SiAW (Stand-in Attack Weapon)

Previously I had heard it reported that the guidance of SiAW would also change from the ARM - is there any indication of what this might be or has that been shelved? For USAF's purposes, it seems like a fast moving weapon with INS/GPS guidance would probably be enough without any other terminal homing. Minimally the passive RF guidance could be omitted. Alternatively some other form of terminal seeker could be fitted instead of the mm wave radar. But 've heard nothing other than fuse and warhead changes, presumably to increase lethality to slightly more resilient targets that radar antenna.
 
Josh_TN said:
Previously I had heard it reported that the guidance of SiAW would also change from the ARM - is there any indication of what this might be or has that been shelved? For USAF's purposes, it seems like a fast moving weapon with INS/GPS guidance would probably be enough without any other terminal homing. Minimally the passive RF guidance could be omitted. Alternatively some other form of terminal seeker could be fitted instead of the mm wave radar. But 've heard nothing other than fuse and warhead changes, presumably to increase lethality to slightly more resilient targets that radar antenna.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that they're talking about the interim capability here, which is a minimum-change AARGM-ER. And AARGM-ER does have an INS/GPS fallback and MMW terminal seeker. Given that the SiAW target set includes a lot of targets where ARM would be a suitable seeker (GPS jammers and IADS, especially) it is probably simpler to keep the ARM seeker in that interim buy.

Long-term, SiAW is still a competitive program, so no telling what the guidance in the final version will be. But buying AARGM-ER as an interim capability does seem to give NG the inside track for the ultimate SiAW award.
 
TomS said:
Keep in mind that they're talking about the interim capability here, which is a minimum-change AARGM-ER. And AARGM-ER does have an INS/GPS fallback and MMW terminal seeker. Given that the SiAW target set includes a lot of targets where ARM would be a suitable seeker (GPS jammers and IADS, especially) it is probably simpler to keep the ARM seeker in that interim buy.

Long-term, SiAW is still a competitive program, so no telling what the guidance in the final version will be. But buying AARGM-ER as an interim capability does seem to give NG the inside track for the ultimate SiAW award.
Click to expand...

I had thought I'd read early in the program that the AAGM-ER rocket was being adopted with guidance and warhead changes, but maybe they dropped the guidance part. The program is a bit confusing since they lump the interim capability with a longer term, bidded project. It's a little surprising they didn't just buy directly from the active line for the interim - as you note, all of the guidance modes they would want are there, with perhaps more redundancy than they need.

Any idea who is bidding on the final version besides NG? I thought I saw some LockMart art that depicted something PrSM like, which would be a natural fit to the mission guidance and propulsion wise and should just fit the F-35 (maybe with some sizing mods).
 
Josh_TN said:
Any idea who is bidding on the final version besides NG? I thought I saw some LockMart art that depicted something PrSM like, which would be a natural fit to the mission guidance and propulsion wise and should just fit the F-35 (maybe with some sizing mods).
Click to expand...

SiAW Phase 1 has NG, LM and L3Harris, with one of those to be knocked out in Phase 2.

breakingdefense.com

Air Force program for new F-35 missile will knock out at least one prime in FY24 - Breaking Defense

Air Force’s Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) program has funded prototyping work with three short-term contracts first issued last year to Lockheed Martin, L3Harris and Northrop Grumman.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

The Lockheed announcement had this art and a video at the link above. L3Harris has shown nothing I'm aware of about their design.

1687972180336.png
 
TomS said:
Whoops, the video was in another article. Here it is:

View: https://youtu.be/bqGzt64U-i4
Click to expand...

Very PrSM-ism. I believe the PrSM (does it have a number designation yet?) is 18”, which is the same as a Mk82/84. It seems like an ideal drop in for USAF racks/bays. Plus the speed/range would be astounding if the airframe could take it…
 
I think this is the right thread for the below post.

Defense Updates has put out a new video concerning the SiAW:


The #USAirForce awarded Northrop Grumman a $705 million contract to develop and test a high-speed air-to-ground weapon known as a stand-in attack weapon (SiAW)
Click to expand...
Northrop said that its work on the second phase of the weapon, will take place over the next 36 months in Northridge, California, and the company’s missile integration facility at Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in West Virginia.The company said the work will include further development of the weapon, platform integration, and completing a flight test program so the #SiAW can be rapidly prototyped and quickly sent to the field,
Click to expand...
The first part of this second phase will wrap up with a guided vehicle flight test and the second part will conclude with three more flight tests as well as the delivery of prototype missiles and test assets.In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how #SiAW could enable the US Air Force to knock out Russian and Chinese air defenses ?
Click to expand...

Or should this be posted in the AARGM-ER thread?
 
Is there any public specifications? About all I can tell is that it is roughly a AGM-88g equivalent, since that is fill in purchase until this program is complete. I would guess that lower costs and increasing production are primary goals, but that is just my WAG.
 
I always have this thought .... I know that "stand-off" means from a far distance away ...

But what does "stand-in" here means in SiAW context?
 
zjz said:
I always have this thought .... I know that "stand-off" means from a far distance away ...

But what does "stand-in" here means in SiAW context?
Click to expand...

The USAF has apparently subdivided its weapons into three range categories: direct attack - more or less no stand off, but perhaps some range from high altitude, stand in - roughly in the 50-150 mile / 100-200 km range, which puts you inside long range SAMs envelope but not in their ideal engagement parameters, and stand off: ~200 mi /300km and pretty firmly out of any possible SAM range.

SDB and SiAW seem to occupy the Stand In range band, with one being a glide weapon that can defeat defenses by being used in mass and the other being a high speed weapon difficult to intercept that can evade defenses via speed and engage high priority/relocatable targets faster. I suspect technically SiAW would be able to reach out to near stand off ranges at subsonic speeds against static targets after a long coast, but I think the intended flight profile is sustainable high speed inside the 50-100 mi range band to evade defenses and hit mobile targets before they can escape weapon envelope.
 
I more on the opinion that STAND-IN refers to being fired from inside enemy IADS, hence from a Stealth aircraft. That encompass constraint in volume, but also launch parameters for the stealth asset to survive the launch.
Surviving the launch means that the missile are released from afar... inside enemy territory. Hence range but also RCS or EMCOM are paramount.
 
Another way of looking at it. I’ve never seen the term explicitly defined so you might be right.
 
SiAW is an Air Force air-to-ground weapon that will provide stand-in platforms the capability to hold at risk surface elements of the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
The USAF has apparently subdivided its weapons into three range categories: direct attack - more or less no stand off, but perhaps some range from high altitude, stand in - roughly in the 50-150 mile / 100-200 km range, which puts you inside long range SAMs envelope but not in their ideal engagement parameters, and stand off: ~200 mi /300km and pretty firmly out of any possible SAM range.

SDB and SiAW seem to occupy the Stand In range band, with one being a glide weapon that can defeat defenses by being used in mass and the other being a high speed weapon difficult to intercept that can evade defenses via speed and engage high priority/relocatable targets faster. I suspect technically SiAW would be able to reach out to near stand off ranges at subsonic speeds against static targets after a long coast, but I think the intended flight profile is sustainable high speed inside the 50-100 mi range band to evade defenses and hit mobile targets before they can escape weapon envelope.
Click to expand...
It's quite possibly about SAM tiers, not sure I agree on those distances though. But ultimately once higher tier SAMs have been DEAD'd, then you still have threats from more mobile smaller systems but this would keep you out of their range. Equally, it could be about stealth fighters firing from ranges where longer range SAMs can't possibly target them due to their RCS, even though they're inside the theoretical firing range.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
It's quite possibly about SAM tiers, not sure I agree on those distances though. But ultimatel once higher tier SAMs have been DEAD'd, then you still have threats from more mobile smaller systems but this would keep you out of their range. Equally, it could be about stealth fighters firing from ranges where longer range SAMs can't possibly target them due to their RCS, even though they're inside the theoretical firing range.
Click to expand...

I think TomcatViP has the correct definition; the stand-off/stand-in describes the platform carrying the weapon (stealthy or not stealthy) and not the weapon. I had see an article that broke USAF weapons up into direct attack, stand-in, and stand-off based on range, but that was probably the authors opinion and not how USAF uses the terms.
 
To summarise :

Stand-off : if your aircraft is non-stealthy, you need to launch from outside SAM envelope .....

Stand-in : if your aircraft is stealthy, you can afford to get nearer, and within SAM envelope to execute the kill .....
 
This is from last year however Sandboxx had posted this video about the SiAW:


In September, Northrop Grumman announced that it had secured a contract from the Air Force to move forward with a new high-speed air-to-ground missile meant to be carried internally by America’s growing fleets of stealth fighters and bombers.
Click to expand...
This new missile, dubbed the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW), is meant to lead the way in high-end conflicts with modern adversaries like China, rapidly engaging a variety of ground targets deep inside hotly contested airspace from extended ranges.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
AGM-88G fills the requirement for the short term. SiAW proper is supposed to enter production in 2027 IIRC.
Click to expand...
I like the Mako concept for the full job. Well actually I'd like an AL-ATACMS for the full job, but it would be a squeeze stuffing it into F-35 bays but it maybe possible with folding fins and gives many options for warhead (550kg unitary penetrator or cluster or 230kg unitary or cluster). Not sure it's what they're looking for though, however given that AARGM-ER currently costs the same as ATACMS, and AL-ATACMS would have greater much range and speed, why not? Also might save it from extinction as an Army tactical missile because it's clearly still useful, especially its cluster warhead capability, which then gives a potential tri-service weapon, reducing costs further and saves re-inventing the wheel or 4m (13ft) missile. Seekers you can do what you like with.
 
Last edited:
Posting for posterity since there isn't another thread for this:

  • Lockheed designed the Mako for the Stand-in Attack Weapon competition, but they lost the competition to Northrop Grumman
  • The missile is hypersonic and can be carried internally in an F-35
  • According to Lockheed Martin, in reporting by Sandboxx News, “Mako does not travel in a pure arcing ballistic flight path. It is a true hypersonic weapon that operates and maneuvers in a high-altitude hypersonic regime”
www.twz.com

The Lowdown On Lockheed’s Newly Revealed Mako Hypersonic Missile

Mako is an interesting weapon with compelling features, and may offer clues as to the capabilities of a similar weapon the USAF is procuring.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
www.sandboxx.us

Mako: Arming the F-35 with hypersonic missiles

Lockheed Martin's hypersonic MAKO missile is the first in the world designed to be carried inside stealth fighters like the F-35.
www.sandboxx.us www.sandboxx.us
 
An AL-ATACMS would be a SoAW for the same price as a SiAW. Whether it fits internally in the F-35 or not with folded fins is moot, since the plane wouldn't have to fly into enemy airspace or be stealthy, it could strike from ~900km away with a 500lb warhead at Mach 8, or even further with an AARGM-ER or even PrSM-sized warhead, plus you get cluster munition options, and it's mostly proven technology except for the air launch part, although some work was done there.
 
Forest Green said:
An AL-ATACMS would be a SoAW for the same price as a SiAW. Whether it fits internally in the F-35 or not with folded fins is moot, since the plane wouldn't have to fly into enemy airspace or be stealthy, it could strike from ~900km away with a 500lb warhead at Mach 8, or even further with an AARGM-ER or even PrSM-sized warhead, plus you get cluster munition options, and it's mostly proven technology except for the air launch part, although some work was done there.
Click to expand...

A strike aircraft usually has to deal with air defense fighters looking for it. When your nearest opponent has a similar number of similarly stealthy aircraft with an estimated twice larger combat radius, and a likely similar AESA, well...a giant cylindrical reflector hanging off the wings is bad.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
A strike aircraft usually has to deal with air defense fighters looking for it. When your nearest opponent has a similar number of similarly stealthy aircraft with an estimated twice larger combat radius, and a likely similar AESA, well...a giant cylindrical reflector hanging off the wings is bad.
Click to expand...
CAP aircraft without the missile should be able to maintain air superiority up to the edge of friendly air space. E.g. I doubt any Su-57s will be flying many hundreds of km past the front lines to intercept an F-35 carrying an AL-ATACMS whilst other CAP F-35s and F-22s guard that air space. An AL-ATACMS could reach a target 700km inside enemy territory from 200km outside it. Is it really safer to send an F-35 400km into enemy territory to hit the same target with an AARGM-ER? And AARGM-ER will still exist anyway (and JSM), so they can still do that, if they really want to but they also have the option of cluster bombing the same airfield with one missile from 200km inside friendly air space, rather than flying an F-35 400km into enemy air space to then have to fire an AARGM-ER costing the same amount at every single aircraft and S-400 component that a single AL-ATACMS could cluster bomb. If I was the pilot on the mission, I would choose the AL-ATACMS option, if I had the choice.

Of course there's also the possibility that AL-ATACMS could fit internally with folded fins, body diameter is smaller than the wing span of a GBU-31 and length is shorter than a JSM. ATACMS already appears to have fairly compact folded fins within canister anyway:

1717248845322.png
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
CAP aircraft without the missile should be able to maintain air superiority up to the edge of friendly air space.
Click to expand...

That'll be great when your giant radar reflector death cylinder lights you up as much as an F-15E and gets you slapped from >400 km by a ramjet powered PL-69 Sharpest Knife [in the Drawer] (or just a normal 200+ km PL-15 I guess) guided by a networked IADS. The J-20 is just an F-35 with a bigger weapon bay for longer range missiles and twice greater combat radius after all. Its main job, besides spanking F-CK-1s (that isn't a typo that's its actual designation), is gonna be DCA:

www.globaltimes.cn

PLA Army hones air defense against stealth fighter jets using Air Force's J-20 as practice partner - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

JSFs will need to commit to offensive counter air or be destroyed in theater by intruders or TBM attack on their bases. Part of that involves stripping IADS, and that requires an internal carried ordnance, because otherwise the PLAAF will be doing the same thing if you dawdle too long. Internal ordnance because attacking an IADS means getting close to it.

Raptor would be the most likely BARCAP, but it has short legs, and if it's escorting some silly ATACMS carrying JSFs that will be a detriment with those stealthy EO/IR pods. Because JSF has a longer combat radius than Raptor, it probably will leave just as the JSFs hit their release point, and all because those KC-135s and KC-10s aren't gonna be anywhere near the combat zone and might have to venture close anyway if JSF is relying on its external stores.

Flashbacks of the Phantom Weasels calling bingo and the SA-2s and Zeus lighting up instantly afterwards for Package Q...

Internally carried weapons means the F-35 won't need actual physical escort which is important when you're outnumbered 3-4:1 though.

Forest Green said:
Is it really safer to send an F-35 400km into enemy territory to hit the same target with an AARGM-ER?
Click to expand...

It's war. It's not safe at all. The point of sending an F-35 deep into enemy territory is VID and positive target location/battle damage assess.

Forest Green said:
And AARGM-ER will still exist anyway (and JSM), so they can still do that, if they really want to
Click to expand...

You strip the airbase of air defenses so it can be obliterated by a PGM swarm or atomic missile or whatever. You can't do that if you're cosplaying as an F-15E to every air defense radar within triple digit km's.

Forest Green said:
but they also have the option of cluster bombing the same airfield
Click to expand...

Desert Storm showed the entire world on live television this doesn't work.

Just to be sure though, our brave CinC tried it in Syria back in 2017 on Shayrat, and got embarrassed when Assad himself personally flew a pair of MiG-27s (at the same time!) about 30 minutes later. That was only after watching all his Pantsirs drive away and hide under a overpass while their charges were blown up. Even a literally defenseless airbase can protect itself from the cluster bomb missile (and the normal blast warheads too!).

Forest Green said:
If I was the pilot on the mission, I would choose the AL-ATACMS option, if I had the choice.
Click to expand...

No JSF driver would compromise VLO to such a degree for a slightly longer range lol. You can use your big external stores when you've stripped the enemy of his IADS and demolished his air force. If you can do that.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
That'll be great when your giant radar reflector death cylinder lights you up as much as an F-15E and gets you slapped from >400 km by a ramjet powered PL-69 Sharpest Knife [in the Drawer] (or just a normal 200+ km PL-15 I guess) guided by a networked IADS. The J-20 is just an F-35 with a bigger weapon bay for longer range missiles and twice greater combat radius after all. Its main job, besides spanking F-CK-1s (that isn't a typo that's its actual designation), is gonna be DCA:

www.globaltimes.cn

PLA Army hones air defense against stealth fighter jets using Air Force's J-20 as practice partner - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn
Click to expand...
Kat Tsun said:
JSFs will need to commit to offensive counter air or be destroyed in theater by intruders or TBM attack on their bases. Part of that involves stripping IADS, and that requires an internal carried ordnance, because otherwise the PLAAF will be doing the same thing if you dawdle too long. Internal ordnance because attacking an IADS means getting close to it.

Raptor would be the most likely BARCAP, but it has short legs, and if it's escorting some silly ATACMS carrying JSFs that will be a detriment with those stealthy EO/IR pods. Because JSF has a longer combat radius than Raptor, it probably will leave just as the JSFs hit their release point, and all because those KC-135s and KC-10s aren't gonna be anywhere near the combat zone and might have to venture close anyway if JSF is relying on its external stores.
Click to expand...
Woah, who says a J-20 has twice the combat radius of an F-35? Who says a J-20 will be able to fly up to the front line without being slapped by an AIM-260 from an F-22 or SAMs, especially with IBCS-linked land mobile SM-6s potentially being a thing?

TBM attack on their bases would be a bigger issue if they had to be 700km closer to the front line to be close enough to fly into enemy air space to hit the same target with AARGM-ERs/SiAW equivalent and AARGM-ERs will still exist anyway, this is the crucial element you're not getting, AARGM-ERs will still exist whatever final SiAW is. I might also argue that if I put a SiAW-sized warhead in ATACMS it could almost achieve orbit (okay exaggeration but you take my point). TBMs generally refer to missiles with a 500km range, that won't be reaching any F-35 bases given the combat radius for F-35A and Bs even without drop tanks. Add 900km range to that for an AL-ATACMS with a 500lb warhead and you would be talking MRBMs minimum for a strike on F-35 bases and there are LRHWs for keeping them at bay.
Kat Tsun said:
Flashbacks of the Phantom Weasels calling bingo and the SA-2s and Zeus lighting up instantly afterwards for Package Q...

Internally carried weapons means the F-35 won't need actual physical escort which is important when you're outnumbered 3-4:1 though.
Click to expand...
The front line needs defending against stealth aircraft dropping glide bombs, so you save nothing there. And like I keep saying:

1. ATACMS might fit internally (PrSM definitely would); and
2. You still have AARGM-ER anyway because that fills a requirement entirely separate to SiAW too.

As regards Phatom Weasels operating well beyond the front line and SA-2s this comparing apples and dog turd at this point.
Kat Tsun said:
It's war. It's not safe at all. The point of sending an F-35 deep into enemy territory is VID and positive target location/battle damage assess.
Click to expand...
There are like a million satellites for that, little point in assigning a paparrazi role to F-35s. Let's face there are no F-35s flying over Crimea and yet we still get pictures the next day, even from commercial satellite service providers.
Kat Tsun said:
You strip the airbase of air defenses so it can be obliterated by a PGM swarm or atomic missile or whatever. You can't do that if you're cosplaying as an F-15E to every air defense radar within triple digit km's.
Click to expand...
If the AL-ATACMS is being fired form 200km inside friendly air space, an enemy SAM system would have to simply love artillery and MLRS fire to even have a chance at a shot. Bottom line SAM vs AL-ATACMS in a range battle, SAM loses every time. I'm not seeing any Ukrainian aircraft being shot down 200km inside their air space and they barely have an air force, EW assets and have very sparse IADS.
Kat Tsun said:
Desert Storm showed the entire world on live television this doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Desert Storm was trying to do it from above the actual airfield at 200ft altitude. I'm firing an AL-ATACMS with 300xM74 bomblets from 900km away. I'm firing at Baghdad whilst over the Med or alternatively Riyadh. I'm not even within the range of an SA-5 sitting on the Iraqi border.

jaesan-aero.blogspot.com

Few Ballistic Missile Analysis w/ Aerospace-SIM - Part. 2 - ATACMS

[See Previous Contents] Aerodynamics Series As a continued series of missile analysis, 2nd topic is ATACMS, one of favorite and well kn...
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
1717252975769.png
Kat Tsun said:
Just to be sure though, our brave CinC tried it in Syria back in 2017 on Shayrat, and got embarrassed when Assad himself personally flew a pair of MiG-27s (at the same time!) about 30 minutes later. That was only after watching all his Pantsirs drive away and hide under a overpass while their charges were blown up. Even a literally defenseless airbase can protect itself from the cluster bomb missile (and the normal blast warheads too!).
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of a place called Crimea? Well sit down and I will tell you all about it. It all started back in 2014 you see, with a man named Vladimir Putin. He wasn't much to look at, a diminutive, balding figure, with a pale complexion, but he had big ambitions and an even bigger ego, rivalled only by his 4D chess skills....
Kat Tsun said:
No JSF driver would compromise VLO to such a degree for a slightly longer range lol. You can use your big external stores when you've stripped the enemy of his IADS and demolished his air force. If you can do that.
Click to expand...
Slightly longer!? It's 3x longer, even with a warhead 4x the size and a dozen times as lethal wrt cluster variant, and it costs the same as an AARGM-ER but goes twice as fast. I think you may have misunderstood what I was describing.
 
Last edited:
The point of AARGM being internal is that carrying external stores will get you slapped out of the sky faster than you can "defending".
 
Kat Tsun said:
The point of AARGM being internal is that carrying external stores will get you slapped out of the sky faster than you can "defending".
Click to expand...
Not if you're still 200km on your side of the frontline, there's never been a single documented case of that... well not unless your own air defence is dumb enough to shoot you down maybe. But there is a case of a stealth aircraft being shot down over enemy air space. Stealth technology stops SAMs being able to target you from range, but it doesn't necessarily mean you won't be detected by lower frequency radar, or IRST, or maybe even LIDAR, and radar technology has a habit of catching up with stealth technology eventually, i.e. will an F-35 still be immune to a year 2050 radar with AI algorithms doing the processing? Once detected inside enemy air space, you'll have a few dozen J-20s coming to find you and your two AMRAAMs and no friendly assets deterring them either.

The AL-ATACMS launched outside enemy air space would still work when the latter happens, the deep penetration strikes will not. But hey, you still have the AARGM-ER, which seems to nearly fill the SiAW role anyway, so why spend money developing a clean sheet missile that does nearly the same thing, when you have an exsiting design that with some mild-mos and some kind of double-hinged, or spiral folding fins might even fit internally anyway and gives way more range and stand-off capability at the same price point?

And if you need more range to stay safe you can alway reduce the warhead size down to PrSM size, or AARGM-ER size. If it does 900km with a 500lb warhead, how far would it go with a 200lb or 125lb warhead? Need PRH/ARH? Stick AARGM-ER seeker and guidance in it. Russia didn't start with a clean sheet design when making the Kinzhal and some Chinese ALBMs look a lot like their SRBMs too. ;)
 
Forest Green said:
Not if you're still 200km on your side of the frontline,;)
Click to expand...

The PL-15 has a range of at least 200 km and is carried by a stealth heavyweight interceptor/air defense fighter, so yes, exactly that. It's why KC-135s will need to stay very far from the combat zone and why F-22 will have trouble doing anything besides limited BARCAP as a result.

A very big JSF with a very long range missile will make AIM-120D armed ATFs and JSFs very sad if they are carrying RCS compromising externals. For once they got it right, "Abbadon" was a surprisingly fitting name, and perhaps an even larger missile might be called "Azrael".

It would certainly give PL-17/-21 a name that stands up to its reputation. Of course JATM redresses only part of the balance because that doesn't fix how American tactical fighters are overly reliant on air refueling and bags. This, with the short legs of all but B-2/21, is the issue.

Anything within about 400 kilometers or so of the Chinese mainland coast will be held at threat by long-range intercept by J-20. It gets worse as you get closer with layers of SA-21/HQ-9 and J-11/15, J-10, and J-31 backed by an AWACS fleet roughly twice the size of the USAF's.

If America dodges war in the coming years then NGAD will address Raptor's short range and might make the stealth tankers unnecessary. HAVE DASH II might be on the menu, but only as a supplement to JATM, while SiAW seems pretty good, AARGM-ER is necessary, and an "AL-ATACMS" is an incredibly silly, pointless idea.

This isn't Kuwait and you won't be able to just zoom in with an F-16 carrying a pair of bags, some Mk 84s, and Sidewinders and dodge SA-2s. Any weapon, carried externally on any tactical aircraft, will be constrained by the need to be specially tailored to individual fighter series.
 

Attachments

  • 1717304464670.png
    1717304464670.png
    95.4 KB · Views: 13
  • 1717304984590.png
    1717304984590.png
    124.2 KB · Views: 14
  • 1717305010663.png
    1717305010663.png
    51.6 KB · Views: 16
  • 1717305744755.png
    1717305744755.png
    39.7 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Hey, @Kat Tsun it looks like the MGM-140 will dimensionally fit into F35A or -C bays. 24" diameter with fins folded for the ATACMS, GBU-31 2000lb JDAM has a wingspan of 25".
Click to expand...

I think he wants some kind of giga ATACMS, because he's saying it should be able to hit things ~1,000 km away, when ATACMS struggles to go past 300. It's telling that Kinzhal is twice the length, and goes something like 500 km on a good day, with a similar payload fraction. Air launch just doesn't buy a ALBM that much of a range improvement over surface-based systems. It's mostly a response time thing.

JSF -A is also cleared for JASSM-ER so uh yeah.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
The PL-15 has a range of at least 200 km and is carried by a stealth heavyweight interceptor/air defense fighter, so yes, exactly that. It's why KC-135s will need to stay very far from the combat zone and why F-22 will have trouble doing anything besides limited BARCAP as a result.
Click to expand...
With F-22s, AIM-260 and IBCS with ground radar they will be able to keep such aircraft far enough back from the front line to not be able to hit any fighter 200km on the friendly side of it, stealth or otherwise. Theoretically the R-37 has similar range but there are no reports of Ukrainian fighters being shot down 200km inside their held territory by Su-57s.
Kat Tsun said:
A very big JSF with a very long range missile will make AIM-120D armed ATFs and JSFs very sad if they are carrying RCS compromising externals. For once they got it right, "Abbadon" was a surprisingly fitting name, and perhaps an even larger missile might be called "Azrael".
Click to expand...
They won't need to fly inside enemy air space with it though.
Kat Tsun said:
It would certainly give PL-17/-21 a name that stands up to its reputation. Of course JATM redresses only part of the balance because that doesn't fix how American tactical fighters are overly reliant on air refueling and bags. This, with the short legs of all but B-2/21, is the issue.
Click to expand...
Now you've lost me altogether. None of this paragraph makes sense. The J-20 has a fuel fraction of ~33%, F-35A has 36%, C slightly more. B-2 and B-21 short legs? What has that got to do with SiAW or fighters ignoring the fact it's wrong anyway?
Kat Tsun said:
Anything within about 400 kilometers or so of the Chinese mainland coast will be held at threat by long-range intercept by J-20. It gets worse as you get closer with layers of SA-21/HQ-9 and J-11/15, J-10, and J-31 backed by an AWACS fleet roughly twice the size of the USAF's.
Click to expand...
Not every US stealth fighter is on a strike mission and the only likely combat scenario involving China would be an invasion of Taiwan. They only have to hit the ships between the two coasts, and J-20s can't defend airborne strikes against those fired from 900km away, or from LRHW/CPS.

Kat Tsun said:
If America dodges war in the coming years then NGAD will address Raptor's short range and might make the stealth tankers unnecessary. HAVE DASH II might be on the menu, but only as a supplement to JATM, while SiAW seems pretty good, AARGM-ER is necessary, and an "AL-ATACMS" is an incredibly silly, pointless idea.
Click to expand...
AARGM-ER is necessary and it's developed for the SEAD role anyway, it exists, it's not going anywhere, but final-cut SiAW will be a different missile according to current talk. You've done very little to persuade me that AL-ATACMS is a bad idea. I sometimes wonder if you even fully understand the concept.
Kat Tsun said:
This isn't Kuwait and you won't be able to just zoom in with an F-16 carrying a pair of bags, some Mk 84s, and Sidewinders and dodge SA-2s. Any weapon, carried externally on any tactical aircraft, will be constrained by the need to be specially tailored to individual fighter series.
Click to expand...
It'll need to be flight qualified separately sure but that's the same with any weapon.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
I think he wants some kind of giga ATACMS, because he's saying it should be able to hit things ~1,000 km away, when ATACMS struggles to go past 300. It's telling that Kinzhal is twice the length, and goes something like 500 km on a good day, with a similar payload fraction. Air launch just doesn't buy a ALBM that much of a range improvement over surface-based systems. It's mostly a response time thing.

JSF -A is also cleared for JASSM-ER so uh yeah.
Click to expand...
Wow, no wonder this argument is going nowhere. You've misunderstood the concept, and all the figures completely. Kinzhal goes 2,000km with a 480-500kg warhead. It's strongly based on a Iskander-M SRBM, which goes 500+km with a 700kg warhead. Air-launching missiles supersonic at altitude gets you way more range than a ground-launch from a TEL, simple physics, just as a rocket launched from an aircraft takes less fuel to put a payload in orbit.

ATACMS is estimated at ~390km with a 500lb (230kg) warhead from a ground launch (red line on botton right graph, range in m along x-axis, height in m y-axis). It reaches a speed of M5.3 (red line bottom left graph and y-axis, x-axis is time in s). Blue lines on bottom two graphs show exactly the same missile launched from a fighter at M1.5 and 40,000ft (12,000m), which gives M8.0 and 900km. Top two graphs show the same for a Block 1 ATACMS with a 560kg warhead. We're not discussing a giga-ATACMS being discussed, it's regular ATACMS with pylon attachments. PLEASE, PLEASE understand this before replying, it will save a lot of time!

jaesan-aero.blogspot.com

Few Ballistic Missile Analysis w/ Aerospace-SIM - Part. 2 - ATACMS

[See Previous Contents] Aerodynamics Series As a continued series of missile analysis, 2nd topic is ATACMS, one of favorite and well kn...
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
1717317051592.png

Scott Kenny said:
Hey, @Kat Tsun it looks like the MGM-140 will dimensionally fit into F35A or -C bays. 24" diameter with fins folded for the ATACMS, GBU-31 2000lb JDAM has a wingspan of 25".
Click to expand...
Yes, the only real issue might be the way the fins currently fold for ground launch, the folding fins may need modifying to a double fold or a curved profile. Mass may also be an issue for the internal points. Worst case scenario, you may have to use a PrSM instead for internal fit. But then if you put a PrSM-sized warhead in an AL-ATACMS the stand-off range would be so great that external carry would cause few problems.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom