geogenSpud, yes, an IRST on the ABL dev platform (apparently the AAS-42 derived IRST) was used to detect long range launches. That was the point… it (a sufficient LW IRST) doesn’t need to be first ‘cued’ as you said.
re: the ESSM, am just supporting the notion to study whether technical feasibility of ejected variant and appropriate seeker replacement (e.g. the enhanced 9x seeker or AMRAAM seeker) exists. You and I don’t know that, so you’ll notice my support/fund the study of such concept, that’s all. Furthermore, perhaps a rail launched ‘block A’ would be feasible (not sure if the F-35 will have a capable ‘trapeze’ rail launch sys?); with later block upgrades including eject launch and aimed WH, etc.
Likewise, an air launched SLAMRAAM-ER could arguably be another alternative-evolved concept to study, in conjunction w/ such ESSM-AIM.
re: AGM-TACMS, I’d concede the point it probably wouldn’t be feasible as an F-35 payload. But the overkill WH concerns brought up would probably not apply to such an AGM variant with high value anti-material type purposes, as it would conceivably involve terminal IR guided sub-munitions of types already developed. SM-2 variants (or modified SM-6) has long been suited and a valid concept for such a high-value strike capability however, due in fact to indeed a dual terminal IIR seeker, combined with GPS.
geogenSpud –
An IRST has to be cued so it is useless in the launch detection role.
Actually… it doesn’t need to be cued first and in fact it would more likely cue a narrow beam radar mode. What do you think 747 ABL program used to Search, detect and track distant test ballistic missile launches? What do you think would target ABM shots when employing NCADE? Yep, triangulated passive IRST.
the JDRADM will be powered in the endgame (the ESSM is not) and it’s warhead can aim for specific areas of the target (which the ESSM cannot).
Flat out, an air launched ESSM would have superior engagement range and carry a heavier WH which itself could easily be further enhanced later in terms of point aiming, etc… with the bonus of being employed much earlier than JDRADM and at a saving in R&D program budgets. (although for the record, I currently support complementing, overlapping program development)
Where do you see a need for a long range AAM in US service?
Simply, to initially engage farther out and extend the NEZ would be an obvious advantage. Figure a 2 long-range + 2-4 medium range + 2-4 dogfight optimal loadout?
The JSOW-ER would be a better choice of munition as it has IR terminal guidance.
Actually, the advanced JASSM variants also include IIR terminal guidance.
However; given a scenario requiring a quick response counter-strike capability perhaps consider an air-launched ATACM (600-800km range at supersonic speeds), or an air-launched SM-2 derived round (300-400km range @ supersonic) with precision A2G capability — either one much better base solutions for a prompt strike capability under such scenarios.
E.G., consider your optimal cost-effective solution to be a long endurance F-16XL, employing the relevant sensors and let’s say, 2x ATACMS. 😉
geogenTrue, but can we fully rely on the existing sats, especially in future? Call it an overall deterrence overlap requirement if you wish, imho.. You’ll still need manned/unmanned tacticals deployed in theatre as deterrence with such modernized passive sensors (a la IRST et al).
geogenThe F16… XL treatment and the APG80 are all easily implemented.
It would make for a superb stopgap.
Nic
Oui et bon chance to that..
geogenjessmo, why not then just put DAS on your B-1 (or equiv) then? Why insist on employing the $300 billion dollar middle man F-35 and Union/Military Industrial Complex dream machine, when you can cut costs, improve capability and Call it a day all in one shot?
geogenSpud,
I’d still favor an ESSM-AIM in say the next 2 yrs, over a continued, expensive and unproven JDRADM R&D system to maybe be procured in 6-7 yrs if it works out? But sure, I’d say continue to fund JDRADM as long as it can be afforded in addition to a short-term, more cost-effective and more proven/reliable ESSM-AIM funding. Performance wise though, the ESSM-AIM would own JDRADM as a bonus – both in range and warhead at least (giving better potential A2G modifications in future too.)
As far as Spotting a multi-hundred mile distant 2-stage TBM launch though, imho stick with a superior IRST such as the off the shelf 9.2″ aperture LW shadow pod and leave the truly revolutionary DAS type systems for valid MAWS and other WVR SA/cueing capacities.
geogenDJ,
re: LW IRST requiring further ID measures at long ranges, sure. The passive detection and superior range-triangulated SA advantages exploited from such a large AAS-42 derived 9.2″ aperture LW IRST however are simply just that and would be on a different level than DAS type aperture detection of course, but no I wasn’t implying it as being a stand alone silver bullet sensor capability.
Likewise, any EOTS’s IRST detection at long range would also require additional ESM/SAR ID too. (assuming these long range passive detections are beyond the optical/MW quality visual sensor ID ranges of say, 15nm-40nm, e.g.)
With that in mind, I’d concur with those suggesting absolute need for incorporating a longer range AIM intercept capability for F-35 (beyond the AMRAAM) once all parties then become pretty squared away with each others rough locations :eek:. Perhaps by the time F-35-Partner IOC dates come into actual relevance though, such Meteor and other solutions would indeed be available and integrated? (my personal choice option would be to study an ESSM-AIM variant (note folding fins), for capabilities including superior over the shoulder NEZ ranges employing Thrust Vectoring). imho.
p.s., on a different note… wouldn’t any hypothetical (lofty) ground launcher ‘geo-location’ coordinate generation of launch detections 600+ nm away require a pretty high flying sensor platform?
