HotshotThese missiles would be used for an initial strike, when enemy defenses are still intact. Even UCAVs can be considered relatively high value targets, they would not be that cheap.
For an airfield attack, one targetting missile would be used in conjunction with one missile carrying 25 smart submunitions. The targetting missile scans the entire airfield in around 3 minutes, finds and classifies targets ( aircraft outside, etc ), builds its target list, then sends the GPS coordinates of each targets to the submunitions in the other missile. The individual aircraft shelters would have to be attacked by normal missiles with unitary warheads.
Or say you want to attack an armored column in a very defended airspace. You don’t really know exactly where the vehicles are, so you send one targetting missile to scan the road and the area, with one or several mule missiles ( with 25 smart submunitions ).
When the enemy defenses have been degraded you can start using the UCAVs and aircraft.
I would imagine that the technology used in a targetting pod could be repackaged in a stealthy cruise missile.
HotshotAlthough it needn’t be an AMRAAM. Just because its the same diameter as the AMRAAM does not mean it has to be an AMRAAM. The point of the entire program was the VFDR portion, and as far as we know the T-3 (The follow on DARPA and USAF program post AFRL VFDR) also did not use an AMRAAM but a new missile. AFRL also studied many different Intake configurations besides this. This particular one was the one Raytheon brought out and displayed.
This is throttleable.
I also read that some work has been done on a dual pulse variant of the AMRAAM ( I am not sure about that ). If they could incorporate thrust vectoring on it, the second pulse could be used for the terminal engagement. That would make it almost unavoidable. I guess it would be significantly cheaper than a NGM or ramjet AMRAAM, and eventually a combination of ramjet AMRAAM and this dual pulse AMRAAM could be cost effective. The ramjet variant would have a 150km+ range, the dual pulse 90km if the second pulse is used for terminal maneuvering. Maybe it would be possible to carry 6 of these missiles internally on the F-35, like 2 ramjet variants on the a2a stations, and 4 dual pulse variants on the a2g stations.
The non stealthy F-15C could be armed with the ramjet variant to have enough standoff range. It would be used as a long range shooter for the stealth planes, which would guide the missiles. The F-15 could carry up to 8 of those long range missiles.
A new missile is well going to be always better. That is fairly obvious. However, as the ERAAMPlus proposal suggested, you can do a path that gives you 80% capability at 50% the cost (original ERAAM+ pitch). So you do have lower cost options if you wish to go down that path.
The ERAAM + is an old concept, but maybe, as I just said before, they could have a high/low mix of BVR missiles.
The Aim-120D program is around 6 years late, so I would expect the next missile to be around 6 years post the 2019 timeframe as well. So expect something that may be in testing around the middle of next decade for induction in the 2025-2030 time-period. Whether they wish to do another AMRAAM variant while such a missile is in development is entirely up to them, but the D goes on for another 8 years iirc obviously it’ll also get enhancements and SIP’s along the way.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236670[/ATTACH]
Maybe an AESA seeker could be retrofitted on existing missiles. Potentially that would give it an a2g capability against all sorts of time critical targets.
I would be surprised if a potential future AMRAAM missile wasn’t a dual role weapon. Everything they have researched, including the DARPA T3 program points to that being sought, and it makes a lot of sense.
It is not sure that they can retrofit an ARM capability on the AMRAAM. The JDRADM was supposed to have a tri-mode seeker to help find the target. I don’t know how they would do it on the AMRAAM. If you want to change everything you might as well go with a new missile.
Yes the delays have hurt but it is incredibly important to the fleet modernization and for that the production ramp up, and the cost-reduction initiatives currently underway are critical. A new missile will come, in due course but like I said the BCA has forced them to address the most urgent needs first and since the Aim-120D is more then capable of handling the threat for now it is being procured in large quantities while the research and development continues.
The ADI is in its 3rd year, so give it some time. There would be contracts associated with air to air weaponry coming out of the entire discussion in the next few years. Things should (my opinion) be more lively then what he had in the past especially if they hold true to some of what they are saying.
Missiles are intended to remain in service for 20 years or so, so they have to be in advance on the threat. The 120D capabilities were supposed to be available to deal with advanced threats many years ago and the NGM was supposed to deal with enemy next generation planes. The threat has not stayed static in the meantime.
Having very good long range missiles versus an average one would obviously have a big impact on the outcome of an air battle .
Its not going to fit in the F-22 or the F-35, but with a supposed 250 KM range there are a heck of a lot other platforms that could use it. Raytheon did at the time suggest that they may go in and try to bring the HARM platform to internal bay carriage and the best way they could do this would be to just convert the Meteor or look at their T3/AFRL designs which again brings us back to why the heck do we need a single purpose missile (a new one anyway) when we have been researching dual use missiles for some time now. The NGM program was shut down just a few years ago (it was funded till 2012, and cancelled in 2013) so its not like the research is very old. The T3 concluded in 2013-2014 and there have been internal programs (in addition to DOD funded efforts) at Boeing and Lockheed. So there would be little reason other than cost to pursue such an advanced version of the HARM (Cost in terms of an entirely new BVR missile acquisition program that will take time).
If the USN wants to go with a ramjet AMRAAM, the USAF might be interested in it too, for economy of scale and commonality reasons.
As for internal carriage, I believe the ramjet HARM’s wingspan would work for the F-35’s bays, but the length would have to be shortened by about 20cm. If they redesign the missile with the new motor, they might as well shorten the missile at the same time.
Between a dual role missile and 2 missiles, I have the impression they will go for the cheapest solution, given the budget pressures that they have.
HotshotWe had a discussion a few months ago in which I mentioned this ramjet AMRAAM with the intake below for internal carriage. I was not sure to remember correctly so I though I was probably mistaken. This is it, you found it.
I believe with the JDRADM they were looking at a next generation propulsion system rather than a ramjet that would be cheaper, with probably a throttleable capability.
A super AMRAAM would be good, but the components that were supposed to be used on the JDRADM ( propulsion, warhead, seeker etc… ) have been well advanced in various programs including T3. So they might be able to build something that could be put in production relatively quickly. I am not sure the AMRAAM would be cheaper after the LRIP.
Concerning the ARM capability, if the AMRAAM is not modified to be dual role, they would have to build another weapon. The ramjet HARM they had tested a few years back didn’t have the large wings so could potentially fit inside the F-35’s bays ( length might be an issue however ). But Fielding 2 weapons would give less economy of scale and the F-35 couldn’t carry an ARM capable missile if it doesn’t carry the ARM itself, whereas with a dual role missile, its missiles carried on the A2A pylons would have an inherent ARM capability.
Moreover, the F-35 has an inherent SEAD capability thanks to its Advanced avionics, datalinks, etc. This could be fully exploited if every F-35 had a real SEAD capability with an ARM all the time. It would be revolutionary indeed.
Against low end defense systems the F-35 could still use its other cheaper weapons, but the top end systems would be destroyed more quickly with that missile.
They do not intend to (or did so at any point in time) finance a new weapon from the development of another weapons system (F-35). Ask around within the USAF, the fighter fleet recap is much ahead on the priority list compared to a new missile especially when the upgrade path, and the Aim-120D is more than capable to handle the threat for now. They do plan to have a replacement in the future.
Of course the recapitalisation of the USAF aircraft is ultra urgent, but that’s because of the delays of the F-35! Many other programs have been cancelled because of lack of funding. The F-35 has to be financed fully otherwise it is impossible to recapitalise, and the USAF is in deep s….
The money from all programs come from the same pool. When they cut the budget, all the programs could be cut in proportion ( with production extended etc), but in that case, it is completely out of question to reduce the funding of the F-35. So guess what, some other programs suffer one way or another.
HotshotThe Aim-120D meets the operational need of the USAF and USN. “Several Analysis”? How about take those analysis and come up with a significantly better missile. Lets say that an analysis shows that a hypothetical F-35 carrying a NG AMRAAM is significantly more lethal. Now take another hypothetical missile (lets call it NG++). What will that analysis show?
See the point, when you set out to conduct an analysis with the question like ” Would the F-35 (Or substitute any other platform for that matter) be more lethal with a longer ranged, better immune to EW, larger NEZ, Faster…etc weapon the answer in all cases will be a decisive YES. You don’t need to run a hardcore analysis or wargaming at Wright Patt to figure that out.
Having said that, those in charge of the fighters, and technologies at large assess through wargaming and other means whether the current capability, is sufficient when pitted against current and emerging threats. Hence the Aim-120D, SIP-1 and other enhancements that would make sure the Aim-120D is kept updated over its 8-9 year remaining production.
The fact is that they have so much troube getting this aircraft to FOC that a next gen missile is not on the priority list for now. They are trying hard to finish the F-35 with the funds available. Originally the JDRADM was intended to replace the AMRAAM and the HARM in the 2020 timeframe. It is not because the F-35 has syphoned so much money and that sequestration is in effect that the requirement has disappeared. Concerning SEAD, the F-35 will have to do it with only SDB1s at block 3F, and SDB2 in 2022 or so at block 4. Still no ARM missile like the JDRADM in sight.
First of all you have to decide what that new design is. How much it costs to develop it, and how that investment trades off with other investments in Air-Superiority. Far better informed folks are likely running those numbers. Thats always the case when you pit an upgrade path against a clean sheet and that is precisely what happened with the JDRADM. If you had unlimited amount of money, you could potentially produce a new weapon every few years but you don’t so you do whats most cost effective. Of course if there was a threat out there with a Gazillion Meteor type missiles in its inventory, that would severely outclass the Aim-120D then you have an emerging need and need to get up and do something about it asap. But that does not exist at the moment.
A need does not exist (iirc) in the medium term weapons “wishlist”.
The fact also is that the 4th gen will stay in service much longer than expected, so does it make sense to build a missile that is optimized for internal carriage when the F-15 and many F-16s will still be there for the relatively long term. This is caused also by the delays of the F-35. The F-15/F-16 will probably not be armed with a JDRADM or equivalent so will need dome sort of upgraded AMRAAM.
When they decided that they wanted the JDRADM many years ago, they already knew what an upgraded AMRAAM would look like. The USAF, from what I recall, was not interested in a ramjet AMRAAM ( FMRAAM or equivalent ), mainly because it was not optimized for internal carriage by the F-22/F-35. And they wanted a dual role capability too.
HotshotYou cannot make that assumption without actually testing the missile+pylon on the aircraft. As I said, its not as simple. The objective with cruise missiles is to give them stand off ranges so that you do not have to launch them at targets from within the SAM envelopes. The point of the HSSW is to go for time-critical or C2C targets. Good luck in designing a VLO, Mach 5 (+) missile that maintains signature despite being externally mounted. Such a project is sure to stay in the “Lab” for most of next decade if not forever :).
My point is that the 2 types of missiles are complementary. I definitely agree that the RCS of aircraft + pylon + stealthy missile is not equal to the sum of the 3.
At the moment the USAF has no such need.
Because they intend to launch their JASSMs from other platform than the F-35. When the F-16 CCIPs are retired the F-35 will surely get a role of cruise missile launcher.
The F-35 is stealthy, but I am pretty sure the USAF would still launch large cruise missile attacks before sending them deep in enemy airspace to use short range weapons.
Or, if the F-35 is armed with long range cruise missiles, they could even do 2 attacks in one, that is, launch their cruise missiles first, drop their pylons, then press on with 8 internal SDBs to attack targets that are not deep in enemy airspace. If the goal is to hit as many targets as fast as possible to take a decisive advantage and use the effect of surprise, eventually it could be possible.
HotshotWell for sure it wouldn’t be as good as if the missile was mounted internally, but it wouldn’t be as bad as carrying a missile that is not stealthy at all. The facetting effect from the side would be worse obviously. Also the JASSM would be launched from the forward sector, so the side of the missile and pylon would not be seen as much.
If the F-35 was to carry 4 JASSM-ERs externally, those missiles have a 900km range, so the F-35 wouldn’t need that much side stealth.
There could be a synergy between the 2 types of missiles. Like the LRS-Bs launch first their hypersonic missiles to hit the center of the runways, the missiles would hit within 5 minutes so the enemy fighters can’t take off. Then imediately the F-35/B1s, etc… arrive to launch their JASSMs. The JASSMs would have a lower chance of being intercepted by enemy fighters.
This being said, it would be better if the F-35 carried cruise missiles with extended range ( mini-JASSM-ER) internally. The JSM will not have much range, so the F-35 would still have to enter the enemy airspace which would still be dangerous. I think i’d rather have 4 external 900km range JASSM-ERs externally than 2 280km range JSMs internaly.
Concerning the AIM-120D, it is a decent weapon now, but several analysis have shown that the F-35 would be significantly more lethal with a longer range missile. Its replacement would not be ready before at least 7 years or so, so there is plenty of time to produce more AMRAAMs. An AMRAAM with a ramjet would cost a lot more than a standard AMRAAM, would it be really more cost effective than a new design, especially if they have matured the technology for the most part?
HotshotIts also mentioned in AvWeek article presented in the F-35 thread.
If there is a significant development to do on the F-35, they will have to start working on it a couple years maybe before the engine is ready for testing ( if they chose an engine with the third air stream ).
There are plans developed to provide cooling even for embedded system within the F-35. Of course you would have to take them out of the lab and test them but that is what a program is for and I suspect that will be done at some point in the future. From the academic research on the subject, it seems that the podded solution for a Super Hornet maxes out at around 40KW, whereas the F-35 is expected to accommodate a 100KW solution.
I had read those links. An HEL on tactical fighters would be nice to have but they would add a lot to the cost. The F-35A would need the lift fan too, so it would add a good 20 million to have the HEL capability ( HEL + lift fan ). Also that would reduce the internal fuel.
On the F-18, the performances of the plane would go down the tubes with so much extra drag. In a2a configuration it would be restricted to subsonic speed.
The new mini anti-missile missile developped by Lockheed would be much more cost-effective for self defense. I could imagine for instance the internal gun on the F-35 being replaced by a triple launcher of those missiles. The missile could have a short range a2a capability to replace the gun for dogfighting. The F-35 would carry the gun in the centerline pod. Hell, if the mini missile has the same size as the APKWS, the triple launcher could carry 3 APKWS too for CAS.
The HEL sounds more adapted to high value aircraft like bombers, which have a lot of internal space, can generate much more electrical power, and have and more cooling capacity. The cost of the HEL would be only a small fraction of the cost of a LRS-B.
6th gen fighters might be more optimized to be equipped with HELs than F-18s and F-35s, so they might be better platforms for them.
Eventually once the technology is mastered they can develop different weapons but for now there is only one program that they are pursuing in regards to air breathing hypersonic cruise missile and that is the HSSW. Both Boeing and Lockheed are going to be building prototypes for testing in the 2018-2020 time-frame. Will there be more weapons if this effort is successful? Possibly, but for now the plans are to mount the HSSW internally on the LRS-B and externally on the F-35 and other tactical fighters. Keep in mind that its a mid 2020’s weapon if all goes as planned i.e the program is successful, and DARPA and the CSAF find a way to incorporate the sorts of things they are talking about (rolling out weapons faster and getting technology thats around the corner incorporated faster into mainstream platforms).
The Aim-120D has just been declared operational and over 1000 missiles have been delivered with more on the way (procurement runs through 2024). The AMRAAM effort over the last years has been really trying to get it up to date in terms of ECCM ability and countering future threats. The T3 program addressed long range needs through ramjet powered prototypes and this was tested in 2013, by DARPA (2 weapons, one by Boeing the other by Raytheon). At the moment the most cutting edge ECCM ability of all versions resides in the upgraded Aim-120C7, and that is now being added as a software upgrade to the D’s as well. The focus at the moment is to deliver on the volume for the Aim-120D program that has been delayed due to the much publicized production issues.
Beyond the Aim-120D, there has been a long term need for multi-mode seekers and there has been research in that area over the years. Neither service likes to fully discuss in detail their plans for research and development for future weapons but WEAPONS were identified even back in 2013 by the DARPA head as parts of the ongoing (at the time) Air Dominance Initiative. It wouldn’t be unsafe to assume that the USAF and the USN know fairly well what the plans are beyond the Aim-120D.
The AIM-120D is many years late. They have to push for a dual role successor with much more capability ( better range, better end game maneuvrability, super maneuvrability right after launch, tri-mode seeker, etc ). The F-35 not being a pure fighter, needs the best BVR missile technology can build to compensate.
The survivability comes from the speed (Hypersonic).
They are not used for the same kind of target. A hypersonic missile costs much more than a subsonic stealthy cruise missile but can hit high value time critical targets a lot better.
HotshotThat would be up to the services to decide. I will go ahead and wager that they would not do anything of that sort for at least a decade.
Do you think that a the third air stream require a redesign of the air duct ?
Its about tactical advantage of having such a technology inserted. The AFRL boss has already spoken about pods and mounting it on tactical fighters. They will do this in the medium term. Lockheed internally has been working on it along with its partners for over 5 years, I have posted academic work on the capability and I believe by the end of next year a concrete plan to demonstrate a tactical HEL could be announced (doesn’t have to be on the F-35).
I imagine the cooling would be easier with a pod, don’t you think?
If the HEL can intercept incoming missile, I would imagine the B-1s being a good target plane. They would have a better first strike capability.
Th HSSW is meant to be carried externally by the F-35, F-22 and internally on the LRS-B. The size chosen was (iirc) done so to provide stand-off range (relative) and still be of value to the bomber fleet. Its supposed to be a mach 5+ weapon so you won’t deploy it like a subsonic weapon (cost and other considerations).
It can’t be scaled for different sizes?
The F-35 needs first and formost a dual role missile I think ( an AMRAAM/HARM replacement ).
The HSSW is one size as explained above.
Internal on the bomber, external on the fighters. Thats the trade-off. You have the JSM (Now raytheon is showing some interest int he family), JSOW and Lockheed could always be asked to dust off its plans on the Mini-JASSM/LCMCM, but there is no such demand for anything over and above the current cruise missile lineup from either the USN, USAF or the USMC. The munition/PGM roadmap for the future is also something that is understood and they are working towards that goal.
From looking at the pictures of the HSSW, it doesn’t seem to be stealthy, so the LRS-B might be a better launch platform for initial strikes. The JASSM/LRASM are stealthy to begin with, I would guess they would be better suited for the F-35 carried on external pylons.
The JASSM almost fits inside the bays, so a mini-JASSM could be a good idea if feasable, with several variants ( mini-JASSM-ER, mini-LRASM, etc… ).
HotshotThe AETD engine is for a particular program. What specs they finally release for an EMD engine beyond AETP, will be what GE and P&W have to meet. If they need a larger intake, that would have to be designed if the current ones on current fighters are insufficient. Not sure GE is looking at larger intakes when they suggest a new engine for the F-35. I’ll ask around. It would be up to Lockheed, the JPO and the individual services to see what they want. Do they want the third stream and the structural modifications or are they happy with incorporating other efficiencies demonstrated in these programs to gain say a 10% fuel burn reduction. These along with other options will be on the table for them to pick and choose and they’ll no doubt run the numbers on cost v capability and come to a solution in the future.
The F-35 is a very young aircraft so changing the intake and adding the third air stream early in the production might make sense, like was done on the F-16. The R&D cost will much more than pay for itself over the service life of over 1000 planes.
I would guess that increasing the size of the intake would not increase the drag, because the fuselage is already significantly wider than the intakes. So combined with an increased thrust the F-35 would have better supercruise speed.
From my understanding, many of the capabilities being developed by both GE and P&W can be retrofitted onto existing engines to make them more efficient across the speed range. P&W has been throwing around fuel burn savings, anywhere from 5% to 15% based on upgrades to the F-135. There are fuel burn savings across the board and this is the main driver of the programs. I have spoken to a few people more familiar then myself on GE’s efforts and they have confirmed the same. Even if you manage a 15% lower fuel burn, that has fairly significant implications on the size of the vehicle, internal fuel capacity and ultimately the COST. Could be a reason for some of the confidence of the four stars in meeting the 550 Million cost target (CSAF sounded pretty confident yesterday).
I can bet a decent amount of money that both GE and P&W spent a considerable time talking with Boeing/Lockheed and Northrop Grumman about the various propulsion options that are available say by 2020, 2025 and 2030. Even open source media article points to adaptive engines being a potential choice for the propulsion needs of the various designs.
There is certainly a better opportunity with these engines of fielding a relatively inexpensive supersonic bomber. Getting the plane to supercruise at Mach 1.25 when flying over enemy airspace would have an impact on survivability. But the problem I guess would be the very wide fuselage due to the rotary launcher. Maybe they would have to look at other types of bays without rotary launchers, say more similar to the FB-22’s bay, but with more depth for GBU-28s etc…
Is that a big surprise?
Definitely not.
Its a program that is slated to be in production for another 2+ decades. So yes, it will be upgraded in that timeframe and kept relevant both to incorporate advances made in technology over time and to better counter the evolving threat. No surprises there, this has happened to all systems before it, and will continue to happen to all systems after it has long retired.
Besides the big ticket investments into VAATE ( https://www.scribd.com/doc/254275332/VAATE ) what the CSAF seems to be hinting is the incorporation of technologies and capabilities that are right around the corner and would be proving themselves (validation) before the turn of the decade. DEW’s are explicitly mentioned by him. You can also add hypersonics to the mix. Making them UAI compatible from the start, could mean a much faster rollout of the HSSW to the F-35, F-15 fleets. Prototype Demonstration is expected in the 2018-2020 time-period. Budget documents form 16 hint at the LRS-B being UAI compatible from the start as well.
A DEW would take away fuel space, so an engine with better fuel consumption would be needed to compensate.
The F-35’s bays are not very large, so a weapon designed for it will not be really optimized for the LRS-B. For instance the F-35 can only carry small cruise missiles, not relatively large missiles like the JASSM. On the LRS-B they might want a bigger missile. There will be some trade-off to accept here.
HotshotGen. Welsh Reviving Spirit Of ‘Systems Command’ For Air Dominance
http://insidedefense.com/inside-air-force/gen-welsh-reviving-spirit-systems-command-air-dominance
What strikes me is that when you listen to the generals, they are far more objective and concerned about enemy weapon systems than the average Joe on the internet. Defending the F-35 at nauseum as if it it will be able to easily beat anything in the next decades sounds really amateurish. It will need significant upgrades in engine, avionics and weapons to remain credible, and might even be insufficient sooner than some think.
HotshotThere is little doubt in my mind that there would be two adaptive engines developed eventually following the AETP programs but they will be in different classes and may not be at once. The Navy will not need 80,000 pounds of thrust and is also unlikely to go for a single engine aircraft for the FA-XX program. The USAF may need something in the 35-40K thrust class for a dedicated F-22A replacement. There are many good reasons to do something like that and I am fairly certain that the propulsion needs would be met with these two engines.
It looks like they want some sort of scalable technology, so they might be able to build 2 variants of one engine, although I doubt it because the 2 engines would be in completely different classes.
Also, from what I understand, an AETD engine requires a large air intake for the extra air flow, so that might impact negatively on drag in supersonic. The engine will also have a larger diameter so the fuselage will be larger. A plane with 2 engines is likely to have a fat fuselage. The plane will have more thrust but more drag, so will it really be faster?
The big unknown is the LRS-B. Is it going to incorporate an adaptive engine sometime in its future? Can a new engine be developed by its IOC, or do they need a transition engine before a full fledged Adaptive engine is ready? A 25% SFC reduction has huge implications on vehicle size and I am pretty sure that this would factor into the LRS_B design calculus at some stage. Perhaps the 40K class engine finds its way into the LRS-B before it finds its way into the F-35? Thats certainly a possibility that we cant rule out for a few more years.
It depends if they want a supersonic LRS-B or not. If the plane is subsonic, the AETD engine will probably not give a better consumption performance than a normal civilian turbofan. If they want a supersonic dash capability however, they absolutely need to integrate it. With it the plane would be significantly smaller and lighter because it would need less fuel, that would help for supersonic speeds.
Hotshotfuel savings are irrelevant for such costly project across the industrial chain.
the point is the new engine will not give much better speed than Mach 1.6. Post 2020 is era of hypersonic missiles. Indian integration of brahmos with Su-30MKI is first step. Airplane with larger external wings and higher altitude/speed is the advantage.
I agree that the F-35 won’t be much faster, but the F-35A might be able to supercruise more easily, which is still an improvement. The F-35 will always be disadvantaged by its slow aerodynamics compared to new designs. And it won’t have the same altitude capability.
HotshotA more efficient engine resulting in increased range? But what will be the trade-off?????
It’s a new type of engine using a third air stream ( AETD engine I believe ) in subsonic. It is also likely to have like 5% more thrust in supersonic I believe.
HotshotI highly doubt new engine is coming as this engine already expensive due to lack of its use in 4 generation fighters. beside most export customers like Japan, Australia, Norway, Turkey, Netherlands, Italy, Israel, UK has currency depreciated 30 to 80%. this will be very slow ramp up.
The new engine will cost more but will lead to big saving in fuel over the service life of the plane. And the range will be increased by 30-40%, which means fewer tanker sorties.
HotshotThe hellfire-L with its MMW radar has multi-target capability. The radar detects and tracks all the targets, and the missiles are launched all at once. I believe that the hellfire-L will also be integrated in the LCS because of its multi-target capability.
As for the ability to laser guide several hellfires at the same time, the system would have to be able to track them all first. The crew enters the targets in a shooting list while remaining undetected, and the missiles are launched all at once. Can the apache targeting system track several targets at the same time without the radar, I don’t know.
From the wiki page, the AGM-114K Hellfire II has:
Digital autopilot improvements allow target reacquisition after lost laser lock
That could allow eventually what I was saying at the beginning, which is to alternate targets quickly using different frequencies.
The enemy would probably see the missiles being launched, so taking like 10-15 seconds between launches is pretty long. The enemy tanks can engage the helicopters with their primary gun, and the enemy soldiers can quickly get ready to launch a MANPAD.
I don’t know if other helicopters can use the MMW hellfire, I doubt it. If they are limited to laser guidance, they would take significantly more risks.
Sign In
