F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[alexsa]

The F-22 with AMRAAM already has the ability to chase and kill cruise missiles. This is one of its key features.

An F-15 with a Patriot missile wont be much better than an F-22 with an AMRAAM.

The F-22 can detect cruise missiles from further away than the F-15 can. The F-22 can also travel much quicker on an intercept course and get closer to the target. The F-22 can also fly higher. This makes up for the shorter range of the AMRAAM.

An F-22 flying supersonic at 80,000ft could have a shot at all the ballistic missiles that will be operated by Iran and North Korea.

Instead of spending 10 billion dollars on developing an air launched Pac-3 missile and equiping a squadron of F-15's the money could be used to buy another squadron of F-22's which would serve many other purposes.

This inefficient spending shits me up the wall!!

Did it cross your mind it could be the missile rather than the launch platform that is driving this. The PAC3 is otimised for this sort of work and an air lauch will extend its evelope. I would expect it wouel eventually be feilded on the F-22 if trials are sucessful but currently there are not that many of them so initial intergration on the F-15 (leaving the F-22 to cover the A2A role) appears to make sense.

I have not heard the the AMRAAM has been tested inthe ABM role whereas the PAC3 is purpose built for such intercepts on a hit to kill basis whereas the AMRAAM is blast proximety, which is less effective. Comparing the SL AMRAAM and the current PAC3 indicates it has the advantage of speed and paylaod that can only be improved by air launch.

AMRAAM SL
Mass: 157kg
Speed: Mach 4
Range: 33000m
Warhead: 20kg

PAC3
Mass: 312kg
Speed: Mach 5.12
Range: 30000+m
Warhead: 75kg

 

[rjmaz1]

An AMRAAM launched from a Supersonic F-22 has a much larger kill envelope than any ground launched PAC-3 missile when it comes to shooting down aircraft/missiles. The F-22 SHOULD be the US's main missile defence, but having so few F-22's means it will never be able to be used in this role.

Pac-3 missile cannot fit inside the F-22 im afraid, its too long and the fins would need to be clipped. Having it externally then compromises the F-22's stealth and the F-22 cannot perform precision strike or air dominance, worst idea ever as you loose the value of your F-22's. Putting it on the F-15 is fine, but if your using an F-15 you may as well just use the F-22 with AMRAAM.

The F-22 acts as a booster stage for the AMRAAM. Launching at Mach 2+ and 80,000 feet compared to Mach 1.5 at 50,000feet is a huge difference. The PAC-3 missile will loose most of its range advantage just making up the difference in altitude. If the AMRAAM makes contact with the Ballistic missile then 20 kg of explosive is more than enough.

Modding a Pac-3 missile to fit an F-22 would still be a good thing. Shortening it and using the guidence from an AMRAAM you then basically have the "ALRAAM" missile. Basically a AIM-7 sized AMRAAM missile. The F-22 would only be able to carry four of these instead of six AMRAAM's though. For 99% of missions the AMRAAM is definitely the prefered missile.

 

[Aussie Digger]

An AMRAAM launched from a Supersonic F-22 has a much larger kill envelope than any ground launched PAC-3 missile when it comes to shooting down aircraft/missiles. The F-22 SHOULD be the US's main missile defence, but having so few F-22's means it will never be able to be used in this role.

IT ain't wise to put ALL your eggs into one basket. The F-22 is a wonderful capability, but it will never be acquired in the numbers needed to cover all the contingencies facing the US. An air-launched ABM missile capability across the ENTIRE USAF/USN fleet could be VERY important one day. It certainly would have in GW 1. Plus I can see a MUCH greater export potential for this weapon, than F-22A's. Israel for instance would probably be VERY interested...

On top of this, the air launched variant of the PAC-3 is likely to massively dwarf the range of the AMRAAM. It will probably prove to have roughly 3 times the range of the current AMRAAM variants. I ask you, when operating at 50,000 feet and flying at mach 2, in an anti-ballistic missile role, carrying missiles with a 300-400k range, primarily over the "Home land", is the stealthiness of the F-22 going to matter that much? I'd rather have 500 aircraft that can carry an ABM missile, than 183 F-22's, plus another "sqn" that can do the same job, to a lesser degree. So would the US apparently.

Pac-3 missile cannot fit inside the F-22 im afraid, its too long and the fins would need to be clipped. Having it externally then compromises the F-22's stealth and the F-22 cannot perform precision strike or air dominance, worst idea ever as you loose the value of your F-22's. Putting it on the F-15 is fine, but if your using an F-15 you may as well just use the F-22 with AMRAAM.

Except again F-22 is not going to be everywhere. Read the details of the program. It is envisaged this missile would primarily employed in a "home land" defence role. What then does the F-22A's "stealthiness" matter? Firing a 3-400k ranged missile is going to allow the F-22 to fire outside the envelope of any potential attacker ANYWAY and the F-22 is likely to regain it's stealthiness once the weapons are fired anyway.

The F-22 acts as a booster stage for the AMRAAM. Launching at Mach 2+ and 80,000 feet compared to Mach 1.5 at 50,000feet is a huge difference. The PAC-3 missile will loose most of its range advantage just making up the difference in altitude. If the AMRAAM makes contact with the Ballistic missile then 20 kg of explosive is more than enough.

So you're arguing that an F-22 carrying (let's say 2) external PAC-3 missiles, won't be able to fly at 55,000 feet? A bit early to state this definitely isn't it? To date, the concept's been announced a "massive" $2m devoted to the project. Imagine the sort of intercept range of a PAC-3 missile IF the F-22A COULD operate at Mach 2+ at 50,000 feet. It would make ANY AMRAAM launch look decidely anaemic...

Modding a Pac-3 missile to fit an F-22 would still be a good thing. Shortening it and using the guidence from an AMRAAM you then basically have the "ALRAAM" missile. Basically a AIM-7 sized AMRAAM missile. The F-22 would only be able to carry four of these instead of six AMRAAM's though. For 99% of missions the AMRAAM is definitely the prefered missile.

We are not talking about 99% of missions. We are talking about 1. The ABM role. If the AMRAAM is so preferred Lockheed Martin would HARDLY be discussing this weapon system would it?

 

[Magoo]

An AMRAAM launched from a Supersonic F-22 has a much larger kill envelope than any ground launched PAC-3 missile when it comes to shooting down aircraft/missiles.

This is just plain WRONG rjmaz. The AMRAAM has no ability to manouever outside of the earth's atmoshphere, whereas the PAC3 has manouevring thrusters in its nose so it can 'hit to kill' a missile/warhead in the exo-atmosphere.

The AMRAAM has absolutely NO APPLICATION against ballistic missiles...period! The PAC3 is designed for use primarily against these types of weapons.

Geesh...do some freaking reading before shooting your mouth off for once!

Magoo

 

[Falstaff]

Exactly! I guess rjmaz is mixing up cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

And AFAIK the PAC-3 mounted on a plane too relies on target information from the ground, so it doesn't matter if you use a F-15 or F-22. Both fly high and long ranges, so no difference there.

 

[Distiller]

This is just plain WRONG rjmaz. The AMRAAM has no ability to manouever outside of the earth's atmoshphere, whereas the PAC3 has manouevring thrusters in its nose so it can 'hit to kill' a missile/warhead in the exo-atmosphere.

The AMRAAM has absolutely NO APPLICATION against ballistic missiles...period! The PAC3 is designed for use primarily against these types of weapons.

Geesh...do some freaking reading before shooting your mouth off for once!

Magoo

PAC-3 does not have exo-athmospheric capabilities and would not give more range than AIM-120C-5 ff.

It might however be spectecular to create a "AIM-104". Like the KS-172.

 

[Aussie Digger]

PAC-3 does not have exo-athmospheric capabilities and would not give more range than AIM-120C-5 ff.

It might however be spectecular to create a "AIM-104". Like the KS-172.

Really and why do you say that? The ground launched PAC-3 variant has approximately 3 times the range of ground launched AMRAAM variants.

Why would an air-launched variant not possess a similarly greater range?

 

[Distiller]

Really and why do you say that? The ground launched PAC-3 variant has approximately 3 times the range of ground launched AMRAAM variants.

Why would an air-launched variant not possess a similarly greater range?

As far as I'm aware NASAMS (and pre-production CLAWS) use AIM-120 versions A and B. Any potential range advantage of PAC-3 over these small-motor versions should be equalized with AIM-120 versions C-5, and even more so with future variants like C-8 and the D series. But PAC-3 should be faster and better accelerating.

 

[Grand Danois]

As far as I'm aware NASAMS (and pre-production CLAWS) use AIM-120 versions A and B. Any potential range advantage of PAC-3 over these small-motor versions should be equalized with AIM-120 versions C-5, and even more so with future variants like C-8 and the D series. But PAC-3 should be faster and better accelerating.

45km+ when launched from the ground (PAC-3 SME) and as a high altitude intercept?

 

[rjmaz1]

Magoo you have no idea.... Even relatively short ranged ballistic missiles reach altitudes above 100kms. So even the Pac-3 missile will only be able to intercept at Ballistic missiles at the start and end points of its flight. The AMRAAM will also be able to shoot it down at each of those points. The F-22 can carryies its AMRAAM's closer to the ballistic missiles which makes up for any difference in range.

Having to gain altitude uses MUCH more fuel than travelling the same horizontal distance, so the altitude and speed of the launch aircraft will play a big part in the kill envelope of the missile. This is why an F-22 with internal AMRAAM will be able to kill targets further away and at higher altitude than say a Super Hornet with a Pac-3 under its wing.

Also the AMRAAM is a 157kg missile with a 20kg warhead.. The Pac-3 is a 312kg with a 75kg warhead. Minus the weight of the warhead and the AMRAAM has around 100kg of propellant. The Pac-3 has around 200kg of propellant. 200kg of propellent will not be able to push 75kilos to a higher altitude than 100kg of propellant with only a 20kg warhead. Also the aerodynamic drag of the Pac-3 is much greater than the AMRAAM.

The SL-AMRAAM uses very old short ranged versions of the AMRAAM. If the latest AMRAAM i think we'd be all surprised on the altitudes it culd reach.

This is why the F-22 and AMRAAM is the best solution, as it probably has the greatest chance to shoot down missiles. Not to mention that there will be dozens of F-22's in theatre and in the air at the time of a missile launch so its the perfect platform.

The PAC-3 will not offer a huge performance leap like you expect.

I ask you, when operating at 50,000 feet and flying at mach 2, in an anti-ballistic missile role, carrying missiles with a 300-400k range, primarily over the "Home land", is the stealthiness of the F-22 going to matter that much?

The F-22's operating over enemy territory will shoot the ballistic missiles down in the boost phase. If they have external missiles the F-22 will be vulnerable to attack by the enemy.

So you're arguing that an F-22 carrying (let's say 2) external PAC-3 missiles, won't be able to fly at 55,000 feet? A bit early to state this definitely isn't it? To date, the concept's been announced a "massive" $2m devoted to the project. Imagine the sort of intercept range of a PAC-3 missile IF the F-22A COULD operate at Mach 2+ at 50,000 feet. It would make ANY AMRAAM launch look decidely anaemic...

F-22 will never carry PAC-3 on a normal combat mission, it will however always carry atleast a pair of AMRAAM's. Better having something than nothing.

We are not talking about 99% of missions. We are talking about 1. The ABM role. If the AMRAAM is so preferred Lockheed Martin would HARDLY be discussing this weapon system would it?

Because once you start making dedicated anti ballistic missile aircraft you are bloating the airforce. If AMRAAM is used, EVERY F-22 in the air is currently acting as a ballistic missile shield. If Pac-3 is used, all the F-22's over enemy territory will not have this missile.

For instance you could have a CAP of F-22's just over the south korea's border they would remain underdected by North Korea. The F-22's can be closer to the target than any other aircraft so they can get there quicker and require a shorter ranged missile. When a ballistic missile launch is detected the F-22's then accelerate to Mach 2 within seconds heading towards the target. The F-22 radar locks onto the Ballistic missile the very instant it becomes air born and then fires an AMRAAM which intercepts the Ballistic missile as it passes through 100,000 feet.

The same thing could work with Iran.. the same thing can be done with cruise missiles.

Using Super Hornets or F-15's is just making it much more complex and they require a Pac-3 just to overcome their shortfalls. It would be wiser just to buy more F-22's.

I still think that a ALRAAM would be a good missile providing it fits inside the F-22 and on the JSF's internal siderail. However this would have to be a completely new development project and cost to much. The Pac-3 is a very long missile, if you shortened it to the length of the AMRAAM it could weigh less than 50kilo's more than the AMRAAM as the Pac-3 is only slightly wider. 7inch vs 10inch.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Magoo you have no idea.... Even relatively short ranged ballistic missiles reach altitudes above 100kms. So even the Pac-3 missile will only be able to intercept at Ballistic missiles at the start and end points of its flight. The AMRAAM will also be able to shoot it down at each of those points. The F-22 can carryies its AMRAAM's closer to the ballistic missiles which makes up for any difference in range.

Having to gain altitude uses MUCH more fuel than travelling the same horizontal distance, so the altitude and speed of the launch aircraft will play a big part in the kill envelope of the missile. This is why an F-22 with internal AMRAAM will be able to kill targets further away and at higher altitude than say a Super Hornet with a Pac-3 under its wing.

Also the AMRAAM is a 157kg missile with a 20kg warhead.. The Pac-3 is a 312kg with a 75kg warhead. Minus the weight of the warhead and the AMRAAM has around 100kg of propellant. The Pac-3 has around 200kg of propellant. 200kg of propellent will not be able to push 75kilos to a higher altitude than 100kg of propellant with only a 20kg warhead. Also the aerodynamic drag of the Pac-3 is much greater than the AMRAAM.

This is why the F-22 and AMRAAM is the best solution, as it probably has the greatest chance to shoot down missiles. Not to mention that there will be dozens of F-22's in theatre and in the air at the time of a missile launch so its the perfect platform.

The PAC-3 will not offer a huge performance leap like you expect.


The F-22's operating over enemy territory will shoot the ballistic missiles down in the boost phase. If they have external missiles the F-22 will be vulnerable to attack by the enemy.

F-22 will never carry PAC-3 on a normal combat mission, it will however always carry atleast a pair of AMRAAM's. Better having something than nothing.

Because once you start making dedicated anti ballistic missile aircraft you are bloating the airforce. If AMRAAM is used, EVERY F-22 in the air is currently acting as a ballistic missile shield. If Pac-3 is used, all the F-22's over enemy territory will not have this missile.

For instance you could have a CAP of F-22's just over the south korea's border they would remain underdected by North Korea. The F-22's can be closer to the target than any other aircraft so they can get there quicker and require a shorter ranged missile. When a ballistic missile launch is detected the F-22's then accelerate to Mach 2 within seconds heading towards the target. The F-22 radar locks onto the Ballistic missile the very instant it becomes air born and then fires an AMRAAM which intercepts the Ballistic missile as it passes through 100,000 feet.

The same thing could work with Iran.. the same thing can be done with cruise missiles.

Using Super Hornets or F-15's is just making it much more complex and they require a Pac-3 just to overcome their shortfalls. It would be wiser just to buy more F-22's.

I still think that a ALRAAM would be a good missile providing it fits inside the F-22 and on the JSF's internal siderail. However this would have to be a completely new development project and cost to much.

Thanks for the reminder that F-22 needs to carry missiles internally to maintain it's stealth. Once again you have failed to state anything you didn't in you previous post. Once agan I urge you to actually READ the current program.

The program is being designed for F-15s at present. Not SH, F-22's or ANY OTHER USAF aircraft. With around 700 Eagles still in-service (of ALL) variants, a missile in this class is going to provide a MUCH more comprehensive shield than another 20 or so F-22's could EVER manage.

This project is in it's infancy. Only $2m has yet been devoted towards it. Most likely this will only fund feasability studies etc.

I am sure that if the AMRAAM is so capable in this role as you seem to think it is, than the PAC-3 idea will be disregarded.

As for Magoo having no idea, I very much doubt that. He researches his information, more thoroughly than any of us and has access to numerous sources, unlike the majority of us who are confined to using the "open source" internet or written publication resources available to us.

The program as I said above has only just kicked off. Shooting your mouth off at this stage could be VERY foolish down the track. Don't you think that Lockheed Martin THE DESIGNER OF THE F-22 would be aware of the capability of the F-22/AMRAAM combination???

 

[alexsa]

Rj the PAC is designed as a hit to kill missile and has the Ku band seeker to achieve this outcome. The AMRAAM is a blast proximety system which, as proven on the orinigal patriot (wiht a much bigger warhead) was ineffective even with scuds. the PAC3 is also fitted wiht ACMs (small solid rocket motors) in the forebody of the missiel which enable it to manouvere quickly to ensure impact. AMRAAM lacks this important capability.

My reading indicates the PAC3 has the same range if not greater than the ground launched AMRAAM and is over mach 1 faster. Launched from an aircraft at mach2 will increase the range and maximise the effect of the speed avatange noting the sytem is designed to hit the target not blow up next to it.

On the basis the the aircraft will not be firing either missle vertically rather firing toward the target which will be on the aircraft horzon means that even an additional 30000 feet in height (if the aircrafts gets there before it launchs the missile) gives a limited benifit in range. Assuming an engagement range at 48000m (max AMRAAM range) then the 11 degree difference in angle (assumeing a worst case right angle triangle with the AMRAAM range as the hypotenuse) then the advantage to the AMRAAM is that it only has to travel a little over 47000 compared to 48000m. I wouel assume the added velociiy of the PAC3 would easily compensate for that.

Finally as indicated in LM own release the employment on the F-15C is the start of the process and they expect it to be carried on other platforms. For such work is it necessary for thef-22 to carry the stores internally. I doubt BM attacks will be escorted.

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/07pressrelease/PAC3-011607.htm

 

[rjmaz1]

The program as I said above has only just kicked off. Shooting your mouth off at this stage could be VERY foolish down the track. Don't you think that Lockheed Martin THE DESIGNER OF THE F-22 would be aware of the capability of the F-22/AMRAAM combination???

The PAC-3 is needed on the F-15 and Super Hornet if they are to perform any kind of ballistic missile defence. Lockheed Martin is trying to cash in on this by saying its a cheap booster to the US's missile shield. When infact it wont add anything to the shield, though it would make a good Phoenix missile replacement for the Navy.

So far the only proven way of shooting down a ballistic missile is in the boost/launch phase. Shooting it in the mid course phase is extremely difficult as the missile pretty much reaches space. Shooting it when it re-enters the atmosphere is just as difficult. Where the missile re-enters the atmosphere could be anywhere within the US plus the missile is traveling at VERY high speed. We would need an F-15 within 200 miles distance of any point on US soil so when the co-ordinates are given the F-15 will be waiting to shoot it down. Basically 50+ aircraft in the air at any given moment, an extreme waste of resources. It would be better to just develop a booster stage for the PAC-3 and place a SAM site near every major city. A 700kilos booster rocket would be able to send a 300kg Pac-3 missile up above the launch altitude of any aircraft and would be a better use of resoruces.

The solution is simple. As a ballistic missile can only be launched from a few known launch sites its is MUCH easier to just have an aircraft sitting near the launch site. The F-22 is the only aircraft that can do this due to its stealth. A single squadron of F-22's and a couple refueling tankers could provide 24/7 ballistic missile protection from say North Korea. As the US would be able to see activity at the launch site it wouldn't be surprising if the AMRAAM's were fired as soon as the ballistic missile reached a foot off the ground. This is more effective than any Pac-3 equiped F-15 or Super Hornet.

So you are incorrect in stating 700 F-15's equiped with Pac-3 misisles flying over US soil will be more effective as 20 extra F-22's flying out of a South Korean air base.

If an AMRAAM can hit a Mig-29 pulling 9G then it can sure as hell hit a large slow climbing missile thats traveling in a straight line... With six AMRAAMs per aircraft i dont see a problem.

As the PAC-3 missile would be a great long range missile for the Navy it would be good if the US developed ALRAAM. A 300kg AMRAAM with a widened body that can fit inside the JSF and F-22 with all the best features of Pac-3 and AMRAAM. This missile inside an F-22 would be a very potent all round missile it would allow the F-22 to kill enemy AWAC's and further improve its Anti-Ballistic missile capability.

 

[Falstaff]

What are you smoking, man. I'd like to have some of that too.

The solution is simple. As a ballistic missile can only be launched from a few known launch sites its is MUCH easier to just have an aircraft sitting near the launch site.

Did you notice that lot of efforts are taken to avoid non-mobile launch sites? Even the latest russian ICBMs are launched from mobile launchers. And they aren't always that easy to find and won't be positioned near the border.
Are you suggesting- in case you found all the mobile launchers and you know which of them are fake and which aren't- a bunch of F-22 flying hundreds of miles behind the border over hostile territory, circling around the launchers within the range of their amraams which you intend not to use against planes and cruise missiles (what they were built for) but against ballistic missiles (what were not built for) that have a slightly () different flight path- let's say: ballistic- from planes? Am I getting it right?

If an AMRAAM can hit a Mig-29 pulling 9G then it can sure as hell hit a large slow climbing missile thats traveling in a straight line... With six AMRAAMs per aircraft i dont see a problem.

Seems you're the only one who doesn't see a problem. First of all a ballistic missile is accelerating very rapidly and after a few seconds already climbing very fast. A ballistic trajectory is completely different in terms of a firing solution- why do you think the US is making these extreme efforts in missile defense if it's that simple?

Now get it, the AMRAAM does not have a anti ballistic missile capability whatsoever. You can't just take a range and velocity tables and suppose you can hit everything with it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The PAC-3 is needed on the F-15 and Super Hornet if they are to perform any kind of ballistic missile defence. Lockheed Martin is trying to cash in on this by saying its a cheap booster to the US's missile shield. When infact it wont add anything to the shield, though it would make a good Phoenix missile replacement for the Navy.

So far the only proven way of shooting down a ballistic missile is in the boost/launch phase. Shooting it in the mid course phase is extremely difficult as the missile pretty much reaches space. Shooting it when it re-enters the atmosphere is just as difficult. Where the missile re-enters the atmosphere could be anywhere within the US plus the missile is traveling at VERY high speed. We would need an F-15 within 200 miles distance of any point on US soil so when the co-ordinates are given the F-15 will be waiting to shoot it down. Basically 50+ aircraft in the air at any given moment, an extreme waste of resources. It would be better to just develop a booster stage for the PAC-3 and place a SAM site near every major city. A 700kilos booster rocket would be able to send a 300kg Pac-3 missile up above the launch altitude of any aircraft and would be a better use of resoruces.

The solution is simple. As a ballistic missile can only be launched from a few known launch sites its is MUCH easier to just have an aircraft sitting near the launch site. The F-22 is the only aircraft that can do this due to its stealth. A single squadron of F-22's and a couple refueling tankers could provide 24/7 ballistic missile protection from say North Korea. As the US would be able to see activity at the launch site it wouldn't be surprising if the AMRAAM's were fired as soon as the ballistic missile reached a foot off the ground. This is more effective than any Pac-3 equiped F-15 or Super Hornet.

So you are incorrect in stating 700 F-15's equiped with Pac-3 misisles flying over US soil will be more effective as 20 extra F-22's flying out of a South Korean air base.

If an AMRAAM can hit a Mig-29 pulling 9G then it can sure as hell hit a large slow climbing missile thats traveling in a straight line... With six AMRAAMs per aircraft i dont see a problem.

As the PAC-3 missile would be a great long range missile for the Navy it would be good if the US developed ALRAAM. A 300kg AMRAAM with a widened body that can fit inside the JSF and F-22 with all the best features of Pac-3 and AMRAAM. This missile inside an F-22 would be a very potent all round missile it would allow the F-22 to kill enemy AWAC's and further improve its Anti-Ballistic missile capability.

The Scud is a ballistic missile mate, and it can be launched from anywhere. Russia has ICBM's, China has ICBM's, India, Pakistan and Iran have or are developing ICBM's. Why you are so focussed on NK is beyond me. The ABM shield is being developed to provide protection against ANYONE who should have the nerve to fire a BM at the USA. Hence my comment earlier about equipping 700 fighters as a minimum (PLUS the F-22) to provide this role, rather than simply 183.

I think you're getting this confused with ICBM's and the problem with your scenario's are the fact that MANY Countries operate Ballistic missiles besides NK. Focusing soley on NK, shows how little you've thought about the problem.

Neither PAC-3 equipped F-15's or AMRAAM equipped F-22's will be the ONLY defence against BM's. The US is developing a series of 747's equipped with whopping great Lasers, if you recall. They already have ground launched PAC-3, which has a proven anti-BM capability and the USN has deployed SM-3. The US Army will also be deploying THAAD in due course.

As you can see from the sheer number of projects that are KNOWN, the US is building a VERY formidable series of defences against this threat. Your almost obsessive idea that only F-22 can achieve this capability economically is rubbish and disproved by even casual observations of current and projected US defence acquisitions.

As for shooting down BM's in flight, PAC-1 did it during the Gulf war (though not as successfully as claimed) and PAC-3 is FAR more advanced with it's "hit to kill" warhead design, seeker enhancements etc. Claiming it adds nothing to the "shield" is pure nonsense.

As pointed out many times already even if it adds nothing to the equation beyond a range extension (which is un-true, it will add significantly MORE than just range) the range extension as a MINIMUM will be in the order of 200-300ks GREATER than any other weapon currently employed in the US arsenal.

It will ADD to the ABM capabilities of the US services and others who may buy it, and I hope Australia is one of them.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Just a few of points.

Some of the enhancements planned for the PAC-3 MEADS missile include modifications that would enable it to be installed in the F-22 & F-35 internal weapons bays and should allow the same number of missiles to be carried as AMRAAMs are carried at present i.e. F-22 6, F-35A & F-35C 4 and F-35B 2.

Yes I recall that tri-mode seekers are being developed, and considering that the IR is at least dual-band I suppose these days we should use the phrase “multi-band” seekers.

I have seen some of the “recovered” SAMs that have been modified with other seekers. EO seekers can be hard to defeat and the test data from these “recovered” SAMs scared the pants off the RAF operators.

There is a lot of work going on at present with a “mix n match” approach. Obviously current missile like MICA, but also the possible development of anti-radiation missiles based on Meteor. The US is also looking a dual role (Air to Air & Air to Surface) missile.

The size of the F-22 & F-35 internal weapons bays de facto are going to establish the size of future weapons, in much the same way as the size of the locks on the Panama cannel have set the size of ships (and before it I suppose the Suez cannel as well).

@rjmaz1

A little friendly advice. These days I split my time, working as a Program Manager in the defence avionics sector and teaching flying (gliders and general aviation in the summer). I also repair and rebuild aircraft and gliders, especially old wooden gliders. I have built and flown gliders from scratch. A piece of advice given to me by someone much older and wiser than me was “measure twice cut once”. I have now added “think thrice and then …”.

I am also the safety officer for my gliding club and I am also involved with accident investigations of all air sports. The CAA is responsible for the investigation of fatal accidents and call on specialists from each sporting group to carry out the investigation (or act as an expert witness) as necessary. So as you will gather I have spent a lot of time picking up the pieces and trying to establish what went wrong.

I have learned (often the hard way), that if you build it right it fly’s right.

Think before you act.

With regard to posting, the same applies, do your research, construct a logical argument write it and then wait and review it before posting.

Do not post in haste, this can lead to “crash and burn”.



Chris

 

[rjmaz1]

The Scud is a ballistic missile mate, and it can be launched from anywhere.

Scuds do not threaten US soil. They barely reach an altitude of 100,000 feet of course the Pac-3 will have a chance against this missile. An F-22 with AMRAAM would be able to take many shots during the scud missiles flight path, and would have probably been more successful than the Pac-3 in doing so.

An ICBM that can travel half way around the globe reaches up to 1,000,000 feet in altitude. No Pac-3 or AMRAAM can reach this high so it has 0% chance of killing the missile during the mid-course section of its flight so using the example of the Gulf War does not apply. If you plotted a nice curve of an ICBM only 10% of the actual flight path would be under 100,000feet. So only the launch and terminal parts of the flight are when the missile can be attacked.

So the Pac-3 is useless to protect Australia against say a ICBM attack by North Korea. Our hornets would not be able to get close enough to attack the ICBM during its launch phase, the ICBM then travels too high of an altitude to reach during its flight. So we then have to sit and wait to try and shoot it down when its less than 30 seconds away from hitting its target as it dives back down to earth.. Australia will have to act quickly to calculate where it will hit and get a Pac-3 equiped aircraft there in time, as Australia is too large. As the likely target would be Darwin it would be just as simple to have a Pac-3 equiped ship or land based setup close to Darwin.

Did you notice that lot of efforts are taken to avoid non-mobile launch sites?

The F-22's could scan all of North Korea for missile launches as its only a small country. When a missile does launch it will detect the physical missile and then fly towards it. As the flight path can be predicated based on the possible targets of Japan and South Korea then its logical to place the F-22's on the actual border and not over enemy territory as the Ballistic missiles would fly towards the general direction of the F-22's.

It doesn't matter if they are mobile or fake, as they will know where it is as soon as the missiles are launched. As a scud like missile travels most of its flight path below 100,000 feet the F-22 would be able to take many shots with its AMRAAM's. Like i said the F-15's would need Pac-3 to do this job as they would start off much further away at lower speed and altitude so need a good missile to make up for this. The F-22 right now is the best operational form of ICBM defence even if it only uses AMRAAM. As the Pac-3's are only usefull against shorter ranged ballistic missiles.

Just a few of points.

Some of the enhancements planned for the PAC-3 MEADS missile include modifications that would enable it to be installed in the F-22 & F-35 internal weapons bays

The Pac-3 missile is nearly 50% longer than the AMRAAMs fitted to the F-22's.. If you shortened the Pac-3 missile to fit the F-22 and JSF weapon bays then its range would be significantly reduced and would most likely use a smaller warhead and alot of different features from the AMRAAM missile. So they will pretty much be creating a new missile from scratch which i definitely think is a good idea. Basically an ALRAAM missile.

If this is the case and the missile can then fit inside the F-22 then it would make the F-22 the ultimate ballistic missile killer. Until the airborne laser arrives.

 

[alexsa]

The F-22's could scan all of North Korea for missile launches as its only a small country. When a missile does launch it will detect the physical missile and then fly towards it. As the flight path can be predicated based on the possible targets of Japan and South Korea then its logical to place the F-22's on the actual border and not over enemy territory as the Ballistic missiles would fly towards the general direction of the F-22's.

.

This is a real doozy. Boost phase is 3 minutes (less for liquid fuel BMs). Velocity at the end of this phase is 7km per second, thats 25200 km/h or Mach 20.6 at sea level.

Your F-22 better be sitting on top of the launch site or your AMRAAM's (no matter how many you fire) will have a wonderful tail chase which they will lose. So unless your F-22 can go hypersonic from SK or international air space (assuming you aircraft is on location) get to the northern launch sites (noting the AMRAAM range is only 48000m) and fire during the fist seconds of launch there is zero possiblity of a hit. Bon't forget boost phase can be as little as 1 minute for some missiles. Studies on boost phast intercept are looking a a multi stage 1500kg 5 to 6 km/s missile with a KKV wiht a range of 400 to 700km.

http://cisac.stanford.edu/publications/airborne_boostphase_ballistic_missile_defense/

The PAC3 air launch arrangmen is designed to engaged BM be they tactical or longer ranging missiles on a hit to kill basis. The AMRAAM does not have the capability nor does it have the terminal guidacne necesary for it. In addtion it is slower wiht the air lauch AMRAAM run at a respectable Mach 4 while the gorund launched PAC3 gets a very quike Mach 5.16. This should be improved by air launching. Seems a good idea to me.

 

[Waylander]

Why all this concentration on NK in the examples presented here?
NK is at least the most favorable country to catch a missile during the boost phase and even there you hav to be very fast.
Just look at contries like Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia onfloorl: ) and others.
Much much bigger.

So, now I'm out and leave you guys with the knowledge in aviation alone again.

 

[rjmaz1]

Well really its only Iran and North Korea that threaten the western world..

Iran would be difficult. If the missiles are launched from the middle of Iran the ballistic missiles would pass above the F-22's that are on the border and be out of their reach. Even a Pac-3 equiped F-22 will not be able to reach a missile at this height.

Israel is probably the only country where a missile shield based over its own country could work. As Israel knows to within a 100 miles where the ballistic missiles would hit as the country is only small.