StandOff & PGM Weapons

bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Mach announces deal with Army lab for vertical takeoff 'Strategic Strike' cruise missile - Breaking Defense

“The primary objective for Strategic Strike is to launch from beyond enemy radar range, reducing the probability of detection, and increasing launch team survivability,” the company wrote in the announcement.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

"Did a US military contractor use a Chinese-made jet engine in ‘Strategic Strike’ missile? When an American defence manufacturer posted a recent video of its latest weapon, viewers noticed something unexpected." (paywalled)

"A US defence contractor is facing scrutiny after allegations surfaced that its latest weapon system may be using a jet engine that was made in China and sold online. On March 5, California-based start-up Mach Industries posted a promotional video on social media showcasing its latest product – a vertical take-off cruise missile."

[...]

"But it did not take long for viewers analysing the video to suggest that the engine design closely resembled the Swiwin SW800 Pro, a Chinese-manufactured model."
 
NMaude said:
G-limits on Super Hornet airframe or Stormbreaker's airframe?
Click to expand...
Stormbreaker

Most of the time I’ve seen launch up to .8 or .9 mach for glide weapons/JDAM

Carrying it should be fine but it’s the release portion thats a lot more complicated.

Big design differences between weapons meant to travel supersonically and subsonically.
 
Last edited:
tyrin said:
Stormbreaker

Most of the time I’ve seen launch up to .8 or .9 mach for glide weapons/JDAM

Carrying it should be fine but it’s the release portion thats a lot more complicated.

Big design differences between weapons meant to travel supersonically and subsonically.
Click to expand...

So basically the Storbreaker can be carried supersonically but the carrier-aircraft (F/A-18E/F in this case) would have to slow down to high-subsonic speed to launch a GBU-53/B?
 
NMaude said:
So basically the Storbreaker can be carried supersonically but the carrier-aircraft (F/A-18E/F in this case) would have to slow down to high-subsonic speed to launch a GBU-53/B?
Click to expand...
That is my impression yeah, I’m sure there are others with better understanding of the topic that can add onto this.
 
NMaude said:
So basically the Storbreaker can be carried supersonically but the carrier-aircraft (F/A-18E/F in this case) would have to slow down to high-subsonic speed to launch a GBU-53/B?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone trials supersonic weapons release except for AAM's these days (maybe ARM like AARGM as well)...the fact they're rocket powered and under positive control from launch, and usually rail launched or using a powered ram to clear the aircraft makes things a little simpler...

There were some trials around 2007 around releasing JDAM from internal bays at up to m2.0 at Wright Patterson, but although successful I don't think they were progressed into F-35 design.
 
I think it would be rare for an aircraft to be supersonic unless it was delivering an AAM anyway.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it would be rare for an aircraft to be supersonic unless it was delivering an AAM anyway.
Click to expand...
internal carriage of weapons means that you're not fighting drag like you are with external carriage. So I would expect F-35s to be moving fast on ingress.
 
Scott Kenny said:
internal carriage of weapons means that you're not fighting drag like you are with external carriage. So I would expect F-35s to be moving fast on ingress.
Click to expand...


That's a very good point! Now as to the also of stabilising the SDB after it's ejected supersonically perhaps have jettisonable stabilising-fins fitted over its' folded tail-fins that are jettisoned when the tail-fins deploy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
internal carriage of weapons means that you're not fighting drag like you are with external carriage. So I would expect F-35s to be moving fast on ingress.
Click to expand...

It increases thermal signature and fuel consumption rather dramatically; I cannot see a good reason for it unless you know you are detected or have been fired upon.
 
Josh_TN said:
It increases thermal signature and fuel consumption rather dramatically;
Click to expand...

I could see an F-35 going supersonic briefly to launch an SDB (Then decelerating after SDB launch) for same reason a long-range AAM is launched supersonically - to extend its' range.
 
Josh_TN said:
It increases thermal signature and fuel consumption rather dramatically; I cannot see a good reason for it unless you know you are detected or have been fired upon.
Click to expand...
F-35s can cruise at about M1.4 or so without afterburners. It's still burning like twice as much fuel as their normal cruise, but if it gets you out of a threat bubble faster it'd be worth it.
 
NMaude said:
I could see an F-35 going supersonic briefly to launch an SDB (Then decelerating after SDB launch) for same reason a long-range AAM is launched supersonically - to extend its' range.
Click to expand...

Only if the weapon can withstand that delivery profile and if that delivery significantly increases range. If the wings do not pop until you are subsonic, are you buying anything with that reheat?
 
Scott Kenny said:
F-35s can cruise at about M1.4 or so without afterburners. It's still burning like twice as much fuel as their normal cruise, but if it gets you out of a threat bubble faster it'd be worth it.
Click to expand...

I’ve read 1.2 with minimal reheat, which is a different thing. And you still have to burn to get there, be 1.2 or 1.4
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Are we sure? I didn't see any mention of MACE in this BAA, and the ACME description sounds different — talks about supersonic ramjets, no mention of fitting two per F-35 bay, etc.
Click to expand...

In retrospect it seems clear ACME is a replacement for HALO after the latters cancelation. When the news first came out, it did not really make sense that there was a supersonic requirement and a hypersonic requirement. I think what happened is that the HALO requirement was fast and long ranged such that only a very novel propulsion stack could meet the requirements for a carrier compatible weapon (personal guess - integral solid rocket and ramjet/scramjet dual mode similar to HyFly). Development costs and per unit estimates spiraled upwards and so someone decided to lower the speed threshold to highly supersonic (Mach 3-4 ish maybe) but also stipulate much useful production and cost thresholds. If so, ACME is not a competitor of MACE but rather a rationalized, more prolific HALO replacement that shoots for 70-80% of the speed requirement at much lower cost.
 
Josh_TN said:
In retrospect it seems clear ACME is a replacement for HALO after the latters cancelation. When the news first came out, it did not really make sense that there was a supersonic requirement and a hypersonic requirement. I think what happened is that the HALO requirement was fast and long ranged such that only a very novel propulsion stack could meet the requirements for a carrier compatible weapon (personal guess - integral solid rocket and ramjet/scramjet dual mode similar to HyFly). Development costs and per unit estimates spiraled upwards and so someone decided to lower the speed threshold to highly supersonic (Mach 3-4 ish maybe) but also stipulate much useful production and cost thresholds. If so, ACME is not a competitor of MACE but rather a rationalized, more prolific HALO replacement that shoots for 70-80% of the speed requirement at much lower cost.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

A big problem with carrier compatibility is that 15ft length max for any given segment.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Makes sense.

A big problem with carrier compatibility is that 15ft length max for any given segment.
Click to expand...

Which is why I think an integral booster would have to be used…and then your booster is not powerful enough to move a glider into the scramjet regime…but then your ramjet is fuel inefficient at those speeds and does not have the required range…so booster —> ramjet —> scramjet. There probably were other solutions, but the mix of requirements likely forced something complicated if the USN actually stipulated hypersonic speed. Where as the old ASALM might have fit the bill if you were ok with Mach 3+.
 
Josh_TN said:
Which is why I think an integral booster would have to be used…and then your booster is not powerful enough to move a glider into the scramjet regime…but then your ramjet is fuel inefficient at those speeds and does not have the required range…so booster —> ramjet —> scramjet. There probably were other solutions, but the mix of requirements likely forced something complicated if the USN actually stipulated hypersonic speed. Where as the old ASALM might have fit the bill if you were ok with Mach 3+.
Click to expand...
Don't know if it works but maybe one could even use a solid fuel as the compressor for the ramjet which has to be ablative so it frees the air duct to create the normal scramjet design.
 
Scar said:
Do you know the size of this box?
Click to expand...
Nope, but looks normal crate, i.e. 2m ish overall.
Also, that screw doesn't really looks like a proper MIC missile.
More like a refined creation from UMPK team.
 
Now it still looks relativ similiar to thoses KH-50's. Maybe its some Form of UMPK kit for bombs which is similiar to JSOW with a stealthy shape
 
www.twz.com

Lumberjack Jet-Powered One-Way Attack Munition Can Drop Its Own Precision Bomblets

Northrop Grumman aims to deliver Lumberjack for between $75K and $100K each, and it can travel several hundred miles or loiter for hours.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

Lumberjack-munition.jpg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom