If this is really low cost, this could provide poorer NATO states with a realistic BVR engagement capability. Interesting piece of news. I don't understand one thing in the brochure. It says that it is impact-to-kill. does this mean that it lacks proximity fuse? That seems like a step backwards imho.
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Hit to kill technology provides extremely accurate targetting and means you can eliminate a larger explosive warhead and a radar proximity fuse from within the missile body.
Both of these mean you can limit the overall size of the weapon and use much more of the internal space of the missile body for fuel / rocket motor purposes, to enhance range, speed, end-game maneuverability and so on.
For an aircraft looking to maximise carriage options, much like the Small Diameter Bomb, this concept appears to offer a good compromise between range, lethality and "firepower".
Such a weapon is anything but a step backwards. Older missiles have radar proximity fuses BECAUSE they are less accurate, not because it's necessarily operationally desirable to be "near enough" your intended target...
Additionally, it's noteworthy that all US ABM interceptors e.g. PAC-3, THAAD, SM-3, GBI use the HTK mechanism. Enough successful test interceptions have been achieved to inspire confidence that it works.
The CUDA literature describes a capability for the missile to precisely impact specific sections of an aircraft so it will be very lethal indeed even without an explosive warhead.
The CUDA literature describes a capability for the missile to precisely impact specific sections of an aircraft so it will be very lethal indeed even without an explosive warhead.
Glad to be corrected
So, this missile can basically be the first all situation missile as per the description. That'd be perfect for VLO designs. Nice piece of tech.It occurs to me that CUDA could basically obviate the need for AIM-9X on the F-35. Not only would it be carried internally, something I'm not sure has been finalized for Sidewinder, but it would also seem to be just as lethal in WVR and offer true BVR capability to boot. If they build enough of them, they might even come in at a comparable price.
Sidewinder - AFAIK - isn't planned for internal carriage system due to the difficulties it presents with it's launch mechanism.
Sidewinder shoots forward off a rail, the internal spaces (again, I think) would only be available for weapons which are dropped and then ignite like AMRAAM, Meteor etc.
Although i'd be interested to know how the mechanism works in relation to weapon stations holding several weapons like racks of SDB.
Sidewinder shoots forward off a rail, the internal spaces (again, I think) would only be available for weapons which are dropped and then ignite like AMRAAM, Meteor etc.
Although i'd be interested to know how the mechanism works in relation to weapon stations holding several weapons like racks of SDB.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I'm wondering how well it will perform in the air to ground scenario. If it goes well, it might negate the need for SDB2. Soft targets almost definately. How well does a supersonic HTK AAM perform against an armoured vehicle?If it means the F-35 can arm up with a greater numbers of missiles with oportunistic flexibity of being able to deploy as air to air or air to ground all within the LO cargo bays avoiding the need to use wing pilons and mess with the LO of the aircraft then that's got to be a huge bonus for the platform.
Thanks for the links, enjoyed the read.
as an aside, one of the links states that "F-22 pilots in particular have been asking for greater beyond visual range weapons capacity since the Raptor first entered operational testing about a decade ago."
I'm wondring if this is to do with limits to the F22's air to air performance, or whether the pilots just want to be able to shoot further.
Current methods of taking out heavily armoured tanks using HTK tech have been around for years in the form of the APFSDS, so to me the idea of using CUDA to do that job seems plausible. But it's more of a case of does it need to be done?
As for wanting more BVR capability, personally I just reckon the pilots want that bit extra to make their setup that bit more combat effective rather than there being shortfalls in the current capability.
As for wanting more BVR capability, personally I just reckon the pilots want that bit extra to make their setup that bit more combat effective rather than there being shortfalls in the current capability.
They simply wanted more missiles in lieu of the 6 AMRAAMs currently fitted. When you're in a turkey shoot, it's frustrating when you run out of bullets.
I'd expect if they were using F-35 with internal carriage only to hunt tanks, they'd probably still carry SDBII and perhaps a couple of Cuda missiles and an AMRAAM.
That'd see an F-35 carrying 8 SDBII's, a pair of Cudas and an AMRAAM-D or equivalent, pretty much the load out the Hornets would carry today for such a mission, except they don't currently have SDBII.
Cuda really just gives an F-35 expanded LO weapons options. Many of the arguments against it are based on it's "small" weapons load. Like most aircraft though, multiple ejector racks and similar systems will increase loadout options over time, but unlike other aircraft, F-35 isn't allowed that benefit by the hysterics crowd...
apparently all other combat aircraft previously developed were turn-key deliveries and had no further development and/or improvements made......
King Wally
Active Member
Forgive me if Im wrong here... but as a casual war observer over the years I'd imagine most conflicts would start with a savage blitz to obtain Air Dominance which would focus on knocking out runways, AA sites, radars and enemy fighters. All that would need to be done with F-35's in the highest LO setting possible and internal stores only being used.
At this stage you would expect tanks to be bypassed and overlooked untill Air Dominance was secure and then you can fully convert the F-35 into a bomb truck and rip through ground armour utilizing the additional wing pilons as LO no longer becomes a big concern.
If I'm picturing this right in my head you shouldn't really need to worry about using internal store space for heavy armour targets correct? Maybe I'm simplifying things too much.
Air Force Brat
Member
F-22 pilots are hoping to get a helmet mounted sight to take full advantage of the off bore sight targeting, the F-22 remains the worlds preeminant Air to Air platform, and the gold standard for fifth generation war fighting aircraft. It is fully operational "tonight", something that cannot be said of any of the upstarts, I'm not sure if I'm amused or preturbed when people mention the F-22s "limitations", the only limitation I am aware of is that we are down to 184 in total, and not all of them are fully operational, so yes, they would be looking to increase weapons capacity, and the Cuda would appear to be a possible answer to that issue for both the Raptor and the F-35, and for both if you are able to increase capacity while maintaining L/O then Bob's your Uncle, no downside to that, so the Cuda is likely tailored to the F-35 and the F-22. Cheers Brat
Which is fine, assuming you are re-fighting the Gulf War. Warfare doesn't always work that way...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One of the initial actions which would occur or attempt to occur in a conflict between nations would indeed be for one side to gain control of the air. Assuming the capabilities of both sides were not fairly equal, then the more powerful/capable side would engage in an IADS rollback.
Even if the sides were fairly balanced, both would attempt to delaminate the other's C3/C4ISR/IADS to gain advantage.
Initial targets for delamination would radar/sensor stations to 'blind' the enemy, command centres to render them 'dumb', and comms centres/links to make the enemy deaf & mute. In effect taking the I out of an IADS. AAA and SAM sites would be targets as well, especially if they were in a position to defend any of the other targets. Airfields would also be early targets, to limit or eliminate the opponent's ability to conduct counter air operations.
The level of sophistication of the opponent (and specifically their relevant systems) would dictate how the rollback would be done. If much of the enemy's GBAD consisted fo MANPADS and/or small calibre (12.7 mm or 14.5 mm) guns, then little usage of LO features might be required since flying at ~25,000 ft would avoid it. Firing a few (or perhaps even many) LO standoff muntions like JASSM or JSOW at airfields with aircraft on the ground would likely keep the opposing air force out of the air. Once that is accomplished, the command and communications facilities would be targeted to break any cohesion, and then assets on the ground could be targeted with virtual impunity.
What I find potentially interesting about CUDA is that dual usage against aerial targets like enemy aircraft, and also against softer ground targets like SAM or AAA vehicles. While a single HTK missile would not be sufficient to destroy something like an S-300PMU-2 unit, but would likely be enough to destroy a 83M6E2 command post and thereby neutralizing the rest of the unit.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Quite true, some forces can now be delaminated to a degree before a shot is even fired...
The F-22 does indeed have limitations, not related to the performance of the airframe but to do with the difficulties that have been experienced in integrating new technologies into the aircraft. At present the lack of JHMCS, AIM-9X capability, the lack of integration of weapons capable of hitting moving ground targets (along with the inability to self-designate targets of that nature), and problems with datalinking compatibility with other air units would all count as limitations, I imagine. It doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable, and it may be the "gold standard" for air to air combat, but it is by no means the gold standard when it comes to integrating new systems or undergoing fleet-wide upgrades. Hopefully these problems will be fully rectified in time, particularly the datalink issues, as I imagine these would be the most vital of the examples I've listed. I can only assume that if these issues aren't fixed, then integration with AMRAAM-D and CUDA will also be a pain in the backside.
Be amused or perturbed as you wish but its potency as an air combat platform does not invalidate the problems experienced with the fleet.
1973 comes to mind with Israel sacrificing fighter bombers to buy the army time to counter attack. Something survivable in an intense IADS environment would have been greatly appreciated back then.
I wonder what CUDA would do to APAs favourite sim that has F-35s being swept from the sky by hordes of SU-XXX after running out of missiles. I suppose they will just re run it or extrapolate the original results with three times as many flankers and an assumed 80% failure rate of the CUDA due to its small warhead and lack of a proximity fuse.
Yep, though I was considering more of a defensive retreat situation, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, pre-Gulf War. You may require full LO in a fighting retreat, but as part of assymetric attacks on enemy forces, you may wish to commence taking out enemy assets, platforms and what not, knowing full well in the meantime that you can't stop or roll back the full invasion just yet.
An F-35 loaded up with Cuda and SDBII in an LO configuration would be just about perfect in such a scenario.
Generic MBT's may not be primary targets in such an action (C4ISREW platforms would be) but every tank destroyed now is one you don't have to fight later. With 4 ship flights of F-35's carrying up to 32 SDB's between them, targets of opportunity are likely to present themselves...
- Status