.

Nobody’s asking you to engage in asphyxia. However, your rosy picture of a nice, cosy F-15 CAP always being there for the ground attack jockeys is what happens on the theory board but not always in a shooting war. Firing off a couple of wingtip Sidewinders and then finding yourself defenceless and still surrounded by a bevy of hostiles is not the option of choice for your average pilot.

Like I said, we seem to have here a scenario where the technology, the financial incentive and the mission benefit all co-incide. That only usually ever means one thing.

Oh and who’s necessarily talking ‘bullet’-sized smart things? There’s a helluva lot of scope between bullets and Stingers/Iglas weight and size-wise, let alone your average air or ship launched job…

I’ll take all that as agreement, then.

No, I’m not advocating ‘tiny, short range missiles’ by the dozen… but, as regards fighters, you may find that the advent of multi-role aircraft means that the ability for bombing missions to carry more than just a skeletal defensive missile complement may be distinctly useful.

Why? It’s not like they’re going to have single-pilot aircraft flying 14 hour missons. “Okay we want you to CAP over here for six hours (while toting your 8000lbs of bombs around) and then fly 500 miles into enemy territory, take out this SAM site, go over here and bomb this factory, then come back for four more hours of CAP and then RTB”. Please. An aircraft on a bombing mission carrying AAMs has them for self defense. It’s NOT going to go looking for aircraft to shoot down. IF an aircraft is going into an area where enemy fighters are expected (and it’s not a stealth aircraft) it will likely go in escorted. During Desert Storm even A-10s went in with AAMs and who got the kills? The F-15s escorting everybody. The odd kill from others was the exception not the rule. The Hornets that shot down a couple Mig-21s on their way to the target area only made it to the target area because the kills were easy ones. If they’d had to jettison their bombs to mix it up with the fighters they’d have failed their primary mission. Again, attack aircraft do NOT go LOOKING for trouble.

I dispute your ‘not going to happen’ dismissal. You may be right but I suspect the leading manufacturers will actually be looking closely at this one. There are definite selling points.

Dispute away. There’s making something and then there’s making something cheap enough to field. Sure they’re working on credit-card sized turbine engines using micro-machine technology, always on smaller electronics, and so forth but making it all small enough and cheap enough to have a bullet that can fly around corners and so forth to take out a single man? I’m not holding my breath.

How many fighters expecting to see air to air only carry 2 to 4 AAMs? The Eagles standard is 8, F-16’s 6, F-18 can carry up to a dozen. Not seeing what the problem is. Also the topic isn’t limited to AAMs. Missiles ARE getting somewhat smaller for the job in case you missed that point in my post but there are limitations. For examples in sizes to do a particular job consider the Talos and SM-2 block IV. The Block IV weighs less than half the Talos but has nearly twice the range, more altitude capability, and higher speed. Of course it’s warhead is only about a third the size but then it doesn’t need the bigger warhead. The biggest contributors to today’s smaller missiles is smaller warheads, better materials, better packaging, and more compact electronics. Take the 10,000lb Nike Hercules for example of the way things use to be. A THOUSAND pound warhead and lots of dead space in it.

Anyway, it sounds as though you’re advocating outfitting a fighter with hoards of tiny short-range missiles as if the future of air combat is the proverbial furball whilst being outnumbered ten to one. Not going to happen.

I’ll take all that as agreement, then.

No, I’m not advocating ‘tiny, short range missiles’ by the dozen… but, as regards fighters, you may find that the advent of multi-role aircraft means that the ability for bombing missions to carry more than just a skeletal defensive missile complement may be distinctly useful.

I dispute your ‘not going to happen’ dismissal. You may be right but I suspect the leading manufacturers will actually be looking closely at this one. There are definite selling points.

I just don’t agree. There seem to be distinct advantages in ‘small’, particularly weight.

The trade-off between weight and numbers is an interesting one – how many fighters have become, effectively, redundant pieces of flying metal when they’ve foxed off the last of 2 – 4 missiles..? It’s heading back to base time, let’s face it… and many must have been the pilot who would have valued one or two more arrows left in the quiver…

How many fighters expecting to see air to air only carry 2 to 4 AAMs? The Eagles standard is 8, F-16’s 6, F-18 can carry up to a dozen. Not seeing what the problem is. Also the topic isn’t limited to AAMs. Missiles ARE getting somewhat smaller for the job in case you missed that point in my post but there are limitations. For examples in sizes to do a particular job consider the Talos and SM-2 block IV. The Block IV weighs less than half the Talos but has nearly twice the range, more altitude capability, and higher speed. Of course it’s warhead is only about a third the size but then it doesn’t need the bigger warhead. The biggest contributors to today’s smaller missiles is smaller warheads, better materials, better packaging, and more compact electronics. Take the 10,000lb Nike Hercules for example of the way things use to be. A THOUSAND pound warhead and lots of dead space in it.

Anyway, it sounds as though you’re advocating outfitting a fighter with hoards of tiny short-range missiles as if the future of air combat is the proverbial furball whilst being outnumbered ten to one. Not going to happen.

Then there’s the problem of ISP. That hasn’t changed much in 40 years. On the other hand if you put a tandem booster on an ESSM using the motor it currently has and regrain the missile motor with a longer burning profile you could probably get it’s range up to a hundred miles or better on a missile about a third the weight of a RIM-67 not to mention much more compact (4 to a Mk 41 VLS cell). Reduce the warhead size to 25 pounds and you could extend its range even more. Don’t think we’ll ever see Gene Simmons’ pistol launched guided missile though. 😉 Not one that’s going to bring down an aircraft anyway.

I just don’t agree. There seem to be distinct advantages in ‘small’, particularly weight.

The trade-off between weight and numbers is an interesting one – how many fighters have become, effectively, redundant pieces of flying metal when they’ve foxed off the last of 2 – 4 missiles..? It’s heading back to base time, let’s face it… and many must have been the pilot who would have valued one or two more arrows left in the quiver…

Not exactly. Even with advancements in missile propelleant and electronics, there are always an advantage to have your missile be bigger to carry a bit more propellant, having a bigger array, and having a bigger warhead.

Then there’s the problem of ISP. That hasn’t changed much in 40 years. On the other hand if you put a tandem booster on an ESSM using the motor it currently has and regrain the missile motor with a longer burning profile you could probably get it’s range up to a hundred miles or better on a missile about a third the weight of a RIM-67 not to mention much more compact (4 to a Mk 41 VLS cell). Reduce the warhead size to 25 pounds and you could extend its range even more. Don’t think we’ll ever see Gene Simmons’ pistol launched guided missile though. 😉 Not one that’s going to bring down an aircraft anyway.

I don’t neccessarily think so, at least not generally. Small effectors are targeting the critical parts of a target (sensors, propulsion, weak point as far as known, …), but esp electronics will be distributed and a single small hit won’t do. There is a sweet spot for small/multiple vs big/single, depending on the target and effector mission profile, so the small – large mix will most likely remain.

Not exactly. Even with advancements in missile propelleant and electronics, there are always an advantage to have your missile be bigger to carry a bit more propellant, having a bigger array, and having a bigger warhead.

The current theme in missiles seems to be to take missiles of exisiting size and improve their performance, ESSM, SM-6, the S-400’s big missile etc. But I can certainly see them getting smaller in the future. The Russians have developed a guided rocket to be fired from rocket pods, I forget the calibre but it is small.