Rafael SkySting AAM

[Big_Zukini]

In 2023 Israeli company Rafael unveiled the SkySting. First named SkySpear but quickly renamed.

Product page here.

Rafael makes several claims:

1. It's a 6th gen missile.
2. Leap in RF seeker capabilities.
3. 3 pulse motor instead of 2 pulse.
4. Significant range increase (and "very long range").
5. Extra aerodynamic lift(?)
   1. Could be me misreading it.
6. Short range and long range suitability.

I'm going to make a bit of a leap here, but "recently" Rafael updated their Spyder (link) brochure with an XR variant. They don't show the MFU where they otherwise show all variants, and the graphic just shows a generic MR MFU upscaled. I have not heard of any I-Derby-ER advancements, nor anything about a different 1st stage booster. Only in 2021 Rafael presented an improved Derby with 100km intercept range. Therefore I'm assuming the XR might be the SkySting.



I also know the IAF at least tested an air launched Stunner missile.



What I'm wondering about is how the SkySting achieved its characteristics, why was the Stunner AAM seemingly abandoned, and generally about AAMs today.
Stunner is a hit to kill missile. On SkySting's page we hear nothing about the kill mechanism. The word "warhead" is not mentioned, nor "kinetic" or "hit to kill".

In the image below I don't see any strakes that could increase its lift. Instead it has 3 sets of 4 fins. Minor departure from the Derby's long tail fins into a pair of smaller ones.
I guess their drag could be reduced via clever flight path. So the main range improvement must come from the different motor. But it still doesn't sit well with the present vector to remove control surfaces.

1. What does it mean to switch from 2 pulse to 3 pulse motor (in similar form factor)?
   1. Is it easy? Or does it require certain tech that makes it more expensive?
   2. What are its drawbacks?
2. What could the SkySting's underbody protrusion be?
   1. It runs nearly along the entire body but it doesn't seem to have an opening.
   2. Could it indicate motor length?
3. Stunner has a combined RF+EO seeker. SkySting only has RF seeker.
   1. Is there a known inherent issue with combined seekers?
   2. Rafael's advertising "hit before enemy can launch" indicates high speed. Could that be a limiting factor for EO?

 

[Dilandu]

Extra aerodynamic lift(?)

Presumably it means that larger part of missile weight is supported by aerodynamic lift, instead of engine?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'm not too knowledgeable on most of these more recent Israeli missiles but isn't the Stunner missile itself more-or-less SARH guidance with the added EO/IIR seeker? There is a great deal of advanced data-linking beyond that, but it still has no active-radar seeker of its own as far as I know.

SkyString in comparison I'm sure would have an active-radar seeker as it's kind of the standard for this class of AAM. It looks like they want it to be a direct competitor to AMRAAM in most ways.

It's just speculation on my part but I think having an active-radar seeker with an EO or IIR seeker in the nose has proven very difficult to do, at least on an AAM. We've seen some SARH missiles like the AIM-7R with that layout, but I can't think of any active-radar ones. Some missiles like variants of the SM-2 have an IR seeker located on the side of the missile, but this might not be feasible in the smaller volume of a medium-range AAM.

 

[Big_Zukini]

I'm not too knowledgeable on most of these more recent Israeli missiles but isn't the Stunner missile itself more-or-less SARH guidance with the added EO/IIR seeker? There is a great deal of advanced data-linking beyond that, but it still has no active-radar seeker of its own as far as I know.

SkyString in comparison I'm sure would have an active-radar seeker as it's kind of the standard for this class of AAM. It looks like they want it to be a direct competitor to AMRAAM in most ways.

It's just speculation on my part but I think having an active-radar seeker with an EO or IIR seeker in the nose has proven very difficult to do, at least on an AAM. We've seen some SARH missiles like the AIM-7R with that layout, but I can't think of any active-radar ones. Some missiles like variants of the SM-2 have an IR seeker located on the side of the missile, but this might not be feasible in the smaller volume of a medium-range AAM.

I heard rumors about its radar but how did you conclude it's SARH?

There are 3 reasons I believe it is likely to have an active RF seeker:
1. Iron Dome seeker - According to this image from a Rafael presentation, it has an active RF seeker.
It therefore makes sense to use this radar for the Stunner as it already leverages economy of scales and similarly Stunner's top priority is affordability.



2. Low altitude threats - DS (David's Sling) and Iron Dome are both tasked with cruise missile and drone defense. So DS needs the ability to guide on a target the ground based radar won't necessarily have LoS on.
So wouldn't it need an RF seeker to reliably discriminate a target against ground background in all weathers?

3. Forgot this one.

 

[kqcke for you]

In 2023 Israeli company Rafael unveiled the SkySting. First named SkySpear but quickly renamed.

Product page here.

Rafael makes several claims:

1. It's a 6th gen missile.

Thats no thing. Everything is 6th Gen now

1. Leap in RF seeker capabilities.
2. 3 pulse motor instead of 2 pulse.
3. Significant range increase (and "very long range").
4. Extra aerodynamic lift(?)
   1. Could be me misreading it.
5. Short range and long range suitability.

I'm going to make a bit of a leap here, but "recently" Rafael updated their Spyder (link) brochure with an XR variant. They don't show the MFU where they otherwise show all variants, and the graphic just shows a generic MR MFU upscaled. I have not heard of any I-Derby-ER advancements, nor anything about a different 1st stage booster. Only in 2021 Rafael presented an improved Derby with 100km intercept range. Therefore I'm assuming the XR might be the SkySting.

It makes the most sense being XR if they want to reuse the same infrastructure and vehicles

View attachment 762853

I also know the IAF at least tested an air launched Stunner missile.
View attachment 762854


What I'm wondering about is how the SkySting achieved its characteristics, why was the Stunner AAM seemingly abandoned, and generally about AAMs today.

To my knowledge its more of an refined Stunner for air to air warfare. Afterall while the multi seeker capability is nice it does means both have to be smaller, both use the same battery and that design probaly isn't the best thing for better aero.

Stunner is a hit to kill missile. On SkySting's page we hear nothing about the kill mechanism. The word "warhead" is not mentioned, nor "kinetic" or "hit to kill".

I would assume it has because it is just more effectiv even if its a small lethality enhancer like PAC-3 has.

In the image below I don't see any strakes that could increase its lift. Instead it has 3 sets of 4 fins. Minor departure from the Derby's long tail fins into a pair of smaller ones.

Well the remark to better aerodynamics could also be Just about having the similiar lift with lower drag for example. In that case it is more efficient.

I guess their drag could be reduced via clever flight path. So the main range improvement must come from the different motor. But it still doesn't sit well with the present vector to remove control surfaces.

1. What does it mean to switch from 2 pulse to 3 pulse motor (in similar form factor)?

Now 3 Pulse or multi Pulse (its in many cases the same or 3 Pulse are a more specific form of multi pulses) often have the same configuration with an boost pulse and an cruise pulse. The 3 pulse is to give an agility boost right before hitting the target to reduce the time to kill and allow for more excessive manouvers.

1. 1. Is it easy? Or does it require certain tech that makes it more expensive?

Probaly not easy

1. 1. What are its drawbacks?

In the same volume? Shorter duration of each pulse so you got to use them efficient.

• What could the SkySting's underbody protrusion be?

A housing for cabels.

• 1. It runs nearly along the entire body but it doesn't seem to have an opening.
  2. Could it indicate motor length?

Yes if we assume after that some kind of electronics sections starts

• Stunner has a combined RF+EO seeker. SkySting only has RF seeker.
  1. Is there a known inherent issue with combined seekers?

Like i said before you have to share the Volume and energy for the guidance between both solution. Its also probaly worse aerodynamicly.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With a 3-pulse rocket, I'm assuming that it's a boost-reboost-terminal pulse setup. As opposed to a boost-sustain-terminal, since the sustain thrust is usually not listed as a second pulse elsewhere.

 

[Big_Zukini]

To my knowledge its more of an refined Stunner for air to air warfare. Afterall while the multi seeker capability is nice it does means both have to be smaller, both use the same battery and that design probaly isn't the best thing for better aero.

Remove a seeker that could improve hit rates just for a little bit of gain in range/kinematics?
If an RF seeker alone would provide higher accuracy, would it not therefore be more suitable for the David's Sling (Stunner)?
Or perhaps you mean they could have swapped the mass produced and cost effective RF seeker of the Tamir/Stunner with a brand new higher end one?

If for export, sacrificing cost effectiveness for higher performance makes sense. Particularly for European markets willing to accept premium prices. But it's highly likely Israel is at least seeking domestic AAMs that would be much cheaper than American alternatives, especially with the air force's increasing share of air defense missions.

I would assume it has because it is just more effectiv even if its a small lethality enhancer like PAC-3 has.

PAC-3 is a BMD-oriented interceptor. Would that be necessary for a weapon marketed for more aerodynamic targets?

A housing for cabels.

Is it typical for such missiles?

Yes if we assume after that some kind of electronics sections starts

So motor width perhaps takes up the entire space and cables have to run along the external part of the tube?
Or is it more of a thermal shielding thing?

 

[kqcke for you]

Remove a seeker that could improve hit rates just for a little bit of gain in range/kinematics?

Well it may give a better chance of hitting the target but what if it means half the time of running the seeker?

If an RF seeker alone would provide higher accuracy, would it not therefore be more suitable for the David's Sling (Stunner)?

Stunner needs it for it hit to kill capability even when hitting a target but there you have a ground based radar backing you up most of the time. Now in air to air combat that isn't allways possible and that means the missile needs to use its own seeker for a possible longer time to search for the target. This is even more so because fighter jets (and aircraft in generell) are also more likely to deviate from the original direction when the detect a possible attack.

Or perhaps you mean they could have swapped the mass produced and cost effective RF seeker of the Tamir/Stunner with a brand new higher end one?

If for export, sacrificing cost effectiveness for higher performance makes sense. Particularly for European markets willing to accept premium prices. But it's highly likely Israel is at least seeking domestic AAMs that would be much cheaper than American alternatives, especially with the air force's increasing share of air defense missions.

Maybe its hard to say what all was done. Until rafael says something all we can do is guessing.

PAC-3 is a BMD-oriented interceptor. Would that be necessary for a weapon marketed for more aerodynamic targets?

It enhances the damage done and increases the range for errors. It simply makes the weapons more likely to success given that we have a mutch larger area of damage thats possible.

Is it typical for such missiles?

Typical? Havent seen it often so i would say no.

So motor width perhaps takes up the entire space and cables have to run along the external part of the tube?
Or is it more of a thermal shielding thing?

Probaly considering they had an high priority on long range and it being what even shorter than AMRAAM?