Register here

Author Topic: Air-launched missile defence concept  (Read 18468 times)

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 477
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2010, 09:44:00 pm »
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the PAC-3 MSE still contain a blast-fragmentation warhead unlike the NCADE? I wonder if this would allow a PAC-3 MSE based missile to have more of a dual-role capability.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2010, 03:59:19 pm »
Yes the PAC-3 missile still has an explosive warhead, and apparently one which is gimbaled to actually aim at the target should the missile not achieve a direct hit, a feature also reported on some of the missiles used by S-300/400 and possibly earlier Patriot missiles. THAAD also has a small cluster of rods it ejects just before impact, as a means of making its Ďhit to killí footprint slightly wider. But unlike PAC-3 it was never intended to kill targets it misses to the sides.

However PAC-3 also costs about 3.8 million dollars with the launch canister. Air launch would not require the launch canister (course you need a storage canister instead, the missile has to live somewhere when not in use), but it would require other changes and new hardware on the launch platform all of which costs money. PAC-3 is also unlikely to be as effective at very high ceilings because it just was never designed to operate up high or take advantage of being launched from 500-600mph. It has a very short burn time for rapid reaction and a relatively big heavy missile frame. Itís in the same vein as Sprint, just not quite as absurdly aggressive.

AMRAAM meanwhile is around 350,000 USD, and NCADE is estimated at about 1 million dollars. It would have a liquid fuel upper stage so itíd have a considerable effective range and work well at high ceilings to the point that the USAF has said it could do ASAT from an F-22.  Just as importantly AMRAAM and NCADE are about half the weight of PAC-3 at roughly 350lb vs. 700lb.

 So for 1.3 million dollars and the same weight you could have 1 AMRAAM and 1 NCADE vs. spending 2 million dollars extra to have a single PAC-3 to fire. Sometimes duel role capability isnít the best value!

The main reason to consider PAC-3 for air launch ABM is simply that PAC-3 already exists and is proven. NCADE is mostly new, though it would recycle certain key AMRAAM technology like the two way datalink from AIM-120D. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2010, 04:30:26 pm »
Liquid upper stage for NCADE was already cancelled.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2010, 05:34:21 pm »
Do you have a link for that? Last I heard the upper stage and the guidance system had been split into separate developmental efforts in 2009, but with a mighty 3.5 million split between them for FY2010 its hard to see how any real work could be done.

If the upper stage is dead then that probably means the death of the program sooner then later, since it will certainly loose its ASAT and space launch capability as a result, which was a major attraction of the system. Its not like it ever got any real money anyway, about 10 million in total and it actually got less this year then last after asking for a major increase. I can't find anything on FY2011 funding at the moment, not enough spare time to scan the budget documents.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 05:36:27 pm by Sea Skimmer »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2010, 05:40:00 pm »
Do you have a link for that? Last I heard the upper stage and the guidance system had been split into separate developmental efforts in 2009, but with a mighty 3.5 million split between them for FY2010 its hard to see how any real work could be done.

If the upper stage is dead then that probably means the death of the program sooner then later, since it will certainly loose its ASAT and space launch capability as a result, which was a major attraction of the system. Its not like it ever got any real money anyway, about 10 million in total and it actually got less this year then last after asking for a major increase. I can't find anything on FY2011 funding at the moment, not enough spare time to scan the budget documents.


It was in AvWeek months ago.  I don't recall the specific issue.  They switched to a solid propellant upper stage.

Raytheon's data NCADE data sheet confirms it.

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ncade_07-09_datasheet.pdf

« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 05:41:48 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 06:35:57 pm »
I notice they also now show a navy UAV as a launch platform, so maybe liquid propellent died out to try to suck the navy into the project. Course that doesn't much sense when the Navy is going to get SM-3 Block IIB as a long range ascent phase interceptor anyhow and has a more pressing requirement for terminal ABM coverage, but far dumber things have been funded.

Offline Mr London 24/7

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 350
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2013, 02:03:26 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #22 on: June 23, 2013, 03:08:05 pm »
Imagine that as an AAM against a plane.  Not much time to evade.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2013, 05:46:34 pm »
Models of Lockheed Martin ALHTK (Air Launched Hit To Kill) by Azle Models

Source:
http://www.azlemodels.com/slideshow/photos-5/photos-11/page15.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2013, 05:49:45 pm »
Uploaded on Sep 19, 2008

Lockheed Martin 2008 video animation showing its Air-Launched Hit-to-Kill (ALHTK) concept. A Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile would be launched from inside a fuel-tank-shaped pod under the wing of an F-15 to intercept a ballistic missile in its vulnerable boost stage.



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2013, 05:54:31 pm »
Uploaded on Sep 27, 2009


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9468
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2013, 06:13:40 pm »
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 06:15:32 pm by Triton »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2014, 11:07:37 pm »
The f-23 if built would have been perfect for this system.  A deeper long range missile bay that is adjacent to the short range missile bay can be modified to carry this internally.  The superior rear end of the airframe and higher speed would allow the f-23 to go deep into enemy airspace to take down ascending ballistic missiles.  This could have been a much much much cheaper alternative to sea based or land based missile defense system. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9823
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2014, 05:20:20 am »
The f-23 if built would have been perfect for this system.  A deeper long range missile bay that is adjacent to the short range missile bay can be modified to carry this internally.  The superior rear end of the airframe and higher speed would allow the f-23 to go deep into enemy airspace to take down ascending ballistic missiles.  This could have been a much much much cheaper alternative to sea based or land based missile defense system.

PAC-3 is 17 feet long.  (5 more than AIM-120.)  Was the YF-23's bay that long?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 945
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Air-launched missile defence concept
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2014, 04:52:46 pm »
PAC-3 is 17 feet long.  (5 more than AIM-120.)  Was the YF-23's bay that long?

The air launched version that we are talking about here is a shortened version (makes sense given that being air launched within enemy's air space, it doesn't need the range).  Don't know exactly length, but doesn't look more than twice the length of aim-9