Thanks for any insight/reply.
geogenAs some already know, the future will include a substantial restructuring of the traditional Active and ANG posture and structure by default. This will obviously include substantial decrease in overall size of US’s operational Tacair force (far beyond the claimed numbers still being advertised/expected even today) out of both necessity now and by default, based on unsustaniable and unrealistic recap policies still being maintained and on the comprehensive realities facing budgets tomorrow.
So unfortunately, it’s most likely too late for any significant stand alone ANG ‘come back’ and recap schedule outside of some late tail F-16 SLEP and/or a few consolidated units potentially operating F-35A later on.
Furthermore and as a reminder… there will repeat, not be 70-80 F-35A procured by USAF during FRP. (save some form of stimulus procurement bill, or strategic front-end Lease agreement, etc, both unlikely imho). Simply, the future procurement budgets will not afford/support such annual Tacair acquisition. Period.
So while this is a valid, open minded thread by you jessmo, perhaps the generalized question should be rephrased as: what will/should the future, viable restructured US Tacair component, in totality, pursue as a policy going forward?
geogenFWIW, most likely the APG-82 has greater SAR capabilities than F-35’s set. The dedicated 9.2″ aperture class LW IRST will have farther passive detection and tracking capabilities in day or night. A bigger aperture Litening G4 would likely have greater corroborating ID range than a Sniper class aperture.
That being said, NG’s EODAS and other equivalent sets to follow will absolutely be potent systems integrated into manned and unmanned platforms alike very soon.
Regards.
geogenI’m a proponent of the MICA-IR class capability (at least as it is specified) as a valid just-outside-WVR asset.. It would be an interesting type ordnance to be integrated into, say, the F-22? (a last chance frontal shot before doing a 180 and running?)
But I’m now curious about this apparent Python 6 (Stunner) being developed by Rafael and Raytheon? Speculated to be both an AIM-9x and AMRAAM replacement? Possible 12′ length class missile with a dual-seeker?
Could this potentially be cheaper than the AMRAAM 120D? JDRADM? Could DoD just cancel the JDRADM R&D $$ outright, save the cash and fund this as at least a competitive supplement to the 120D?
Any thoughts?
geogenCould RN next ditch Super for the LCA Tejas naval (ski-jump operable)?
Enter quid pro: EF Typhoon selected for MMRCA in exchange for LCA ‘naval’ Tejas bought for RN? 😎
Powered by EJ2000 ‘Thrust Vectoring’, thus enabling an obvious UK-fleet logisitical cost-benefit as bonus.
Potential for Spanish and Italian ski-jumper fleet too?? 😮
Just my 2 Rupees :diablo:
geogenProbably not more maneuverable than the Mig-21 or SAAB Viggen (?), but point taken. Respect deserved, no question..
FWIW, I put together this ‘Google Earth’ flight sim recording awhile back, partly as respect to the Mig-31’s status and history.
geogenI am still struggling to see the point of the SE.
That’s a fair preliminary assessment right off the bat, imho. Although, maybe on further thought one could also think about a current operator of the latest F100 or F110 engine and wish to continue the cost-effective Life Cycle Cost logistical chain?
And maybe an F-15SE could even in fact be further upgraded in future, as a mid-term strategic-oriented air defense and deterrence platform? Worth a thought..
IMHO however, I’d personally study and contemplate a cheaper and less powerful Raytheon RACR radar set, albeit with cheek arrays and with full (and future upgradeable) A2A and A2G modes. Maybe with the saved space, they could also internally install the 9.2″ aperture AAS-42 derived IRST via an enlarged EOTS-type under shell? That mix would constitute strategic, imho at least. Finally, they could custom integrate a Thales EA pod on the centerline to cover that end of things?
Re: ordnance; maybe integrate Meteor and/or maybe an air-launched derivative of the popular ESSM (e.g., modified with -9x seeker)?
geogenLoL, Sign 🙂
Per ‘arquebus’ stretched Gripen XL concept; I’d say add wing-blended CFT and EPE upgraded F414 power.
Whatever else LO-oriented elements they can cost-effectively incorporated into the design, go for it.
Perhaps as a bonus; a LO underwing pod hauling 2x Meteor under each wing pod?
geogenOn this thread’s rather sensitive and provocative subject, I’d say no such imminent capability or plan to pre-emptively attack.
Given my personal analysis at least for now, regarding this topic; I’d recommend China, Japan and South Korea among others (some major strategic Saudi Oil export recipients) to actually increase civil investment in Iran.
Why? Perhaps one could say; to better expand the multi-polar and pluralist ‘Iranian and world’ interests… hence calculating and seeking to more widely progress the level of interaction, integration and influence of broader collective world interests vis-a-vis Iran and rest of world? 😮 imho.
Perhaps call it a chilling-out strat of some sorts, to help take us all out of the cold?
God speed. Respects to Iranians..
Sign In
