Classified development of new air to air missile revealed in US budget documents

originally posted by: Sammamishman

originally posted by: mightmight
Just put ERAMs or THAAD interceptors on the truck and you are done... no need for this classified project.

Except you can carry almost 6 AMRAAM class weapons (152kg for the -120) for every one THAAD missile (900kg) and at a fraction of the cost.

If you use a strategic platform as a missile truck, you max out the carrying capacity of the bomb bays long before you run into weight issues.
Cost is a factor, but if you end up purchasing 6 AMRAAM class weapons instead of 1 THAAD/ERAM/PAC-3 it wont be cheaper.

Ultimately the question is about capability. I dont really see the need to give stealth fighters a longer ranged missile in the first place. Stealths can savely take out any non stealth aerial targets using existing weaponry. If anything they could use more and smaller missiles.
Legacy Jets could use longer ranged missiles but using them as standoff missile trucks wont do much good - their carrying capacity is limited, especially if you dont want to have them loiter behind a tanker all the time.
On the other hand, loading up a strategic platform with dozens upon dozens of more or less conventional AAMs sounds excessive and pretty niche.
But putting ABM capable interceptors on strategic platforms is another story. The engagement envelope would be insane, a limited number of planes could dominate the entire chinese coast, without ever putting the missile trucks at risk. And of course you have a limited ABM capability too, attacking ballistic missiles in their boost phase from standoff ranges.

a reply to: mightmight

If your new missile can be drop launched you can use a version of the Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) to increase the number of missiles that can be carried. They did a study in the 80's on re configuring a B-52 to be a missile truck for the Phoenix missile . The idea was to base some 52s out of Iceland and send them to meet up with some Navy Tomcats to stop a large attack against a carrier group by land based bombers. It was estimated that between the bomb bay and the wing hard points almost 80 missiles could be carried in a version of the MER. The major hangup was figuring out how to communicate between the Tomcats and the missiles on the 52.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: seagull

Two stage, so I'd go with 250+ mile range, probably Mach 4-6 range for speed, AESA seeker. That's pure speculation though, I haven't even heard whispers about this one.

Makes sense the british have the new meteor, the russians the new K-77M, the chinese the PL-15. AMRAAM is getting old and the AIM-120D is probably the last one, time for something new.
It will definitely be AESA seeker with multi stage or ramjet, more range, better seeker, faster. Will have to be small enough to fit F-22 and F-35 bay so not some big monster thing you'd think.

a reply to: JIMC5499
They could do lots of interesting things if they had money to burn on the B-52s... the new Conventional Rotary Launcher they are introducing can carry up to 24 GBU-38s and thats it. Would be the same with AAMs.

originally posted by: FredT
Interesting and to be honest I'm not surprised. Given the ranges of many A2A's being designed these days, it stands to reason they would need to counter. This would also allow fighters escorting high value assets like an E-3 etc to be able to defend at extreme ranges. Or at the very least force opposing fighters to fire at their max range giving a bit more time (not alot mind you) for the E-3 to move out of harms way etc. Its amazing how little time you have with these hypersonic weapons

Sounds like if it is long enough ranged they could hang off the E3/Tanker/[insert airframe here] and the forward sensor aircraft could give targeting data,

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Steak

How about, instead, testing 'em over White Sands Missile Range. That way people aren't getting killed.

The whole point of these is to kill people - I can't think of a better place to test than North Korea.

originally posted by: Flipper35

Sounds like if it is long enough ranged they could hang off the E3/Tanker/[insert airframe here] and the forward sensor aircraft could give targeting data,

Or maybe on an Arsenal Plane?

I do not see this concept as a air to air (aircraft to aircraft)
The problem of long range aircraft to aircraft missiles is blue on blue kills.
Plus i have not heard of the navy working at NWC china lake on a new long range air to air missile.
even if the air force was working on this type missile the navy would still have to be able to field it so they would be part of its development.

I do see a need for more and faster air to missile anti missile systems and ground based anti missile systems like Israel uses for there Arrow and David's Sling that can be deployed from aircraft.

a reply to: ANNED

They're not working on it because it's still in the engineering and design stage. There's nothing to work on besides drawings and specifications. That's all being done at the AFRL and other facilities.

We absolutely need a new air to air missile. The AIM-120D is being outclassed in a big way and will continue to be. We need something to take out the shooter portion of a sensor/shooter pair.

Yes, blue on blue is a possibility, just as it is now. But we can't build a force around concerns that we might have a blue on blue. We need something with more range and accuracy than we have now, and then take steps to limit a blue on blue possibility.

How far can missile detectors see?

Its certainly an interesting concept, basically you can use a B-52 with a BFO radar that can create air superiority for a "300km" range.

Think it will accelerate anti missile laser technology?

Would be good to have a "future concepts" thread, lets say in 5 years, lasers make missiles obsolete, then you need to develop something to null the laser, do you think at some point, military aircraft will become obsolete.....

Another thread :-)

a reply to: Zaphod58

From the picture it seems more like a ABM missile, which seems to be sorely necessary.

a reply to: mbkennel

It's a VLRAAM. By going two stage, and having the first drop off after it burns it's fuel, you end up with a small, hard to detect missile that's capable of taking out the other side's shooters without having to thread through other aircraft between you and them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

It's a VLRAAM. By going two stage, and having the first drop off after it burns it's fuel, you end up with a small, hard to detect missile that's capable of taking out the other side's shooters without having to thread through other aircraft between you and them.

hi,

I was thinking the same, a short missile hard to detect that could be more maneuver at high G forces.

In an article in the Smithsonian magazine the F22 pilots were quoted as saying they could see targets over 300 miles away. They did not say how far they could lock or track a target, just that they could see them at that range.

a reply to: Flipper35

An interview with an Israeli pilot a couple months ago said that by the time they're 300 feet up, they're seeing "the entire Middle East". Every missile launcher, every airborne aircraft, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And NOW a word on basing?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wasn't that for the F35?

a reply to: Flipper35

Yes. I meant to put that in but was distracted and forgot.

About time there was a real replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix.