LM Cuda AAM

THAT I didn’t know. No pun intended. Otherwise it would have fit on what bio said (ranges) and it can be launched without rail. Can anyone tell me why US services do not look at meteor? Afterall they had selected Mica as a backup solution if 9X wasn’t good enough. If europeans buy F-35 why wouldn’t usa buy meteor?

On the CUDA comment, sometimes it helps to read a couple of posts on the product we are talking about before commenting ;).

On AMRAAM replacement :

The US has a high volume production demand from any a2a missile and the numerical requirements for a missile make RDT&E, not trivial but pretty close to it. The Aim-120 clocked 20,000 missiles produced mark just recently. On the Meteor, I’ve long hoped that Lockheed partner with MBDA and offer it since they were left out of the competitive T3 contracts. This way they could compete if the Next generation missile where Boeing and Raytheon would have a distinct advantage if the USAF or the USN seek an AMRAAM class missile. To the broader question of a new missile however, the Pentagon, via-DARPA has already flight tested between 4-8 examples of a next generation missile in the AMRAAM class. They’ve tested it against all three T3 target types i.e. aircraft surrogates, cruise missiles and ground based radars (ARM function). The propulsion technology tested on these missiles was VFDR, i.e same as Meteor.

So having said that, any AMRAAM-replacement would need to compete given the stakes and as such the US would have the 2 competing weapons that it has funded through demonstrations etc. Meteor, or more appropriately a Lockheed derivative of Meteor could be a third such competitor imho. Even though Lockheed does not do seekers for the PAC-3, they have recently begun investing in it for the other H2K programs such as CUDA and MHTK so they could base a new front end off of that. But given the US demand there will be no wholesale import of the Meteor simply because of the size of the market and the strategic nature of the industrial base.

Besides Lockheed and perhaps Northrop Grumman (the two had partnered on the NGM),I don’t see anyone wanting to or requiring a teaming arrangement on the Meteor. Both Boeing and Raytheon have been for many years, working independently and with motor suppliers to develop next generation technologies for future missile applications. They have designed, developed and flight tested their work so are too invested in it to even think of sharing profits with MBDA. Motor supplier is fair game since they all use Aerojet or Nammo. BayernChemie could offer a competing motor to Aerojet’s VFDR which apparently both Boeing and Raytheon’s T3 missiles used. Between the PAC-3/MSE, Aim-120D/SM6/ESSM-Blk2, both Boeing and Raytheon have done plenty of heavy lifting as far as key high risk technologies are concerned. A lot of the risk has been mitigated through huge investments in these missile programs and DARPA took care of other elements not touched by them.

Out of the two companies funded for the T3, only one (Boeing) has come out publicly and commented on their Flight test activity that occurred in 2013/14. We know of the program only through publicly released DARPA budget documents that touch on program activity and testing.

Expect activity on a USAF formal program in this budget cycle or the next one. I think they will take a two step approach, step one will be a T3 derivative, while increment-2 would be SACM.

Boeing Discloses Advanced Missile Tests, Will Unveil Other Programs

ST. LOUIS—Boeing conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Darpa) Triple Target Terminator (T3) program, Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis said here May 18.
The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam), flew “faster and farther” than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details.

Darpa issued T3 contracts to Boeing and Raytheon in 2010, with the aim of demonstrating technology for a single weapon type that could function as an anti-radar missile, an air-to-air Amraam replacement and a cruise-missile defense weapon. The program has now been concluded, but the Navy now plans to develop a longer-range version of its AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.

Davis also said Boeing will unveil some previously undisclosed Phantom Works programs “in the next month or two,” and that these will be separate from the unit’s work with Saab on the T-X program.

If europeans buy F-35 why wouldn’t usa buy meteor?

Domestic demand and strategic needs. If Europe had a requirement for 1000 fifth generation fighters, and the US for 400, would the European partners accepted the arrangement where US teams to lead the project? Same applies here. The US buys its missiles in fairly substantial quantities and the program cost is heavily stacked towards procurement as opposed to development. Given the strategic importance of many of the technologies that go into such a weapon the development cost is a no brainier relative to the overall cost of the program. Below is the Aim-120D projected procurement quantity –

Any future missile would not have to at a later date replace these missiles but also legacy AMRAAM’s and maybe the USAF HARM inventory. You’re looking at an assured 5 figure production quantity before you start looking at adding up export orders.

