MACE (Multi-Mission Affordable Capacity Effector)

Forest Green

Forest Green

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
11 June 2019
Messages
12,854
Reaction score
27,676

Attachments

  • GFWVf9jXsAAmSto.jpg
    GFWVf9jXsAAmSto.jpg
    199.3 KB · Views: 19
  • GFWWIznWQAA2w2w.jpg
    GFWWIznWQAA2w2w.jpg
    212.5 KB · Views: 23
Last edited by a moderator:
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.
 
DWG said:
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.
Click to expand...
Cost probably.
 
DWG said:
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.
Click to expand...

I do not think the USN exclusively has ships in mind as the target set, or explosives as the only payload. But as noted JSMs cost something like 2 million; navy is proposing $300,000 target. Also internal carriage preserves stealth on the F-35.
 
DWG said:
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.
Click to expand...
I mean, it really says it all right there in the name:
Multi-Mission (more than just an AShM) Affordable Capacity (Can produce large quantities for far less $ than our current high-end AShM's) Effector (a super heterosexual and manly way to say missile)..!
DoD have realized watching Ukraine play out, that the flashy/expensive weapons are really just for breaking the door down, that initial breach. After that it's all about affordable mass, you need to have mass quantities of munitions constantly harassing the enemy in order to run their air defense munitions dry, allowing real breakthroughs in progress to be made on a stale/attritional battlefield..!
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
DoD have realized watching Ukraine play out, that the flashy/expensive weapons are really just for breaking the door down, that initial breach. After that it's all about affordable mass, you need to have mass quantities of munitions constantly harassing the enemy in order to run their air defense munitions dry, allowing real breakthroughs in progress to be made on a stale/attritional battlefield..!
Click to expand...

The efforts to field 'affordable mass' have been in the works for years. No doubt many things are being validated, crossed off based on current Ukraine-Russia conflict, but a lot of this stuff has been in the works at some scale for many years.
 
Even before Ukraine, most wargames saw the U.S. exhausteing almost all its SOW in a matter of a few weeks in a Sino-American war. There have been numerous efforts to create new technology and work arounds for inexpensive cruise missiles, though none of these efforts ever entered production to my knowledge.

At this point I think there is enough interest and enough industry investment by start ups/mid sized companies that we will see a number of flexible inexpensive solutions that are an order of magnitude cheaper to produce. JSM is still a $2 million missile; you are not saving much over LRASM. Something like Baracuda likely costs low-mid hundreds of thousands with more range, though perhaps less capable with lower HE content in kinetic versions. But modern surface ships are realistically very vulnerable to individual precise hits. I suspect a delayed fuse 155mm well placed in the forward super structure is enough for a DDG mission kill. One thing I noticed about DDGX is that it splits its arrays and funnels (and presumably engine rooms) across two superstructures to allow for some combat capability even after a precise hit. I think I also ready somewhere that it will have some kind of auxiliary fire control in the rear of the ship as a CIC backup.
 
The Baracuda 500 which had its initial flight tests last year, is competing for the program that's shooting for a $150,000 AUR cost for the basic air vehicle.
 
bring_it_on said:
The Baracuda 500 which had its initial flight tests last year, is competing for the program that's shooting for a $150,000 AUR cost for the basic air vehicle.
Click to expand...

$150,000 is the ETV goal? I had not heard that number before. What is the desired payload mission if it is an AUR?
 
Josh_TN said:
$150,000 is the ETV goal? I had not heard that number before. What is the desired payload mission if it is an AUR?
Click to expand...

Yes the $150K goal was confirmed by Anduril. I have not seen what the payload mission is but its basically expected to come at $150K or below, be launched off of cargo aircraft using a similar approach as demonstrated by JASSM/Rapid Dragon demonstrations. There are probably payload and performance specs in the public but I haven't seen them. Barracuda 500 which appears to be have been designed around those requirements is stated to have a 100+ lb warhead or similarly size non kinetic payload.
 
Last edited:
Effector is a word used in many other technical contexts to describe nodes in a web, chain or network that ultimately “effect” the end result. For example, CD8+ T cells or NK cells could be called effectors, as could antibodies.
 
CJohnston said:
View attachment 776706

Navy 'High Speed Long Range Maritime Strike Weapon' as a line item in FY 26 budget.

Existing propulsion with existing weapon, multiple variants, and integration plan on F/A-18E/F.
Click to expand...

There was a USN paper that called for an ‘ACME’ platform (do not think it was even an RFI?); perhaps related to that. Though I struggle to think of could already be “existing” propulsion or weapon wise.
 

MACE to Become U.S. Navy’s Primary Hypersonic Strike Munition​

www.navalnews.com

MACE to Become U.S. Navy’s Primary Hypersonic Strike Munition - Naval News

Confirmed by Fiscal Year 2027 U.S. Navy budget documentation, the Multi-mission Affordable Capacity Effector (MACE) is to serve as the most numerous Hypersonic strike option available to U.S. Naval Aviation, with a limited service entry date sometime in 2027.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
I had thought MACE subsonic previously? Did I just remember wrong or did the program requirement change?
 
TomS said:
Yeah, it morphed when the Navy killed HALO in 2025, I think.
Click to expand...

But I thought the HALO requirements were rescoped and that this program was also active? I guess we will just see what they end up buying. It kinda looks like GBU-75 might fill the space of the original MACE requirement, although as a larger weapon.
 
I feel like they keep redefining the programs instead of asking Congress to reprogram the money.
 
TomS said:
I feel like they keep redefining the programs instead of asking Congress to reprogram the money.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes more sense. I always forget about the budget aspect of these programs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom