The beauty of the F-35’s CPU architecture is that the code is not directly bound to the CPU type. As newer processors come online, the CPU cards can be upgraded without a large change in the code.
This has already been done once in the program when they went from 4 single chip GP modules to two quad chip GP modules (Tech Refresh1 – TR1) without changing the block software.
I wonder what is in store for TR2 (Block2) or TR3 (Block4)?
A few things to keep in mind.
1. The CUDA is not only lacking a warhead, but also a proximity fuze.
2. Since the CUDA is in its early concept phase, its electronics will be build using tomorrow’s electronics. For a little perspective, the AIM-120C3 is almost 20 years old. What did computers look like in the early 1990’s?
3. With advances in datalinks and GPS the active seeker does not have to be as large.
4. Focus on newer propellents is aimed at faster missiles so flight times are shorter
5. Battery tech is much better allowing for a smaller battery with the same power.
6. With a smaller seeker, lack of proximity fuze, better battery tech, and shorter flight times, the battery is much smaller than on AMRAAM.
This all boils down to a missile that has a larger motor to case ratio than even AMRAAM.
Here is a measured CUDA that I found (based on a SDB sized case).
I ran some numbers on the CUDA and here are results.
I pulled these motor number directly from ATK and they include the blast tube (links below). I pulled the overall length from Raytheon (links below) and it’s in inches.
Missile Length Motor Ratio Ratio with Thruster Section<br />
AMRAAM 144 74.4 51.67%<br />
9x 119 78 65.55%<br />
CUDA 70.8 46.25 65.32% 82.27%<br />
9x info:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_054518.pdf
http://www.atk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/MP-Sidewinder-AIM-9X-Propulsion.pdf
AMRAAM info:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
http://www.atk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/MP-AMRAAM-Propulsion.pdf
Even without counting the 12 inch mystery section as part of the motor(yes I think they are maneuver thrusters ala PAC-3, another LM HTK missile), the CUDA beats the AMRAAM ratio and ties the 9x.
Takeaway: Motor ratio is not the only determining factor in range as the 9x does not come close to the AMRAAM’s range despite having a larger motor (in percentage and actual length).
—On the weight issue—
As far as weight goes, no way CUDA is in the ~250 class. SDB weighs 250 due to a thick & hard steel case needed for penetration.
Given that an AMRAAM is twice as long as CUDA (144″ vs 71″), is a fatter missile (7″ vs “6), and has a warhead…. I would postulate that CUDA weighs in the 125-150lb range given AMRAAM’s 345lb.
Here is the math
All Measurements in inches<br />
Missile Length Width Volume Surface<br />
AMRAAM 144 7 5540 3170<br />
CUDA 71 6 2010 1340<br />
So, the CUDA has 36.3% of the volume and 42.3% of the surface area of an AMRAAM. Surface area is important because it’s the weight of the missile’s body.
Sign In
