Aircraft mounted Anti-Missile Systems

[dprijadi]

hi friends

anyone got information about availability of aircraft mounted anti-missile system ? from what i read in internet, there's a towed-decoy for air assets like tankers or awacs and an IR laser blinder for AC-130 sized planes.

but what about an active defense system ? do aerospace engineers also research the possibility of intercepting incoming missile with Laser point defense or Kinetic point defense system (like the ship mounted Phalanx/GoalKeeper systems) or even using a small missile to intercept incoming AtA missile ?

regards

 

[My2Cents]

anyone got information about availability of aircraft mounted anti-missile system ? from what i read in internet, there's a towed-decoy for air assets like tankers or awacs and an IR laser blinder for AC-130 sized planes.

but what about an active defense system ? do aerospace engineers also research the possibility of intercepting incoming missile with Laser point defense or Kinetic point defense system (like the ship mounted Phalanx/GoalKeeper systems) or even using a small missile to intercept incoming AtA missile?

You seem to mean hard-kill anti-missile systems [AMS], not active defense systems, and limited to point defense of the aircraft.

Generally the problems with mounting a hard-kill AMS are that they require the use of active sensors, which make you an easier target to find and hit, have a significant weight and aerodynamic penalties, and limited coverage.

Let’s look at the options:

• Guns – Shortest range of the 3 alternatives, and are the only one with a recoil problem. You cannot mount a 20mm Phalanx type turret on even the largest aircraft without overcoming a host of problems due to aerodynamics and recoil. 50cal would be a more practical size than 20mm, but the small cross-section of AAMs may require the use of some form of explosive/fragmentation ammunition for reliable kills, which would require a size in the 30mm-40mm range. 2 gun turrets would be required for (nearly) all around coverage.
• Missiles – Probably the lowest impact system type, but the most limited. For aerodynamic reasons, a missile based AMS can only fire into the forward arc. You cannot fire a missile backwards. An over-the-shoulder shot is not really practical if you consider the time and energy budget for even a 50g turn.
• Lasers – We do not have the technology yet for a hard-kill laser system, but the YAL-1 is probably a decent estimate for capability and size required. It will be huge and there is not much room left in the aircraft for anything else.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Guns - I agree

Missiles - Not necessarily. If a system like Trophy were used then it would be possible for a rear-aspect missile system to work.

http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm

Laser - Since the YAL-1 was meant to cripple TBMs/ICBMs from a few hundred miles away and a fighter-sized laser-ams would only have to disable an AAM sized target from a few miles away, the power requirements are a lot less.

 

[My2Cents]

Missiles - Not necessarily. If a system like Trophy were used then it would be possible for a rear-aspect missile system to work.

If you mean by ejecting a projectile that fires a cone of fragments at the incoming missile, yes it will work in a narrow cone to the rear of the aircraft. You are of course trying to intercept a missile several times faster than an RPG, and they cannot reliably intercept cannon rounds … yet.

Outside of that narrow cone you need a maneuvering projectile, and it is flying backwards! This will require something completely new.

The sides, top, and bottom are a combination of problems. But the real problem is how far the projectile has to lead the missile to get into position before detonating makes it large system.

Laser - Since the YAL-1 was meant to cripple TBMs/ICBMs from a few hundred miles away and a fighter-sized laser-ams would only have to disable an AAM sized target from a few miles away, the power requirements are a lot less.

Not necessarily. The YAL-1 has a much longer ‘dwell time’ on a larger, and probably softer, target in which to destroy it. This is not like in the movies, you are heating the target to the point of structural failure, not exploding it with a single pulse. Peak power requirements for a hard kill AMS could actually be higher than for ABM applications.

 

[colay]

Space and weight are at a premium, specially for fighter-sized aircraft so I don't see any type of kinetic kill mechanism being implemented any time soon.. they would exact too much in terms of decreased performance and add cost and complexity. DIRCM already uses lasers to dazzle incoming IR missiles, is it feasible to boost the power so it can actually do physical damage to a AAM? Where will the power come from? Maybe conformal AESA arrays can be positioned in the rear portion of the a/c to zap the electronics of incoming AAMs?

 

[SpudmanWP]

1. The YAL-1's focus point was measured in feet across, not several inches as a fighter-based AML would be.

2. The AAM's skin and control surfaces are a lot thinner than a TBM/ICBS therefore it's structural integrity can be compromised easier.

A DIRCM may be upped to damage an IIR seeker, but the it's backend would have to be increased a LOT more to damage an non-IIR missile.

 

[My2Cents]

Space and weight are at a premium, specially for fighter-sized aircraft so I don't see any type of kinetic kill mechanism being implemented any time soon.. they would exact too much in terms of decreased performance and add cost and complexity.

I think you mean a hard kill DEW, not a kinetic kill. Guns are a kinetic kill mechanism.

DIRCM already uses lasers to dazzle incoming IR missiles, is it feasible to boost the power so it can actually do physical damage to a AAM? Where will the power come from?

Power output would have to increase by several orders of magnitude. Don’t see it being possible to put a weapon grade DEW in a fighter. Power source, power conditioning, and cooling systems all present significant space and weight problems.

Maybe conformal AESA arrays can be positioned in the rear portion of the a/c to zap the electronics of incoming AAMs?

I believe that they are already putting conformal AESA arrays in the rear arcs as part of the ECM system. Not sure if the power output is sufficient zap the electronics in a missile, that is something they would probably want to keep a secret.

 

[My2Cents]

1. The YAL-1's focus point was measured in feet across, not several inches as a fighter-based AML would be.

Output beam size is dictated by the maximum energy density (kW/cm2) that the optical system can handle. You can focus is smaller than that on the target, but the beam ‘jitter’ will still spread the damage to an extent.

2. The AAM's skin and control surfaces are a lot thinner than a TBM/ICBS therefore it's structural integrity can be compromised easier.

You are engaging the AAM head on, so they only have to protect the nose and the leading edge of the fins. In the ballistic missiles the YAL-1 is designed to engage from the side during the boost phase when the body of the missile functions as a pressure vessel, either to hold liquid fuel or as the casing for solid fuel. The YAL-1 does not put a hole in the missile, it just heats the missile body until the material weakens enough for the internal pressure to rupture it.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The YAL-1 cannot focus on a tight spot due to the distances involved. Jitter close up (<10 miles or so) may only spread the spot to 6 inches while that same jitter makes a 3 foot spot at 100.

Most modern AAMs have an arching profile and also make predictive turns. This exposes their complete body, not just the nose, to attack. Other fighters in the area will also have profile shots on the AAM. Further, IIR missiles would be extremely and easily damages by a fighter-based AML as the IIR sensor would quickly be overloaded and damaged by the amount of laser energy involved.

btw, DARPA has been working on it and it's called HELLADS (150kw and the size of a refrigerator).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/hellads_phase_iv_contracts/

Here is the budget doc that covers HELLADS and several other airborne laser programs.

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/DARPA/0602702E_2_PB_2012.pdf

 

[My2Cents]

Most modern AAMs have an arching profile and also make predictive turns. This exposes their complete body, not just the nose, to attack. Other fighters in the area will also have profile shots on the AAM.

The body is exposure is usually only at shallow angles versus the target aircraft, so energy transfer is very limited.

If there are other fighters in the area they will probably have their own incoming missiles to worry about. Sure, A can shoot down the missile heading for B, which can shoot down the missile heading for C, which mails the one going for A, but setting it up in real-time is nearly impossible.

Further, IIR missiles would be extremely and easily damages by a fighter-based AML as the IIR sensor would quickly be overloaded and damaged by the amount of laser energy involved.

They are, and we already have laser based systems being fielded that to do exactly that to IIR homers.

btw, DARPA has been working on it and it's called HELLADS (150kw and the size of a refrigerator).

HELL-beam project now one step from jet-fighter raygun • The Register

That is just the laser unit itself. It does not include power generation and conditioning, cooling, and beam pointing. The total system for a steerable AMS will be 5x to 10x larger and heavier.

 

[colay]

The F-35B would seem to hold promise, at least in addressing the power generation issue. It's been suggested that the lift fan be swapped out for a generator which would be coupled to the F135 driveshaft to generate copious amounts of electricity needed to power a tactical laser weapon.

 

[SpudmanWP]

M2C, you missed my point about HELLADS. Your first claim was that to take out an AAM it would need something the size of YAL-1 yet systems like HELLADS were designed specifically for targets like AAMs and are the size of refrigerators.

The people who know every aspect of the scenario seem to think that this will work just fine.

 

[lucinator]

for lasers on larger aircraft, power generation is not really a big deal, most jet engines can be rigged to generate plenty of reserve power, and to further show what is capable Northrup Grumman developed the maritime laser which is very small and has operational ranges in the miles at sea level.

 

[My2Cents]

M2C, you missed my point about HELLADS. Your first claim was that to take out an AAM it would need something the size of YAL-1 yet systems like HELLADS were designed specifically for targets like AAMs and are the size of refrigerators.

The people who know every aspect of the scenario seem to think that this will work just fine.

HELLADS is a DARPA program. The size and weight given for the HELLADS are goals as yet unachieved. Whether or not those goals are achievable is another matter, they are going for a 10x improvement in the output per unit weight. Current status is a closely kept secret, but they claim they are closer than they thought they would be at this point.

The size and weight are for the laser unit only, and does not include power generation and conditioning, cooling, and the aiming elements. The THEL system, for example, takes 5 trailer loads for the whole system. The HELLADS hopes to reduce that to 1 HEMTT trailer, which will require considerable improvement/size reductions in some of the other components as well. The current testing centers around the ground or sea based C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar) missions, not use in aircraft.

The big problem with an AAAMS is that the laser will need to be steerable over a wide arc, that means some kind of turret, possibly more than one, on the aircraft. The large aperture means a large turret, so the performance penalty will be large also.

for lasers on larger aircraft, power generation is not really a big deal, most jet engines can be rigged to generate plenty of reserve power, and to further show what is capable Northrup Grumman developed the maritime laser which is very small and has operational ranges in the miles at sea level.

An F100 series engine will give you a maximum of 8MW output per engine, but remember that comes at the expense of the thrust. You will need around 1MW to power a 20% efficient 150kW laser plus auxiliaries. Certainly doable for a 4 engine bomber like the B-1 or B-2, possible for a 2 engine fighter like the F-15 or F-22, but I don’t think you would want to try it with a single engine aircraft.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I see you have no problems with moving the goalposts when you initial argument fails.

btw, nobody says the turret has to be large, except you.

 

[Humming Drone]

...

• Missiles – Probably the lowest impact system type, but the most limited. For aerodynamic reasons, a missile based AMS can only fire into the forward arc. You cannot fire a missile backwards. An over-the-shoulder shot is not really practical if you consider the time and energy budget for even a 50g turn.
  ...

Re: this and other posts. With the current tech development placing hard-kill defensive systems on the platform itself does not look feasible or promising in my opinion.

However, an option might be sending two groups of planes - first high and forward, and the second one (defense group) lower and back. The idea is that this might work vs., say long range SAMs. Red team detects and launches at the first group. The second group with AWACS / EW support launches missiles to intercept incoming SAMs. You can add defensive maneuvering and action templates to this. This also might go hand in hand with SEAD.

Risky, it has its limitations, but I think that the solution is easier found through a system approach and tactics.

The look on SAM operator faces should be priceless when they see their missiles disappear without reason and the enemy planes still on radar. :lam

 

[localhost127]

Re: this and other posts. With the current tech development placing hard-kill defensive systems on the platform itself does not look feasible or promising in my opinion.

However, an option might be sending two groups of planes - first high and forward, and the second one (defense group) lower and back. The idea is that this might work vs., say long range SAMs. Red team detects and launches at the first group. The second group with AWACS / EW support launches missiles to intercept incoming SAMs. You can add defensive maneuvering and action templates to this. This also might go hand in hand with SEAD.

Risky, it has its limitations, but I think that the solution is easier found through a system approach and tactics.

The look on SAM operator faces should be priceless when they see their missiles disappear without reason and the enemy planes still on radar. :lam

would a better tactic to send in drones with RCS signatures (decoys) of normal SEAD/strike platforms?

i thought i recall reading about desert storm and some platforms having decoys to 'look' like real strike platforms to get the SAM to go active and make it's location known.

 

[lucinator]

HELLADS is a DARPA program. The size and weight given for the HELLADS are goals as yet unachieved. Whether or not those goals are achievable is another matter, they are going for a 10x improvement in the output per unit weight. Current status is a closely kept secret, but they claim they are closer than they thought they would be at this point.

The size and weight are for the laser unit only, and does not include power generation and conditioning, cooling, and the aiming elements. The THEL system, for example, takes 5 trailer loads for the whole system. The HELLADS hopes to reduce that to 1 HEMTT trailer, which will require considerable improvement/size reductions in some of the other components as well. The current testing centers around the ground or sea based C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar) missions, not use in aircraft.

The big problem with an AAAMS is that the laser will need to be steerable over a wide arc, that means some kind of turret, possibly more than one, on the aircraft. The large aperture means a large turret, so the performance penalty will be large also.

An F100 series engine will give you a maximum of 8MW output per engine, but remember that comes at the expense of the thrust. You will need around 1MW to power a 20% efficient 150kW laser plus auxiliaries. Certainly doable for a 4 engine bomber like the B-1 or B-2, possible for a 2 engine fighter like the F-15 or F-22, but I don’t think you would want to try it with a single engine aircraft.

Except the f-35 doesn't use a F-100 it uses a f135 which has a power output of 26mw not 8. That's a big difference

 

[My2Cents]

Except the f-35 doesn't use a F-100 it uses a f135 which has a power output of 26mw not 8. That's a big difference

I believe that figure includes the afterburner, which is power you cannot convert. It looks like only be about 13 MW without afterburner. Still, better than an F-16, you are only losing 8% of your thrust to take a shot, not 12%. But a F-22 would only lose 6% of its thrust for the shot, and a B-1 would only lose 3%.

The real questions are:

• How well do the engine(s) handle the sudden changes in pressure and flow that would result from each shot?
• How do the pilots perceive the sudden momentary reduction in thrust? Would it, for example, feel like the start of a flameout?
  Things could get messy if you are triggering trained in reflexes inappropriately. Especially if they are reflexes which you may not want to un-train for safety reasons.

In both cases the smaller of a percentage of the available power you are taking, the less likely there is to be a problem.

 

[lucinator]

No that's electrical power generated by the engine through the turboshaft. I believe that is more than adequate to power a 100kw solid state laser.