lukosNot being mission specific but many of the industry colleagues I’ve spoken to think that brimstone procurement is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’
I’d be surprised if they don’t go with JAGM instead, politics being what it is. Griffin is good for most things but against state-of-the-art MBT armour it lacks a few hundred mm RHA and range is also more limited for use against SR SAM threats.
lukosNo, you can not mount MLRS an a AC-130 ramp door. Look how M270 works and then think about how to get the back blast of the rockets work in an aircraft.
Keep them contained.
lukosTo fire artillery from 30-40 miles from the enemy, you must first get the artillery piece within 40 or so miles of the target. You must then supply it with ammunition.
That entails a challenging logistical chain.
Contrary to that – an aircraft can operate from a fixed location hundreds of miles away, and that fixed location is more likely to be served by transport links large enough for the logistical train for any kind of sustained operations.
Yes, artillery can respond faster than an aircraft in many scenarios… but only if the piece is within range, has ammunition and divisional/group command aren’t fearful about conserving ammunition for future action elsewhere.
I’m surprised AC-130s haven’t gotten at least one mention yet. We’ve talked artillery and CAS aircraft but didn’t put the two together.
Now, can an M270 MLRS be mounted on a AC-130’s ramp door?
lukosFor once i’ll have to agree with you.
Btw, according to Gareth Jennings (Jane’s), F-35 B (and may be A and C) is grounded after a major in filght oil leak. Flights resume scheduled the 18th.
Maybe it pi55ed itself when it heard someone claim it was stealthier than an F-22.
When did that happen? Link?
lukosI would just like to say that it is nice to see the trolls going after a thread other than the F-35 one for once…
I’ll try keep them busy but they have a lot of drop tank fuel, so this could take a while. Please launch the alert five aircraft.
lukosOk, don’t you think it should also include defensive means against that type pf jamming?
You would hope so but which will work best is unknown. While defending an aircraft itself from such an attack is plausible, stopping the effect from taking place on a missile could be rather more tricky.
lukosRaytheon conducts first live fire test of Excalibur S
New variant guided successfully to target with laser
PARIS, June 15, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — In a company-funded R&D initiative, Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) successfully fired the dual-mode GPS- and laser-guided Excalibur S for the first time. Although the Excalibur S was initialized with a GPS target location, it scored a direct hit on a different, or offset, target after being terminally guided with a laser designator.
The new variant incorporates a laser spot tracker (LST) into the combat-proven Excalibur Ib projectile, the world’s most precise GPS guided 155mm artillery projectile now in production for the U.S. Army and several international customers.
“The performance of Excalibur S is very impressive and I am extremely encouraged by Raytheon’s commitment to the next generation of Excalibur,” said Lieutenant Colonel Josh Walsh, U.S. Army Excalibur Product Manager.
This test validated the LST’s ability to survive the forces of firing from a 155mm howitzer and then successfully hand off from the GPS to guide to a laser spot on the designated target.
The Raytheon-funded Excalibur S builds on the proven, GPS-guided Excalibur Ib variant. The addition of the LST will enable the warfighter to attack moving targets, engage targets that have re-positioned after firing, or change the impact point to further avoid casualties and collateral damage.
“The significance of this new capability cannot be understated,” said Michelle Lohmeier, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems’ Land Warfare Systems product line. “A laser-guided variant of Excalibur gives the warfighter a precision weapon that accommodates target location errors, allows continued target attack when GPS is degraded or denied, and hit targets on the move at extended ranges.”
Excalibur S also paves the way for Excalibur Ib customers to upgrade their Excalibur Ib guidance and navigation units with GPS and LST capability. Several international customers have expressed strong interest in Excalibur S, and this same capability can also be incorporated into the 5-inch Excalibur naval variant, Excalibur N5, the company is developing.
Raytheon is planning a live fire demonstration of the Excalibur N5 later this year.
About Excalibur
Excalibur is a revolutionary precision guided projectile that provides warfighters a first round effects capability in nearly any environment. Excalibur is cannon artillery’s only long range true precision weapon.
Combat proven: Nearly 750 Excalibur rounds have been fired in combat
Precise: Excalibur consistently strikes less than two meters from a precisely-located target
Responsive: Excalibur dramatically reduces mission response time
Safe: Excalibur’s precision practically eliminates collateral damage and has been employed within 75 meters of supported troops
Affordable: Excalibur’s first round effects reduces total mission cost and the user’s logistics burden
Growing: With Excalibur S, Raytheon adds a Laser Spot Tracker to mitigate target location error and enable engagement of moving targets
Entering New Markets: With Excalibur N5, a five-inch naval variant, navies will be able to deliver extended range, precision naval surface firesExcalibur is a cooperative program between Raytheon and BAE Systems Bofors.
lukosBecause
1- a missile’s seeker has a limited range (let’s say <15 km) so it will be blind until it is within this range
2- During a BVR engagement, the target has a lot more time to change its trajectory and get out of the seeker gimbal limits
3- In case of multiple targets within the scan volume of the missile sensor, you want to be sure to kill the right one.
15km? It’s a lot more than that for ARH or IIR seekers. Unless you’re talking about an ARH vs stealth aircraft.
For radar missiles against jamming yes but for an IIR seeker with +/-90deg FOV, even if the probably near 50km acquisition range isn’t sufficient at launch, it’s not like the enemy can somehow escape that full frontal hemisphere FOV in the time it takes an ASRAAM to cover the first bit of distance at >1km/s.
You kill the right one via the software that allows the autonomous LOAL, e.g. target identification and recognition algorithms.
lukosDassault may have proposed it and its useful thing for the marketing team, but I strongly doubt that the ROKAF had any such requirement. What mission could possibly require 14000L of fuel over and above the 500km range of the ALCM?
Actually come to think of it, you could strike the same target without CFTs by simple employing a longer ranged cruise missile. The JASSM-ER for example, would reduce the aircraft’s required flight range by about 1000 km.
On the contrary, I’ve wondered why the AdlA/MN didn’t adopt CFTs. While operating in sanitized airspace like Afghanistan or Syria (after the first week), CFTs would certainly be more economical since the aircraft are probably dragging (expensive) empty EFTs back to base, rather jettisoning them. My guess would be that long endurance sorties are a rarity making CFT acquisition more of a hassle than its worth.
It’s good to hear someone talking sense. The only time drop tanks are really dropped is when the aircraft’s life depends on it, hence CFTs offer significant advantages in routine/safer operations. There’s also something a little silly about carrying more fuel externally than internally. E.g. if you cruise deep into well defended enemy territory with 3 2000L drop tanks in a Rafale to deliver a payload, which is insane anyway, and you use nearly half your total fuel, then you’re attacked and have to drop all remaining external fuel and high-tail it out on afterburner, you now have less fuel than the fuel you cruised in with and you’re on afterburner and potentially in an aerial engagement too.
If you regularly need almost as much external fuel as internal fuel, you’ve got the wrong aircraft for the job.
lukosData link in used for BVR shots, after the inertial phase, to update the target position. It is especially usefull when the missile performed long range loft trajectories which imply that the target may no longer be in the missile’s sensor scan volume when the target is in range of the sensor.
Though it greatly increases the PK for long range engagements, it is NOT mandatory. The mica can perfectly find a target with the last data it got before launch, even after a 180° turn, using its INS and sensor scanning if the target is in the sensor range.That is exactly what was done during the 180° shot test in 2007 with a mica EM. The initial target data were communicated by a 2nd aircraft to the shooter via link16, but no data were transmited to the missile after launch : 180° turn, no aircraft-missile datalink, missile acquiring the target after launch on its own.
‘Over-the-shoulder’ Mica pushes limits
ROBERT HEWSON Editor Jane Air-Launched Weapons
LondonA French Air Force Dassault Rafale F2 has conducted an operational test firing of MBDA’s Mica air-to-air missile, demonstrating an ability to engage airborne targets in a mode that may be unprecedented.
The missile was fired in an ‘over-the-shoulder’ manoeuvre to hit a target at beyond visual range, using targeting information datalinked to the launch aircraft by a second Rafale.
This combination of a thrust-vectored, active-radar missile, fired successfully at a rear hemisphere target by a datalinked ‘blind’ aircraft, is almost certainly the first such test to merge so many specific elements.
This Mica test was the 11th in a 12-shot series of Evaluation Technico-Opérationnelle/Operational Technical Test (ETO) firings conducted by the French Air Force as part of its tactics development work for the Rafale F2. The 12th and final test took place on 29 June, but no further details of the trials have been released. ETO 11 was the most complex of the ETO firings up to that point and the first time that the Mica/Rafale combination had been tested to such extremes.
The test involved two Rafale F2s operated by the Centre d’Experiences Aeriennes Militaires (CEAM): the French Air Force test centre. A C 22 target drone was positioned at a distance behind a Mica-armed Rafale (Rafale 1), acting as a surrogate threat aircraft. Rafale 1 had no radar contact with the drone. A second Rafale (Raffle 2) was manoeuvring in co-ordination with Rafale 1 which was at its two o’clock, maintaining situational awareness with a combination of its RBE2 radar and Link 16 datalink.
Operating some tens of kilometres from Rafale 1, Rafale 2 detected and tracked the C 22 with its radar and datalinked the target’s position to Rafale 1. Rafale 1 then used that data to align the inertial navigation system on one of its active-radar Mica EM missiles and launched the weapon. Neither Rafale 1 nor its missile had a lock on the C 22 target before launch. The Mica used its thrust-vectored motor to perform a 180 degree over-the-shoulder turn and fly out directly behind Rafale 1. The Mica then entered the defined target area ‘box’ and began searching for the C 22 with its own seeker. The drone, carrying simulated missiles, was engaged and destroyed at a range “considerably greater than any short-range missile such as the [Rafael] Python 4 or [Vympel] R-73 that could have threatened Rafale 1”, according to MBDA.
The Mica EM and Mica IR variants are already qualified on the Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale. This latest ETO test programme was to prove expanded engagement modes for the Rafale F2, with both Mica types, in French Air Force service. That work is now complete. The Rafale F2 has been declared fully operational at EC 1/7 ‘Provence’ based at Saint-Dizier, where the aircraft maintain a quick reaction alert. Weapons development work is now shifting to the next F3 standard for Rafale capability.
Several things. It’s the radar guided version, not the IR version. Furthermore it doesn’t specifically state that no update was provided after launch but….. it’s not a new thing for radar guided missiles, in fact mid-course update is/was(?) a selectable customer option on AMRAAMs. Radars scan, it’s just what they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Guidance_system_overview
AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built in inertial navigation system (INS). This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft’s radar, although it could come from an infrared search and tracking system (IRST), from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.
After launch, if the firing aircraft or surrogate continues to track the target, periodic updates—such as changes in the target’s direction and speed—are sent from the launch aircraft to the missile, allowing the missile to adjust its course so that it is able to close to a self-homing distance where it will be close enough to “catch” the target aircraft in the basket (the missile’s radar field of view in which it will be able to lock onto the target aircraft, unassisted by the launch aircraft).
Not all armed services using the AMRAAM have elected to purchase the mid-course update option, which limits AMRAAM’s effectiveness in some scenarios. The RAF initially opted not to use mid-course update for its Tornado F3 force, only to discover that without it, testing proved the AMRAAM was less effective in BVR engagements than the older semiactive radar homing BAE Skyflash weapon—the AIM-120’s own radar is necessarily of limited range and power compared to that of the launch aircraft.
Third party cueing is definitely not new either. The INS data comes from another aircraft rather than your own systems. It’s been tested with AMRAAM and is a feature on ASRAAM and most other modern missiles on datalinked aircraft.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/asraam_background-1402652228.pdf
In this scenario, the
pilot can locate targets behind the aircraft using, for example, the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD)
or third party targeting.
It’s not really a feature of the missile, it’s a feature of the aircraft, i.e. does it have a datalink?
Over the shoulder AMRAAM shot? I’ll have to check but I’m sure it’s been done. At larger distances it’s fundamentally easier because the turn isn’t as sharp and the missile is just heading to an INS point like in any other BVR situation.
So going back to MICA IR, what does this tell us? Sadly not much but an interesting read nonetheless. Datalinks generally do improve radar guided missile Pk because radar FOV is smaller and they have to deal with all sorts of nasty stuff like jamming etc.
lukosI missed that one…
The lack of a datalink explains why the AIM-132 ASRAAM can’t compete with MICA as far as BVR range is concerned.
Although you don’t want it to be so, I can assure you the LOAL capability for MICA IR is supported by its INS (thus making it as capable as the AIM-132), with an optional refresh of the target position/vector through a datalink (thus giving the MICA an edge at long range)
Using a datalink only is not practical, because you’d need to know where the seeker is (relatively to its assigned target) before telling it where to look. So I’m a little bit dubitative on what Wiki says concerning AIM-9X LOAL capability.
So why does it have a datalink? If the IIR seeker can scan a wide-enough area quickly enough to auto-LOAL at close range, then for BVR at longer range, the number of square degrees it has to search is smaller because the angle is reduced and the available time is longer. There is no edge to having a datalink, it’s dead weight unless you need it, and restrictive in extreme EW environments.
The information on the AIM-9X does not come from wiki:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aim-9x-block-ii-the-new-sidewinder-missile-011572/
Raytheon’s AIM-9X Block II would have made Top Gun a very short movie. It’s the USA’s most advanced short range air-air missile, capable of using its datalink, thrust vectoring maneuverability, and advanced imaging infrared seeker to hit targets behind the launching fighter…..
The final piece of the puzzle is lock-on after launch capability (the key Block II improvement)
Overall, the Block II has about 85% parts commonality with the Block I. The 2-way datalink is the most significant single Block II change
The seeker knows where it is relative to the missile axis and the missile knows where it is in 3D space, the aircraft tells the missile via datalink where the target is relative to the missile, which tells the seeker where to look.
lukosThen look harder. I’ve better things to do than to lecture you on such basic principles. Those who really want to know/learn are free to seek for more informations by themselves.
I’ve looked. The LOAL for AIM-9X and MICA IR come by data-link cueing telling the seeker where to look as far as I can gather.
lukosThe main purpose of the datalink is to enable successful long-range engagements. In short, this datalink allows to refresh the target position/velocity/vector so that the missile can alter its flightpath until the target get into the seeker detection range. That’s why a datalink is a requirement for BVR missiles.
LOAL is basically enabled by two things :
– The missile being able to scan then lock while being airborne
– The weapon system allowing to launch a missile not yet locked on a target
Now, one may enhance this LOAL capability to better ensure that the right target is finally tracked. This was usually done by using an INS, but a datalink may indeed do the trick as well (providing it’s an omni-directional datalink).
I’m not seeing any supporting information.
lukosWhen I wrote “Discussions at Eurosatory next week will be more useful, and certainly more polite”, I was not referring to the Korean newspaper’s EADS source; I was referring to your comments on this forum.
But since you have asked, what I like as a source are the programme managers and senior engineers I can speak to, and the technical documentation that companies are able to provide. That is why I am heading off to Eurosatory about an hour from now. Events that are closed to be public (such as exhibitions and conferences) are good places to gather information that is not available on the internet.
The next-best alternative is similar sources being quoted by any of the good defence journalists.
Have a nice week. Bring back lots of pictures.:eagerness:
lukosNo, if a low drag tiny control surfaces missile was game-over,
not one would bother with making the control surfaces bigger and adding thrust vectoring only to reduce range.
asraam has a modest agility, it was seen as a compromise with the customer favoring longer range at the expense of bleeding edge agility,
such as that of Iris-t, that can be referred to as nearly game-over ability
ASRAAM is said to be capable of >50g. The only TVC missile with greater agility thus far in service is IRIS-T at 60g and it pays dearly in respect to range. The other problem with using TVC for manoeuvrability is that it doesn’t work very well after the burn phase for obvious reasons, which is a double-penalty when added to the range reduction wrt near-BVR engagement. It is however another tool in service with Eurofighters in other European nations.
50g really isn’t too shabby. If the missile’s functional, I wouldn’t bet on a pilot avoiding it.
Sign In