MICA is huge compared to the Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM) requirement (length < 1800mm, diameter < 152mm)

THAT I didn’t know. No pun intended. Otherwise it would have fit on what bio said (ranges) and it can be launched without rail. Can anyone tell me why US services do not look at meteor? Afterall they had selected Mica as a backup solution if 9X wasn’t good enough. If europeans buy F-35 why wouldn’t usa buy meteor?

Reinventing MICA?

Pointless trolling.

Reinventing MICA?

MICA is huge compared to the Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM) requirement (length < 1800mm, diameter < 152mm)

So essentially what Lockheed is trying is to create an Intermediate range Missile that is much longer ranged then the Aim-9x, but not quite as long legged as the Aim-120D. A fairly good proposal given the amount of them that can be carried internally, but the only problem i see is that the USAF is not yet ready to fund the NGM which is a proper Aim-120 replacement and is only letting DARPA deal with the technological and propulsion issues…A potential CUDA development would not negate the need to develop the NGM and having 2 Air to Air missile development programs seems extremely unlikely. The only option i see for such an effort by the USAF or the USN (Unlikely since they are not onboard the NGM) is if the ditch NGM plans for the future and go in for this instead. It would have been nice to see Lockheed put up a picture of a mixed load of Aim-120D and CUDA..

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217395[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217396[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217397[/ATTACH]

The Mysterious LM ‘CUDA’ Missile”…

http://www.elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-mysterious-lm-cuda-missile.html

Reinventing MICA?

Recent comments by Tim Cahill, Vice-President, Air and Missile Defense Systems, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control to Jane’s Defence Weekly (Feb.2017).

CUDA is at an earlier stage of development, but it is coming along “really well”, Cahill noted. “It is defined, modelled, and we are now working hard on the prototype airframes and on the seeker concepts,” he said. As the threats become more complex, Cahill added, having highly manoeuvrable hit-to-kill systems in a smaller profile will prove particularly valuable, especially at close range.

“All of our hit-to-kill developments leverage the basic PAC-3 technology and capability – that combination of seeker technology, advanced attitude control systems, and robust airframe that can turn on a dime and follow a rapidly manoeuvering target – and optimise that combination in a smaller profile,” Cahill explained. “With CUDA, you’re talking about a PAC-3 capability with a front-end sensor the size of a coffee cup; with MHTK it’s even smaller. So we’re essentially taking the PAC-3 capability and miniaturising it across all of this range of interceptors.”

I am not sure that NCADE would have been a useful weapon. A Raytheon diagram showing the engagement of a Taepo Dong 2 late in its boost phase showed the NCADE being fired from an F-15 positioned only 30 km from the launch site.

What puzzles me about Cuda is that this concept has never been shown at the Farnborough or Paris Air Shows. This makes me wonder how ‘real’ it is. I might take the time to ask some questions at Le Bourget.

Could you also inquire about when the expect the T3 to fly? Aerojet Chief said later in the year, it would be nice to know the month 🙂

So essentially what Lockheed is trying is to create an Intermediate range Missile that is much longer ranged then the Aim-9x, but not quite as long legged as the Aim-120D. A fairly good proposal given the amount of them that can be carried internally, but the only problem i see is that the USAF is not yet ready to fund the NGM which is a proper Aim-120 replacement and is only letting DARPA deal with the technological and propulsion issues…A potential CUDA development would not negate the need to develop the NGM and having 2 Air to Air missile development programs seems extremely unlikely. The only option i see for such an effort by the USAF or the USN (Unlikely since they are not onboard the NGM) is if the ditch NGM plans for the future and go in for this instead. It would have been nice to see Lockheed put up a picture of a mixed load of Aim-120D and CUDA..

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217395[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217396[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217397[/ATTACH]

The Mysterious LM ‘CUDA’ Missile”…

http://www.elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-mysterious-lm-cuda-missile.html

Given that the biggest advantage for the Cuda would be its size, allowing perhaps 6-8 missiles to be carried by the F-35 internally…Would mounting an IR seeker and powerful Data links be a potential solution for the Missile Defence or Anti UCAV mission? Especially considering potential Swarming tactics of a potential future enemy? You do not need the range of the Aim-120D and do not need its out and out performance either for non fighter targets….

The F-35 can carry 12 Cudas internally, which is the selling point. The idea is having a missile that has -9X WVR performance, but the ability to engage BVR targets too. This solves several problems- internal carriage of the -9X, and increased magazine capacity.

What puzzles me about Cuda is that this concept has never been shown at the Farnborough or Paris Air Shows. This makes me wonder how ‘real’ it is. I might take the time to ask some questions at Le Bourget.

The time the first story broke out about the CUDA it mentioned something about Lockheed martin not having the cleared its details from the USAF…I’ll try to dig it up…

Someone has a powerpoint of MALD in F-35 bay ?
i think this cuda could possibly work as a small decoy

The NCADE is a perfect weapon for ABM mission and a NCADE version of the CUDA sounds PERFECT for a UCAS designed for anti cruise missile, BM defense mission..

I am not sure that NCADE would have been a useful weapon. A Raytheon diagram showing the engagement of a Taepo Dong 2 late in its boost phase showed the NCADE being fired from an F-15 positioned only 30 km from the launch site.

What puzzles me about Cuda is that this concept has never been shown at the Farnborough or Paris Air Shows. This makes me wonder how ‘real’ it is. I might take the time to ask some questions at Le Bourget.

As i recall the problem was that in DS many pilots were claiming that they could see the damn scuds visually but were helpless to do anything about them….

Yeah, apparently on 42 occsions they visually observed TEL’s but they were only cleared to attack eight times.

Sourced from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1408/MR1408.ch3.pdf

This would not be for SCUD hunting vis-a-vis taking care of the launchers on the ground, which by the way was a main concern post gulf war and has been an issue that the USAF has invested in both at the tactical level and at the technological one (Better sensor discrimination and greater ISR assets) … What i was eluding to was the fact that many pilots claimed that they could see Scuds being launched in their early phase but were helpless to do anything about that..The NCADE is a sollution for such a mission..

Allied pilots in Desert Storm could sometimes see Iraqi SCUD missile launches – but in 1991, they were powerless to do anything about them. By 2006, technology had advanced enough that Raytheon and the US MDA introduced NCADE, the “Network Centric Airborne Defense Element.” Its potential may be even greater than its sponsors have considered…

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ncade-an-abm-amraam-03305/

The other are where it could potentially work is going to be Anti UAV/UCAS role, especially when some swarming is involved….A team of 4 F-35’s for example along with 2 F-22’s can carry a heck of a lot of missiles…Even if you configure 2 F-35’s for CUDA that would be 12-16 CUDA’s and 20 Aim-120/NGM’s on the remaining fighters…. Just trying to figure out what Lockheed wanted out of this concept, and why they chose to spend their own money on it as opposed to a traditional future NGM concept like the one both Boeing and Raytheon are working on.

USAF sent out F-15E on scud hunt to calm down Israel, didnt find a single scud

as was the case of F-15E in DS

What was the case in DS? As i recall the problem was that in DS many pilots were claiming that they could see the damn scuds visually but were helpless to do anything about them….

Same thing there, you would have to be right on top of that SCUD launcher,
but not only that, but also be on top of it at the minute of launch,
-a needle in haystack dilemma, good for PR and little else, as was the case of F-15E in DS

I meant ballistic missiles in the boost phase, for the same role the NCADE is being designed for.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ncade/

Depend on what kind of missiles you envisage to defend against,
it’ll work fine vs tomahawk since you have time to place yourself in a favorable position,
but against something like kingfish to probability to be in the right spot is slim, and little can be done to position yourself
in front of an incoming missile, so it depend on the speed of the missile you intend to shoot down,
and on the speed of your interceptor

Given that the biggest advantage for the Cuda would be its size, allowing perhaps 6-8 missiles to be carried by the F-35 internally…Would mounting an IR seeker and powerful Data links be a potential solution for the Missile Defence or Anti UCAV mission? Especially considering potential Swarming tactics of a potential future enemy? You do not need the range of the Aim-120D and do not need its out and out performance either for non fighter targets….