HotshotStealth is not about some “coating.” You can’t paint stealth onto an older fighter. Stealth has to be incorporated from the start into every aspect of the aircraft, from its airframe, to its avionics, to its software, to its engine.
It is true that in many cases you could retrofit newer avionics into an old fighter, but real fighter jets are not Legos. You can’t just yank off one piece and install a better one. New avionics entail weight, cooling, power, networking, computer/software changes. So while you could hypothetically take a Rafale’s avionics and drop them into an F-4, actually doing so would be such an extensive redesign that you might as well start with a new jet, especially once you consider that the F-4’s airframe is obsolete.
It is the same story comparing 4th generation fighters to the F-35. You could hypothetically drop F-35 level avionics into an older fighter, but it would be hugely expensive and difficult and once you were done you would still have a non-stealthy airframe that simply couldn’t be used like an F-35.
ha don’t waste my time…
HotshotAndrew Jackson has flown Australian Super Hornets, so no, not old 4th generation planes about to be replaced, but brand new 4.5 Gen jets.
So I guess we know that US, Australian, Dutch, Norwegian, and Canadian pilots are all shills and/or liars. That or they just don’t know nearly as much about fighter jets as fankiddies on a messageboard who have seen pictures of many fighter cockpits.
What’s very different is the aircraft’s advanced radar and other sensors which gather information and present it to the pilot in a manner unlike any earlier aircraft.
That confirms what I said. The sensors and datalinks are not built by LM, any aircraft would have had the same hardware. Same for the helmet. The only thing that LM got right without an astronomical number of problems is the stealth. LM has very advanced stealth coating, but companies like NG or Boeing may well have the same kind of stuff. European companies are probably behind wrt to stealth coating, that’s about it. The fact that we see new 5th gen planes appearing around the world with stealthy shapes goes to show that building the airframe is not the problem.
HotshotComing from 4th gen planes that have to be replaced because they are long in the tooth, it is normal that the pilots are impressed by some of the characteristics of the F-35, like the stealth, sensors, sensor fusion and network capabilities. But they would be every bit as impressed if it were another plane with better speed, range, ability to have WVR carried inside, etc…
Even if the plane is revolutionary for certain things, it still remains that its development has been a half disaster, and that many technical issues still remain after all those years. LM certainly has nothing to be proud of, every other major aerospace company would probably have fared better.
HotshotFirst, it is highly unlikely that the main missile will be flying at Mach-3.5-4. These speeds are only obtained while missiles are in the boost phase and for a ramjet powered missile, like the Meteor, the average speed of the missile is less than that, especially in a long distance engagement as it has to balance available fuel to reach intercept.
The meteor is said to achieve speeds of over mach 4. The booster accelerates the missile to the speed at wich the ramjet can take over. After that the speed is probably roughly constant. There are also other propulsion systems being studied for sustained long range propulsion.
Second, if you were going at that speed you are going to have some serious design considerations for missiles being ejected at those speeds, the forces would be significant!
Separation is the biggest issue. Maybe the only way to use darts would be a missile that would eject several darts at the same time. The main missile would not be useable after to intercept a target. It would be more worth it if the main missile had like 4 darts. Say Something the size of an ESSM with 4 darts. But I would still prefer a smaller missile with one dart if possible.
Third, the idea that the main missile will have to maintain lock on two targets as it approaches the target area?
The main missile doesn’t need to maintain a lock on the first target. The targeting data would be provided by the launch aircraft via the datalink.
Fourth, the main missile manoeuvring to orient itself to launch the mini missile means it will have a disadvantage in getting back to its own target, losing speed and increasing distance.
To some extent yes, but 1) the 2 targets would be in roughly the same direction, 2) the missile would calculate the best trajectory to launch the submunition while losing a minimum of energy, 3) the submunition would have about 20km or range.
Adding an advanced seeker will likely increase weight, as would adding a data-link and the associated antenna required for it. Is the mini missile powered as I see no way it would be travelling at Mach 3+ at interception? It would require a rocket motor that could boost for perhaps 2-3 seconds and once that shut off would reduce velocity. The weight of the missile obviously decreases as propellant is used and propellant typically uses at least a third to a half of all up missile weight, thereby decreasing your impact weight to 5-6kgs.
If we look at what you are all up proposing. We have a missile with
– The structural strength to withstand Mach 3+ speeds and ejection into this velocity stream,
– A small rocket motor to maintain velocity,
– A 2kg warhead,
– A proximity fuse with associated fusing mechanism to determine fusing range,
– A data-link,
– An advanced IIR seeker head that has a large battery requirement, cooling section and guidance electronics, and
– all within 10-15 kgs.Not likely…
– The stinger was expected to be upgraded with the 9X seeker, so obviously it is possible to keep it light.
– The datalink could be one way. If it is one way it doesn’t need to have power to emit. Even a small missile like a TOW aero or a spike NLOS has datalink.
– It would impact at mach 3 if you add the speed of the dart with the speed of the incoming aircraft. Even it it hits at say mach 1 against a fleeing aircraft, the energy of the impact would be sufficient to destroy the target with a direct impact.
– The submunition could have a small motor, but that would force the main missile to be longer and somewhat heavier. I think the missile has to be kept 3.6m long so there is not enough room for that.
– The 2kg warhead would be enough if the missile is very agile in the terminal phase, thanks to side thrusters possibly.
– MANPADs have proximity fuzes so that shouldn’t be a problem.
HotshotThe air-to-air game Red Baron style is quite romantic – and suitable for the air policing / air sovereignty mission – but a short/(medium) range ballistical missile with some sort of limited loitering mini missiles or just maneuvering kinetic darts dropped from high above onto an oncoming attack formation, or possibly right after takeoff, might be overall more efficient. Instant aerial minefield. Shooting down aircraft in air-to-air combat is the least favorable answer to the anti-air question.
Maybe it would work. I think the darts would have to be ejected when the missile is at its apogee, so that the darts have enough time to separate towards their individual targets. The darts would need a datalink.
Large AWACS, bombers or tankers could carry that kind of missile for long range interception over sea for instance.
HotshotStrap two stingers to the side of a Meteor missile, maybe a triple stage Cuda with two front end stages and a booster stage that separates into two missiles after boost phase.
Not really sure what the advantage of doing the above would have over just adding more missiles.
I don’t like that kind of idea too much, the missile would become too big and draggy, and what are the chances that there would be more than 2 targets in one direction. I think it would be better to have only one submunition otherwise you’re better off with more missiles. The submunition doesn’t need a motor, given the fact that it would get its energy from the launch missile.
HotshotExcept the suggestion is not a 100kg ASRAAM but a 10kg missile that would struggle to host a warhead of decent size nor have the ability to cause significant damage if it was hit to kill, with hit to kill requiring an expensive seeker head that cannot fit within the size constraints. Realistically the weight and size would have to increase significantly for the mini missile to be effective, while additional weight makes the case for the launch missile less given it has to increase in size to accommodate the mini missile.
The closest parallel I can think of is launching a MANPADS sized missile from a larger missile. The problem being MANPADS are terrible missiles to intercept high energy targets and only the most recent missiles have a proximity fuse given the size constraints of the missile and warhead.
The submunition would be launched at mach 3.5-mach 4 or more by the main missile. The main missile would maneuver to launch the submunition in the proper direction and possibly with a loft trajectory.
There was a plan to upgrade the stinger with the 9X seeker, so I take it a missile of that size could have a pretty advanced seeker. I think I would add a one way datalink to increase the pk too. Any direct impact of something weighing 10kg at mach 3+ would obliterate any target. If the missile gets a very close miss, say like 5m, the 2kg warhead could seriously damage the target, if not destroy it.
HotshotIt almost sounds like a medium to high altitude cruise missile with recessed ASRAAM or some other short range missiles that could independently seek their own targets once launched . It sounds great against a target rich environment but where do you come across formations of “enemy” aircraft like that now. I’d assume the mother missile would aim for the largest target.
The main missile would not be a cruise missile, it would be an AAM with an additional submunition. As I said, even if there is only one target to engage, both the main missile and the submunition would engage the target, so that would increase the pk.
HotshotIt would be a huge missile (think something like a Scalp/Apache but slightly narrower) thanks to aerodynamic constraints (Body-lift Vs Weight, Drag and available trust).
Tupolev would be happy:
Think also reliability.
The mini missile would weigh around 10kg, so the main missile could be in the AMRAAM/meteor class.
If the goal is to intercept bombers, I think I would use one missile and its submunition against one bomber, as bombers are large high value targets.
The same logic could be used for a2g munitions. For instance a missile like a spear III could carry a mini missile to be able to engage 2 targets at long range.
That kind of missile would double the number of targets that could be engaged, which would be important in particular for stealth planes given their limited internal loadout.
HotshotThe missile and the submunition would attack 2 targets when they are sufficiently close to each other or in roughly the same direction. For instance if a ramjet missile has a range of 180km, if the first target is 120km away and the second target 160km away in a slightly different direction, the submunition would be fired at 100km, the main missile would redirect to the second target. The aircraft computer would calculate automatically the best engagement trajectory for the missiles against several targets.
That would work well against a strike package for instance.
In case the planes are too far apart or if there is only one plane to engage, the main missile and the submunition would both engage the same target. So the target would have to avoid 2 missiles.
Would the submunition be carried internally or be like semi recessed for easier ejection? I don’t know. Being able to eject the submunition would be a challenge. The subunition would be maybe Something like 70mm in diameter and 80 cm long. The best would be a HTK missile with side thrusters with possibly a small warhead. The seeker could be something like an AIM-9X seeker, or maybe a mini AESA radar.
Would a datalink to the launch aircraft be needed for the submunition, maybe. An AIM-9X seeker could detect the target shortly after launch so it might not be necessary. The missile would be loaded with the targeting data before launch ( distance of the target, velocity vector, etc.. ) so it could use a predictive trajectory for a few seconds before it locks on the target. Or maybe a datalink to the launch aircraft would be possible without adding to much volume.
Possibly even the main missile could be used as a datalink relay between the launch aircraft and the submunition. In that case the submunition could have a low power one way datalink to talk to the main missile which would be only a few km away.
The internal setup of the main missile would have to be designed differently from regular missiles. The warhead and the electronics would have to be mounted along the submunition to reduce the length of the missile. Ideally I think it would be better to stick to a 3.6m missile for backward compatibility with the weapon stations of various aircraft.
HotshotStarstreak is a different concept, the 3 darts are attached together and it can only attack one target.
HotshotHere you can see a swedish air force base and a few of these “roads” (two visible, one beside the “main” base and another closer below me)… they are prepared (widened a bit) , there were a few more prepared parts, but I couldn’t have them all in the picture
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244811[/ATTACH]
The F-35B can still operate from much smaller strips if runways, thanks to its vertical landing capability. In some places I think they would have to build temporary strips of runways on maybe dirt roads, because there no paved road is availalble.
Hotshotdepends who you ask.. for F-35 crowd, the F-35 is the ultimate solution for everything and everyone
For F-35 haters the F-35 will never be the solution either. The F-35 has its advantages and disadvantages, but a lot of people can’t seem to be able to think rationally when it comes to this plane.
Hotshotyou obviously don’t realize how much weight you’d need to bring for “just 10 missions” per plane in places way beyond the reach of any helicopter taking off from a well equipped base (where y’oud be able to bring stuff with heavy lifters.
Your helicopters can lift a few hundreds kg for a couple hundreds km… it would take ages to bring the fuel and weapons needed (not to speak parts for repirds when needed).
What’s more, to take off from an “improvised patch” the F-35 won’t be able to be loaded sufficiently for a long range mission… you can forget running in supersonic to intercept a far away bomber before it releases its cruise missiles. When the F-35B is supposed to be operated by Marines from “remote areas”, it is within reach of their carriers… nowhere near the distances you’d need to cover in northern Canada
I realize well that it would take a significant effort to set up these mini bases. So what? Any military operation needs preparation. If the F-35Bs are able to mount in the order of 10 sorties, that should be enough to kill most enemy bombers. The strips of road would obviously have to be long enough for the F-35B to take off with the necessary load.
If they are attacking bases in the north no you can’t intercept the bombers, if they are attacking targets in the south yes you can if your fighters have been able to survive the first wave of missiles against airfields in the north.
Hotshotwell, IMO a fighter wont ever get close enuff to take a shot at the bomber, maybe the PAK-FA would cut it,
just brink bak F-106
That’s why I say that pretty much any fighter type would be pretty useless to protect the bases in the North. But they could intercept bombers attacking bases in the south if they can take off from the arctic region. For that of course they would have to be able to survive russian cruise missile strikes. Hence the idea of STOVL planes operating from the mainland coast or the canadian archipalego.
Sign In
