Israel Air Launched Ballistic Missiles

trose213 said:
Not really, this was around before as MARS.
Click to expand...
As of this moment, Israel has a Mach 5 missile that can be launched from F-16. Us doesn't really have an equivalent. Their current main supersonic missiles from tactical fighter is HARM and AARGM, both are only Mach 2
 
Ronny said:
trose213 said:
Not really, this was around before as MARS.
Click to expand...
As of this moment, Israel has a Mach 5 missile that can be launched from F-16. Us doesn't really have an equivalent. Their current main supersonic missiles from tactical fighter is HARM and AARGM, both are only Mach 2
Click to expand...

Well we 'kinda' had one in development but the end fo the Cold War put it out to pasture :)

And ya, hitting Mach 5.5 was an 'accident' but it was still accellerating and holding up to the stress so ...

Randy
 
Ronny said:
trose213 said:
Not really, this was around before as MARS.
Click to expand...
As of this moment, Israel has a Mach 5 missile that can be launched from F-16. Us doesn't really have an equivalent. Their current main supersonic missiles from tactical fighter is HARM and AARGM, both are only Mach 2
Click to expand...

Speed and fielding has nothing to do with it. Ultimately, it boils down to a need, and how critical that need is compared to other things combatant commanders need from a particular service. The US has far more ways to hit a target (anywhere on the planet) then Israel, and similarly how they do SEAD/DEAD in an Anti Access environment is also going to be different because of resource availability. This means, the USAF can skip fielding an Air Launched Short-Medium ranged ballistic missile and instead pursue capability that it will derive more utility from. And that is just what it is doing with the various hypersonic programs. Similarly, arming an F-16 with a fast missile is less important to the USAF given the size and capability of its bomber fleet. If the USAF had majority tactical fighters, and limited refueling capability it too would have developed a strategy like Israel given a similar threat. The threats though are a lot different (Israel faces nothing like what the US faces in the pacific for example or in EUCOM) and so are the capabilities. As a result, the approach and prioritization would be likewise different. Urgency is usually the result of an urgent need that mitigates an existential threat....

With Russia supplying capable Air Defenses in the region, and Israel's national security need depending upon its ability to strike targets within that environment it absolutely needed that capability. If you look at Israel's neighborhood and its own Air Force, you can tell why it would have invested in this capability rapidly. The US does not face that sense of urgency but one can see numerous examples of urgently fielded equipment in the 2000's when the US did have urgent needs generating requirements in Iraq etc. Similarly, the needs across a diverse set of theaters (PACOM, EUCOM and CENTCOM) and the availability of higher payload carrying aircraft (B-52, B-1 and B-2) means that the USAF can field something that is more capable, longer ranged and designed around more heavily protected targets..I don't think there is any pressing need to arm an F-16 with a Mach 5 missile. The AARGM-ER and SiAW will provide plenty of stand-in and stand off capability with ARRW and other hypersonic missiles providing additional stand off attack capability. As far as urgency in fielding higher end hypersonic systems..just have a look at the test schedule for hypersonic weapons at test ranges in the US over the next 3-4 years. There's been a lot of urgency since 2017 or so to really get out there and field a conventional hypersonic triad.
 
Last edited:
As noted, the US is developing weapons for platforms other than tactical aircraft. Of the half dozen hypersonic weapons programs that are scheduled for IOC in the ~2023 timeframe, the only one I think might be tactical a/c launched is HCSW. Though I suspect at some point you will see an air launched PrSM now that the US has prioritized deep strike missiles for its land based forces and is reactivating an artillery brigade to host them.
 
I do not want to compare the Rampage to the kh-15 just yet(speed, size and role), but does it feature gas-dynamic(thrust vectoring) in its flight path?
 
Josh_TN said:
Though I suspect at some point you will see an air launched PrSM now that the US has prioritized deep strike missiles for its land based forces and is reactivating an artillery brigade to host them.
Click to expand...

Strong feeling that SCO is working on an AL PrSM/Deepstrike capability for the near term.Could even be SM-6 based. Even with mods to support air-launch and carriage you are probably looking at a sub 2,000 lb weapon allowing multiple to be carried by the strike fighter fleet.

Regarding previous comments from Rony about whether US services should or could have this - The AARGM-ER basically makes the "rampage" like weapon requirements redundant especially since the USAF is funding UAI capability for it, and with its enhanced guidance. Depending on its need for AARGM-ER/SiAW the service could, relatively easily, proliferate the capability across its tactical fighter fleet.
Future iterations of SiAW via technology insertion will only make it more capable both kinematically and from an accuracy/guidance stand-point.

The arrival of the F-15EX, and the upgrades to the F-15E fleet does open up possibility of a weight optimized ALBM for those aircraft though and that's why I suspect that SCO or one of the other service shops could be working on such a weapon. Not sure they would want to wait for HACM to arrive which is a 2026-2028 timeframe capability (realistically 2030 if one looks at a sizable inventory). The work the Army is doing to integrate AARGM like guidance capability into PrSM makes it a logical candidate for an A-L adaptation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom