Given all of that, it is safe to say that the CUDA will have a much larger missile:motor ratio than AMRAAM or even Sidewinder.
Are you sure?
This is how the AIM9 looks inside, the CUDA will, because of the radome, take up about the same space for the tracker so you can remove the blue and black part and maybe, maybe shrink the green part a bit.
(all units are percentage of original design, in this case the AIM9x as measurement unit)
So this is what you en up with on the AIM9M:
Engine nozzle/exhaust ~9%/27cm
Electronics ~22%/66cm (maybe 56-60cm on the CUDA)
Fuel ~52%/156cm
Warhead + detonator ~16%/48cm
The CUDA is roughly 180cm. So this should mean it has 180-60(?)-27 = 93cm long tube of fuel compared to 156 cm in the AIM9M with the same width and similar drag.
The guidance in the front section is not for fuel storage (maybe to a small extent) and it is probably where the datalink will be as well.
Based on that the missile will have 59% as much fuel and be 62% as large (only counting length for simplicity). With higher drag that should equal shorter range.
If the image below is correct then they are pretty much equal (slightly higher propellant/size ratio for the CUDA). But it has a fineness number that is about half of the AIM9. So roughly the same propellant/weight ratio, way higher relative drag. I think there will need to be some serious breakthroughs in propellant tech to get “at least the same range” as the AIM9.
Looks like they did a sneaky thing here.. only using a “half radome” does save space but only holds a tiny radar assembly. Aka less jamming resistant.
Whether it is the F35 (which could be the driver) or UCAV internal bays smaller more versatile weaponry is the way to go.
Sure, but for a platfporm that has stealth as primary means of survival versatility is more likely to come from weapons that can make use of that edge. If this missile is dirt cheap it surely has its place against weak enemies or in UCAVs.
If we compare it to a more modern missile like the METEOR it might actually fit a rocket engine. But it still holds less than 1/3 of the original AIM120s fuel with roughly the same cross section of the missile, aka similar drag.
The original AIM120 had a range of around 55-75 km, with less than one third of the fuel and similar drag this should translate into… <30km? (I added some range for the lower weight)
You be the judge if that is enough or not. At 30 km the F35 is detected by both the Irbis E as well as the OLS35.
The OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation with a target acquisition range for non-afterburning aerial targets of 50 km facing up to target’s front hemisphere and 90 km facing up to rear hemisphere.
And the radar:
The F35s strength is that it can operate outside this area without being detected. It can stay lurking within the NEZ of the weapons without the enemy detecting it. The CUDA degrades the F35 to fight on equal, or actually worse, terms as the enemies its facing. Thus it wont become the standard armament but rather work as a complement (maybe as a hardkill countermeasure or self defence weapon when the long range missiles are used up).
Im just counting seconds until the fanatics claim 8 BVR missiles (with greater range than the AIM120) will fit in the weapon bays… But this time I will be proactive! 🙂
The small one is 1,85m, the larger should be closer to 2 meters long.
So this will be a a very close range missile and will because of that probably never take place in an F35 unless its a missile that is cheaper than dirt and will be used agains Iranian F5-clones or similar targets.
Im guessing that the electronics can be made smaller nowadays as well 😉
Sign In
