bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 4,230
- Reaction score
- 5,794
I’m gonna go with they designed this thing for the F-35 market, which is huge, at 2 per IWB, and then tacked on a cheap booster for a PrSM analog. Money made via mass production of the common end missile, with the booster being an add on for surface launch, but the actual weapon designed around F-35 carriage and launch.
Lug placement might offer some insight.
The blackbeard appears to be a standard 13 ft. long missile which can help meet several requirements including those for the Navy, Army and Air Force. And allies. While that happens to also be the F-35's bay length limit (roughly), it is also just about the standard size of the Army's tactical missiles which are probably just as important for a company founded around solving the long range fires problem. This would be a smart form factor to start with for a company looking to sprout and gain some sort of hold on one aspect of the tactical missile market.
Also, if you are a startup looking to survive and thrive, you don't bet the company on integrating a new weapon on the F-35. The god's at the JPO will dig your grave for you.
This is obviously not the only modern 13 ft long tactical missile system as we already have the PrSM (Inc 1 -4), AARGM-ER, SiAW, and the two SiAW phase 1 contract awardees including the 1,300 lb / 13" / 13 ft. Mako and the L3 Harrris proposal for the same. Blackbeard is likely focusing on the lower end of the price point but there are several questions unanswered. How will this be guided. How will they manage to have sophisticated GPS denied guidance (something that the AARGM-ER has already successfully tested against) while still being useful against a range of emiting, non-emiting, time-critical movable or mobile targets. And if this thing is going to be used in the anti ship role then will it have an adequate warhead for that purpose? All the while hitting that promised sub $400K cost per AUR.
A cheap missile is great for many missions but for several others, it is wise to optimize your weapon given you do not have infinite number of aircraft or space in your magazine (2-3 shots instead of one shot sounds great until you realize that you still require that many pylons in the fight to be able to put up that scale). Comparisons are naturally being made to AARGM, AARGM-ER/SiAW and PrSM. And folks doing so are just skimming past the fact that both of those have now been put through years of developmental and operational testing and, in the case of the AARGM,AARGM/ER, the multi-mode guidance system has been put through its paces over years if not a decade plus, and that replicating that testing and maturity is itself a multi-year task for a system that has not even started developmental testing yet (or any testing for that matter?). I think the niche that this weapon fills is going to be as an alternative for some tactical strike systems for use against soft targets leaving the more sophisticated anti-IADS missions to specialized weapons like PrSM inc 2 /4, SiAW and others. This takes a similar approach to the Israeli Rampage i suppose.
Attachments
Last edited: