Loral (Ford Aeronutronics) "HAVE DASH II"

Only Have Dash images I've seen are on Andreas' website:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/have-dash.html
 

Attachments

  • 19900709-16-.jpg
    19900709-16-.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 519
vulture said:
Hi all;

I honored and humble to be among you guys - this bunch has got to be the world's foremost aircraft experts. Just wondering if anyone here has images of the following? I've searched through the back pages of this forum and have not found them - any help you guys?

1. still images of a cone shaped (of course with wings) USAF CGI TAV that followed the SR-71.
It was featured in a video in late 1990 by the USAF as a public service T.V. ad - name of the video was "Blackbird."

2. Image of a futuristic stealth fighter launching a Have Dash II tri-mode seeker AAM concept.

3. Images of the beautiful American Jet Industries Perigrin two seat (side by side) jet trainer.

Any help on this request for images will be most appriciated by me - in advance thanks


Vulture

Different program but this sounds like #2

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3376.0/highlight,lraam.html
 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_n15_v175/ai_n28613000/

HAVE DASH II BANK-TO-TURN TECHNOLOGY MAY BE VALUABLE FOR AMRAAM
The Air Force plans to conduct four to six free flight tests of its Have Dash 11 missile starting this spring to collect data on the performance of an advanced bank-to-turn autopilot capability, which could be used as a future AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-air Missile (AMRAAM) upgrade, service officials reported.
While no stated requirement currently exists for a new air-to-air missile such as Have Dash, the program is being carried out to demonstrate a broad spectrum of technologies that could be incorporated into next generation air-to-air missiles or used as pre-planned product improvements (P31) to existing missiles, Richard Mook, chief of the service's Air-to-air Technology Integration Section at Eglin AFB, told Defense Daily in a written response to questions. The Air Force's Wright Laboratory Armament Directorate is conducting the program with Loral Aeronutronic, Newport Beach, Calif.
Have Dash's bank-to-turn capability could find its way into the AMRAAM if a variable flow ducted rocket engine is selected for AMRAAM during phase two of the P31 effort, an Air Force spokeswoman told Defense Daily. The special rocket engine, to be considered as an upgrade to AMRAAM for Lot 10 production, would use atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel, eliminating the need for AMRAAM to carry a solid oxygen source, she said.
If the variable-flow rocket engine is chosen, however, AMRAAM--a skid-to-turn missile-- would have to be converted to a bank-to-turn missile during phase three of P31, she explained.
AMRAAM program officials are watching Have Dash carefully to see if all tests are positive and if such technology can be perfected, she added.
"The key technology to be demonstrated (with Have Dash) is the modern control multivariable bank-to-turn autopilot," Mook said. "Bank-to-turn autopilot technology is required to maximize performance of future air-to-air missiles if they are asymmetric in shape due to aircraft integration considerations or because they have airbreathing propulsion."
The program also will test the missile's advanced processor, fin and lug folding ability, advanced control actuator and composite airframe, Mook said. Extensive Have Dash wind tunnel and required flight qualification testing has been carried out, as well as captive carriage compatibility flight testing to demonstrate the missile's structural integrity, aircraft electrical compatibility and aircraft handling qualities, Mook added.
Have Dash II is comprised of an ALM-7E rocket motor, advanced guidance navigation and control computer, AIM-120 inertial measurement unit, fin and launch lug folding mechanisms, high performance electro-mechanical control actuation system and advanced bank-to-turn autopilot. The basic missile airframe was developed during the Have Dash I program conducted by the laboratory in 1985-88.
"The Have Dash missile concept was developed with a heavy emphasis on efficient integration with advanced launch aircraft," Mook said. "This means that carriage of the weapons must not impact the aircraft's flight performance or survivability. Therefore, the Have Dash airframe is designed for low-drag conformal external carriage and also combat internal carriage ... also compatible with more conventional pylon carriage arrangements."
In addition, Mook said a series of projects currently are being considered to enhance Have Dash's electronics assemblies to make the weapon more state-of-the-art. This would reduce the number of parts in the weapon and inherently improve producibility and reliability, he said, noting that contracts have not yet been awarded for these projects.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/have-dash.html
 

Attachments

  • have-dash-ii.jpg
    have-dash-ii.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 1,955
  • have-dash-ii-1.jpg
    have-dash-ii-1.jpg
    28.4 KB · Views: 1,940
Am I correct in thinking that "bank-to-turn" is similar to "twist-and-steer" and "polar control" or am I thick?

Chris
 
Kind of. B2T uses lift generated by the missile shape. Banking changes the direction of the lift and thus turns the missile. It is polar in concept.

RP1
 
Kind of thick or kind of similar? Just sounds like Brakemine and Bloodhound to me.

Chris
 
Bank to turn means an aeroplane-like configuration missile with wings (or lifting body) configured to give lift strongly in one plane, the control surfaces generally tail mounted but are not necessarily cruciform. It was mostly associated with ramjet engines which have intakes with low tolerance for sideslip - essentially it needs to turn like a plane to keep air going in the intake. Control is generally harder to do than with a normal cruciform missile arrangement.


Examples - ASALM, Hughes AAAM.


Twist and steer is essentially the same thing, but specifically uses differential wing movement to bank and synchronized wing movement to turn. Bank to turn can use other control surfaces to achieve the banking and turning, not the wings. So twist and steer is one type of bank to turn design.


Examples: Bloodhound, Bomarc.
 
Some Have Dash II images are attached. The Have Dash I effort included conceptual studies (building on ERMAAT studies, but stepping back from the longer range EMRAAT flight profiles), wind tunnel testing and RCS testing, and ground qualification testing. The period of performance was 1985-88. The follow-on Have Dash II project started in 1989 and culminated in the construction of three Fight Test Vehicles (FTV). The test missiles were originally planned to be launched from the F-111; retirement of the aircraft after Desert Storm required the transition to an F-16 test asset with a modified stores pylon (replicating the originally planned F-111 interface). Although the FTVs were all intended to be recoverable, all three were expended for different causes, after one flight each. The program concluded in late 1992 with the loss of the last FTV.
 

Attachments

  • Have Dash II components.jpg
    Have Dash II components.jpg
    120.4 KB · Views: 1,488
  • Have Dash II on F-16.jpg
    Have Dash II on F-16.jpg
    150.8 KB · Views: 1,444
Why not just turn out Have Dash II as a service weapon, rather than waste extra time and $$$$ incorporating its technology into next-gen AMRAAM?
 
Because it probably wasn't designed as a production missile. Hand-made tech demonstrators don't always translate neatly into productionized operational systems.

Moving the autopilot tech into an existing missile design would likely be a lot less expensive than fielding an entirely new missile.

Also, there wasn't really a platform that needed a stealthy AAM for external carriage, so there wasn't much benefit to be gained from the trapezoidal fuselage shape, which was surely more expensive than a simple cylinder like AMRAAM.
 

Attachments

  • 259437222-Bank-HaveDashII.pdf
    1,001.2 KB · Views: 5
Last edited by a moderator:
Would have been a good missile for a stealthified F-15 MDD was rumored to have worked on in the late 80's or early 90's. Just in case the f-22 did not work out.
 
Empire said:
Would have been a good missile for a stealthified F-15 MDD was rumored to have worked on in the late 80's or early 90's. Just in case the f-22 did not work out.


Why do you say that?
 
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.


As for the low observable F-15 in the Aerospace section under the post Boeing bullish over F-18 and future programs in the article Not quite invisible a Boeing engineer told aviation week that the company (probably the Phantom works when they where owned by MDD. Boeing just took credit like they did with BOP after the merger) modified an F-15 during the late 80's or early 90's to reduce RCS. Its RCS the engineer claimed was close to the F-22.

I would think that RCS claim would be from the front quadrant with heavy modifications. Maybe (and this is just me speculating) a new wing with edge alignment like on the F-15U, radar blockers in the air intakes like on the B-1B, canted vertical stabilizers, redesigned radome, and RAM. Fire Eagle.
Could the mystery YF-24 be this aircraft as it fell between ATF and JSF.


So the Have Dash missile would have allowed flush external carriage on such a modified design. Who knows???
 
Empire said:
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.




Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.
 
quellish said:
Empire said:
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.




Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.



Good point quellish probably wouldn't have worked. On another note do you have any info or is there a post in this forum on this supposed stealthy F-15. If not it maybe a good post to start?
 
According to:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/261556288/ramjet-bvraam-used-in-gulf-war-combat

Some of the "Have Dash" technology may have been used in combat:

"Under a "black" programme the US Department of Defense has developed a ramjet‐powered beyond‐visual range air‐to‐air missile (BVRAAM). The weapon was
deployed to the Gulf in 1990‐91 for use by a single USAF F‐15 squadron, Jane's Missiles & Rockets has been told. It was used in combat, downing at least one Iraqi
aircraft whose destruction was officially credited to another type of missile."

"The concept of applying air‐breathing propulsion to an AMRAAM‐class weapon was also investigated in the late 1980s and early 1990s under two USAF "black"
programmes code named "Have Dash 1" and "Have Dash 2"."


But if a weapon like this existed, wouldn't we have heard more about it by now? Is this missile just a military urban legend?
 
USAF Have Dash II Missile Desktop Model

Description:
This Have Dash II model was produced by Loral's Aeronutronic Division for award to USAF program personnel and flight test team members. The composition of the model is unknown, but likely the fuselage is wood and the fins are plastic or aluminum. The base is solid hardwood and the support arm is acrylic. The missile is detachable from the base.
Please see my other listings for additional Have Dash II and other missile memorabilia.
Included in Sale:
One (1) Missile Model with Stand
One (1) Sew-On Patch
One (1) Large Sticker
Model Dimensions (excluding base) :
Length: 14-1/8"
Width: 2-1/4"
Height: 2"
Sew-On Patch Dimensions
Length: 4-1/2"
Width: 3-1/2"
Large Sticker Patch Dimensions
Length: 4-1/2"
Width: 3-1/2"
Condition:
The missile model is in excellent condition, with no scratches or fading. Missile model was never issued, but the original box was damaged.The sticker and patch are new.
Have Dash Program Summary:
Have Dash I was a classified project to develop an air-to-air missile for use by stealth aircraft. The concept, developed by the USAF Armament Laboratory at Eglin AFB between 1985 and 1988. Have Dash II, initiated in 1990, was a renewed effort to develop a stealthy air-to-air missile, intended to be used by the Advanced Tactical Fighter - the YF-22 and YF-23 - and to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM in service.
Have Dash II was designed with a composite body, trapezoidal in shape. This was intended both to reduce the missile's radar-cross-section and to resist heat at hypersonic speeds, as the missile was intended to operate at Mach 5. The body shape also allowed flush external carriage aboard the launching aircraft, and provided aerodynamic lift, making the missile more maneuverable.
The prototype Have Dash II missiles were recoverable, and utilized Rocketdyne Mk 58 solid-fueled rocket motors of the same type used by the AIM-7 Sparrow. Production missiles were expected to be powered by a ramjet engine, and would use inertial navigation during the cruise phase of flight, with a dual-mode infrared/active radar seeker head for terminal guidance.
Flight testing of the prototype Have Dash II missiles was expected to begin in 1992; testing was conducted with the missile being considered for further testing of advanced air-to-air missile concepts.
Length 3.6 m (12 ft)
Weight 180 kg (400 lb.)
Speed Mach 4
Range 50 km (30 miles)
Propulsion MK 58 MOD 5 solid-fueled rocket
 

Attachments

  • usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb.jpg
    usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 648
  • usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (1).jpg
    usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (1).jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 608
  • usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (2).jpg
    usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (2).jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 598
  • usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (3).jpg
    usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (3).jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 615
  • usaf-dash-ii-missile-sew-patch_1_b65117076635c554e4abcd2ba1ebeb5e.jpg
    usaf-dash-ii-missile-sew-patch_1_b65117076635c554e4abcd2ba1ebeb5e.jpg
    234.9 KB · Views: 510
vulture said:
Just wondering if anyone here has images of a futuristic stealth fighter launching a Have Dash II tri-mode seeker AAM concept.
is this referring to the two-page spread that was used in ad in an old AW&ST issue? Somewhere I think I have some lithographs of that, and the companion cutaway illustration, that I got from Loral at the time.
 
CJGibson said:
Kind of thick or kind of similar? Just sounds like Brakemine and Bloodhound to me.
twist-n-steer uses the missile's wings for lift and generally has a cylindrical fuselage that adds little or no lift

bank-to-turn has no wings and uses the asymmetric shape of the missile fuselage for lift

They are similar only in that both require the missile to rotate to a given angle before they can maneuver.

Bloodhound was unique in that the wings rotated independently, in contrast to most missiles where the wings are fixed to the fuselage and the entire missile has to rotate into the apparent wind in order to generate lift. This puts it in a sort of intermediate group of its own, perhaps relegating Brakemine to "twist-n-bank"?
 
quellish said:
Empire said:
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.

Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.

Conformal missiles really belong to the "supercruise with reduced RCS" era. Its a lower drag solution to weapons carriage without the space and weight penalty of an internal bay. With the advent of stealth, the RCS penalty of conformal missiles became unacceptable.
 
quellish said:
Empire said:
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.

Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.

Conformal missiles really belong to the "supercruise with reduced RCS" era. Its a lower drag solution to weapons carriage without the space and weight penalty of an internal bay. With the advent of stealth, the RCS penalty of conformal missiles became unacceptable.

It's increasingly looking like AIM-260 is Have Dash II with a separating KKV.

If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a D-shaped missile body, possibly with a chine, and using a '+' not 'x' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly step-tapered conical, not ogival, seeker 'radome' as possible high-Mach _aerospike_. All HDII features.

At least implying more of an anti-missile (Kinzhal, Iskander, Zirkon) role than necessarily an air breathing target one after a very fast loft to a high midcourse, aimed to conserve Delta-V by using a lifting body and twist-to-steer controls, limiting airframe skid.

Get it high, get it fast, let it coast, separate the tail controls/motor casing and switch to a skirted secondary propulsion (TVC?) with perhaps flick-spoilers (ala Redeye) and ACM driven terminals (note the dark-anodized area, right behind the seeker, which appears built into the 'radome'). If the radome is, in fact, just a frangible aero cover for the IIR seeker, ala AAAM, then they must imagine using the F-22 to get the missile launch point very high indeed, 60-80,000ft @ Mach 1.5 or more, looking for a Mach 6-8 intercept in the 100-150,000ft range, probably as BPI, maybe even as API.

For ballistics, you hit to kill. For air breathers, depending on range, maybe you keep the tail attached and eject lethality enhancers.

It's almost as if NCADE and LREW had been merged. And it begins to explain the airspace allocation of the Eglin range space in testing JATM within an 'AMRAAM sized missile'. They are going //up// and then out. In a very long range parabola to either capture a ballistic intercept or to play Phoenix after a long midcourse and staging event to regain second-burn energy on the slide vs. an airbreather.

It's almost like someone wanted to have a little war in Ukraine. And here I've been wondering how we were going to provide frontal level missile defense to a GCE maneuver force...

I mention this in context with your post because those LDTP on the F-22 look an awful lot like Have Slick once did and if they wanted to make them into weapons pods, ala the Lockheed ALHTK attempt to stuff an ERINT into a 610 for DOHMA, you could get a lot longer boost stage and/or a rather more believable single stage, low altitude, capability by going big behind. Like an ESSM 2 with a large primary booster and a tapered interstage to the separating KKV.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
Empire said:
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.

Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.

Conformal missiles really belong to the "supercruise with reduced RCS" era. Its a lower drag solution to weapons carriage without the space and weight penalty of an internal bay. With the advent of stealth, the RCS penalty of conformal missiles became unacceptable.

It's increasingly looking like AIM-260 is Have Dash II with a separating KKV.

If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a chined missile with a '+' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly tapered conical, not ogival, seeker or even _aerospike_.
link?
 

If it's the same update picture I've seen with the stealth fuel tanks, the missile shown is definitely not chined. It's a pointed cylinder with tail fins.
 
quellish said:
Empire said:
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.

Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.

Conformal missiles really belong to the "supercruise with reduced RCS" era. Its a lower drag solution to weapons carriage without the space and weight penalty of an internal bay. With the advent of stealth, the RCS penalty of conformal missiles became unacceptable.

It's increasingly looking like AIM-260 is Have Dash II with a separating KKV.

If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a chined missile with a '+' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly tapered conical, not ogival, seeker or even _aerospike_.
link?
F-22 MLU Article

Bigger Image

NCADE

Have Dash II

Have Slick
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8126331738

ALHTK
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnVHEmROaMM
 
None of that matches this:

"If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a chined missile with a '+' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly tapered conical, not ogival, seeker or even _aerospike_."

The thing in the F-22 pic just looks like a generic rocket. One could almost be forgiven for thinking it was a GMLRS if it weren't being launched from an F-22.
 
Last edited:
too much "it almost' "increasingly looking like"
NO, IT'S NOT. PLEASE DO NOT LITTER SPECIFIC THREADS WITH YOUR THEORIES MIXING HALF A DOZEN DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN ONE - LIKELY NOT RELATED AT ALL
THIS TOPIC IS ON HAVE DASH II MISSILE
 
too much "it almost' "increasingly looking like"
NO, IT'S NOT. PLEASE DO NOT LITTER SPECIFIC THREADS WITH YOUR THEORIES MIXING HALF A DOZEN DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN ONE - LIKELY NOT RELATED AT ALL
THIS TOPIC IS ON HAVE DASH II MISSILE
I provided imagery. I am using the facts as the imagery supports. The imagery is official USAF concept artwork. It's their 'litter'.

To be honest, we operate in the dark on so much of this and the 'Secret Projects' title of your website is almost a tongue in cheek commentary on that truth.

Look at the fins on that missile. They are NOT indexed in an 'X' cruciform but a '+'. Why would you do that if it meant having to hinge at least two of the controls, to clear the fit inside the weapons bays?

You would do that if you were trying to use twist to steer rather than skid to steer to retain essential, directional, control authority in a missile which is lofting to height on a flat bottomed fuselage.

Why would you want to use a loft on a fighter sized target when an F-22, at Mach 1.5, already provides a 50% missile F-Pole range improvement and the parent air vehicle is flying so high, at launch, that the missile drag is already greatly reduced?

Lofting adds dozens of seconds of TOF as much as tens of nautical miles of downrange, and fighters do so many, deliberately random, things to complicate mid-course geometries on BVR shots, especially in the face of shooter:illuminator, global datalink and RFLO threats. 'Long straights, filled with lots of little hooks'.

Well, one reason is that new sensor technologies and specifically longwave IRST, are compromising single-spectrum stealth. Particularly if this problem is also being compounded by a realistic laser threat. Both of which are suggested reasons for the 'Chrome Raptor' and various other assets.

Are there other reasons for having this missile be a body lift system? Yes, extreme altitude capability is the baseline for anti-missile systems which natively try to drop mass as a function of dual staging a KKV.

Is there any visual indications of this? Yes. In addition to the control configuration, there is an apparent chine, running down the side of the missile which is NOT repeated on the upper side.

Thus cannot be presumed to be a longitudinal strake like on a MICA or ESSM.

There is a major transverse break on the fuselage, and it is not painted yellow or brown so it doesn't denote warhead location nor motor limits as lift points.
There is plethora of shapes on the forebody which are too large for fuse windows and there is an overly long and frankly deformed radome which would make sense for a missile which was so high-Mach that incorporated a dual taper tip, indicating a possible aerospike.

Are at least some of these unusual features present on the Have Dash II?

Yes.

Are they present on other missiles with similar or indeed different, roles?

Yes.

The early versions of the NCADE is an explicitly bistage weapon with an implied missile defense orientation, within a similar-to-AMRAAM missile envelope.

Most people scoffed at that, when they first saw it. Because who would think of using a 350lb X 12ft X 7" airframe for missile defense? Especially when Raptor Talon was centered around a HARM and then an ASAS (target/booster increment), so much larger?

Could this be proof of a major impulse improvement in long chain molecule propellant polymers? Could it be indicative of an improvement from D shaped missile motor volumes? Or even just an artifact of having aircraft quickly accelerating to Mach 1++ from an already high altitude before boosting their weapons, even higher, based on some 'unknown' sensor hand from a HALE or Satellite (SBIRS) warning?

What is explicitly wrong with these speculations? Are you telling me that, even with the larger image, you cannot see the features I mentioned?

Are you unaware of the suggested use of an alternative seeker on the JATM which includes IIR? Do you not recall what AAAM ended up looking like?

What if this-


Is NOT this-


But rather some crude carriage trial condition of an actual body lift missile?

It's not on a modified Phoenix Pallet. It's being tripleted under the wing glove. Which is not low drag and doesn't call for encapsulation. Not with all that tunnel effect.

Look at that map-


Look at the JATM test area. That's a big envelope for an AMRAAM equivalent carriage box, even if it is an 8" airframe.

Now look at this external carriage capability.


To me, that's not an IRST pod. Though I admit I don't know what it could be if it's not. Stand forward jammer? Is that an admission that F-22 LO is really super duper or no longer functional? A missile midcourse guidance capability ala AAAM?

With regard to the very idea of 'stealth and external carriage do not mix'. Apparently that is no longer the case now, is it? Look at the faceted tank and compare it to the Have Slick shape. Reset your clocks as well as your RCS bar-standard for how stealth works. And ask why, if multipath and cavity resonance is not an issue for jets with external, podded, carriage, all jets are not now 'weapons bayed' with several types of munitions within a single pod, on far fewer (not toed out) pylons?

Has anyone even bothered to try and scale that missile, for length relative to the airframe, and determine if it is, in fact, 12ft long and will fit inside the F-22 weapons bay? How does this compare to ALHTK as a concept?

You people are not following your own 'Secret Projects' moniker. You're not showing any ability for critical technical analysis. Awareness of the material on your own site. Or intuitive understanding that the Air Force _lies_ through partial truths as obfuscation. But what it means is that nothing here is opsec critical. Because they have already given the game away. We can discuss it as much as we like.

We should be helping each other decypher the enigmas of that shape.

Why would the AIM-260 need it's own secure storage facility, like a nuke, if it's just another rocket? The only thing which would possibly justify that, would be if it was truly something exotic, like a torsional slip-field propulsion or lift assist.

Otherwise, it's no more exposed (certainly on an internal carriage platform) than any other missile is. Because the guts-on-the-inside is what matters.

Why does this concept art-


Look like it does? I have given one possible explanation. I would like to hear from SMEs in the field, what their alternative version is. Am I on the wrong forum to ask that question?
 
Last edited:
If a moderator wants to transfer the post or delete it, that's their business. Their site, their rules. I would like an explanation, privately if need be, why a missile that looks like Have Dash cannot be brought up on a Have Dash related forum when the missile in the artwork is itself not even named as AIM-260.

I took the missile image right off the Have Slick page among multiple other photos of the same and similar missiles. The one shot of the drop test flight vehicle, suspended beneath an F-111 centerline is admittedly more dubious. But the concept is still there. This: \```/ is the Have Slick shape. It is also the LTDP shape. Why.

With LTDP, everything we know about stealth has just been challenged, AGAIN.

At one point, the Have Slick was scoffed at because it interrupted the stealthy lines of the jet and 'everyone knew' external carriage of stores, let alone pyloned stores would render signature reduction pointless. Except now we have an F-22 testbed with what looks like external jammer or IRST systems containers and tanks which look almost exactly like 1980s conformal carriage 'stealth' cruise missile shapes.

Why can't a similar era air to air missile be one the table when it too has the D shaped body format?

Stealth is not what we were told it is. It is not shape-shape-shape-materials. It is materials only. Or materials with a very minor modifier in edge diffraction alignments. Because the F-35 is a conventional airframe shape with bulges and discontinuities all over it. And wings that have more in common with an F-5E than an F-117 or A-12.

From that point, you have to start asking: Is the F-22 so dated/compromised in what -makes- it stealthy that it has been arbitrarily transfered to a missile defense or standoff HVA killer role? Or is modern stealth, whatever that chrome jet might now multi-spectral mean, so inherently about materials that 'beast mode' is a thing?

If we could get genuine determination of the scale of that missile to that airframe as specifically whether it came out of a weapons bay or from within that 'low observable tank', we could start to reorder what it truly means to be stealthy in the contemporary sense.

Maybe it's meta materials. Maybe it's active cancellation. But if it's able to significantly change the carriage mode of the fighter, that could comprehensively change the analyst communities' understanding of how airpower works. What are it's new limits. And that Have Dash like missile is the opening entry to having that conversation.
 
Last edited:
In case you didn't figure it out yet, "LEG", the name of this website comes from the "Secret Projects" series of books published by Midland/Ian Allan about unbuilt projects and is not about Area 51 UFOs or whatever. The primary focus behind its creation was documenting real historic unbuilt projects and prototypes, not speculating on possible black programs. The purpose of this specific topic is to gather and post information on the actually existing Loral HAVE DASH II.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with your post, speculation is fine, but it belongs in a different topic. I will move it.
 
Why does this concept art-


Look like it does? I have given one possible explanation. I would like to hear from SMEs in the field, what their alternative version is. Am I on the wrong forum to ask that question?

I think you are putting a lot more effort in analysing this artwork than the artist put into creating it.

Very true. One thing we should remember is that as of last year, the USAF felt the need to build separate magazines for AIM-260 because it is a SAP. And the justification for that request strongly suggests it is a sight-sensitive design. In which case, you can be very sure that the USAF's approved and released F-22 artwork shows nothing too much like the actual AIM-260.
 
Very true. One thing we should remember is that as of last year, the USAF felt the need to build separate magazines for AIM-260 because it is a SAP. And the justification for that request strongly suggests it is a sight-sensitive design. In which case, you can be very sure that the USAF's approved and released F-22 artwork shows nothing too much like the actual AIM-260.

There is also a historical precedent, as the Air Force did the same about 10 years ago for another (very long running) SAP. A new weapons storage area at Hill was built for it.
 
I took the missile image right off the Have Slick page among multiple other photos of the same and similar missiles. The one shot of the drop test flight vehicle, suspended beneath an F-111 centerline is admittedly more dubious. But the concept is still there. This: \```/ is the Have Slick shape. It is also the LTDP shape. Why.

I do not see any resemblance between HAVE SLICK and the tanks or pods depicted in that artwork. Perhaps you can elaborate.

At one point, the Have Slick was scoffed at because it interrupted the stealthy lines of the jet and 'everyone knew' external carriage of stores, let alone pyloned stores would render signature reduction pointless. Except now we have an F-22 testbed with what looks like external jammer or IRST systems containers and tanks which look almost exactly like 1980s conformal carriage 'stealth' cruise missile shapes.

No, it has never been the case that anyone who understood the technology thought that external stores would render signature reduction pointless. In fact there were multiple efforts to create external stores that had little negative effect on the signature of aircraft, and some that had positive effects. Those designs were specific to the aircraft carrying the store.

I am not certain that HAVE SLICK was ever intended to affect the RCS of the carrying aircraft. Rather, like many other conformal stealthy weapons it was to reduce the negative aerodynamic effects. Stealthy shapes in the 1980s were often high drag. Carrying conformally and removing the need for a draggy pylon reduced the negative effects of the munition.

Stealth is not what we were told it is. It is not shape-shape-shape-materials. It is materials only. Or materials with a very minor modifier in edge diffraction alignments. Because the F-35 is a conventional airframe shape with bulges and discontinuities all over it. And wings that have more in common with an F-5E than an F-117 or A-12.

No, because physics.
RF signature reduction is primarily shaping, There is no way around that. You can always reflect away far more energy than you can ever possibly absorb. Applying shaping to reflect radar away was the major breakthrough in the 1970s that made -20dbsm signatures no longer state of the art. This is well documented. The underlying physics is well understood.
 
Why does this concept art-


Look like it does? I have given one possible explanation. I would like to hear from SMEs in the field, what their alternative version is. Am I on the wrong forum to ask that question?

I think you are putting a lot more effort in analysing this artwork than the artist put into creating it.
In yon elden days...

There was once a picture of an 'ATF assembly line' that showed what looks like a very compressed fighter fuselage sitting on a rotating cradle jig as part of an automated assembly line and it's all scifi wow compared to how the actual FACO lines at Marietta and Ft. Worth truly appear, which is to say more Ford and less Skynet.

There is another image of an 'ATF firing a missile' which repeats this basic design configuration, right down to the fixed canards, behind the cockpit, as it charges across a stormy sky, burners glowing.

Finally, there is an image of a jet sitting in front of a shelter with a preloaded rotary launcher as another 'ATF' taxis by, out of the HAS farm.

And the one thing you are left feeling is that this is a Tardis Engineering Exercise into which a lot of very small missiles are being jammed on an airframe no larger than a faceted Rafale.

Yet, if you pull the faux canards, the concept artwork is almost a perfect reproduction of the UPPER HALF of the F-22 fuselage. Minus the correct vertical tails and stabs and with some monkeying of the inlets.

When AvLeak published the first images of the ATF, almost half a year before rollout, they too were pretty close to what the actual CD prototypes looked like.

Don't pretend that the USAF doesn't have a joke at our expense while controlling for espionage leaks by showing something which is and isn't real.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom