[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Raytheon Awarded (SACM & MSDM) Air To...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 52
Thread images: 9
File: pic_1361793386[1].jpg (33 KB, 420x280) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pic_1361793386[1].jpg
33 KB, 420x280
These will be new mini-missiles for the F-35, F-22 and other fighters, letting them carry 2 or 3 of these missiles in place of every AMRAAM and having (for the SACM) BVR capabilities.

http://www.pddnet.com/news/2016/01/raytheon-awarded-air-force-missile-contract

Raytheon has been awarded a $14 million Air Force contract for research and development intended to improve the military’s state-of-the-art air-launched, tactical missiles.

Under the agreement, which was announced Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Defense, Raytheon will attempt to improve upon the number of missiles that can be held on a single excursion. The company will also work to improve both the impact of each missile, and the platform survivability against any threat that would arise in an anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environment.

Two research concepts will help to achieve the improvements: the Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM) and Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM).

“The SACM will support affordable, highly lethal, small size and weight ordnance with advanced air frame design and synergistic control capabilities for air dominance enabling high air-to-air load-out,” the DoD said. “The MSDM will support miniaturized weapon capabilities for air superiority by enabling close-in platform self-defense and penetration into contested A2AD environment with little to no impact to payload capacity.”

Raytheon was one of four companies to submit a bid for the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity cost contract. The labor will be conducted in Tucson, Ariz., and should be finished by Jan. 19, 2021.
>>
What a stupid idea. The concept of miniaturizing air to air missiles is retarded after a certain point. Next thing you know, they'll be reengineering Zuni rockets into guided missiles.
>>
>>28651024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_JTT3OsDJQ
>>
I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, I'm glad that Lockmart lost. On the other, I'm sad that CUDA won't be a thing. I hope whatever Raytheon comes up with is as neat as CUDA.
>>
>>28651040
I mean air-to-air capabilities, mouthbreather.
>>
>>28651064
CUDA = Lockheed's entry for SACM; SACM itself is the USAF program and has the requirements set for size, etc. Raytheon will essentially be building tech for CUDA and then either Raytheon or another company will get the contract for production.

>>28651082
What's wrong with the idea? They keep roughly the same range as an AIM-120C by ditching or downsizing the warhead, miniaturizing the electronics, etc. No missile has a 100% pK, so having 2 or 3x as many missiles helps a lot with that.
>>
>>28651024
>after a certain point
You mean the point where the warhead weight falls to zero, and any further reduction either compromises seeker performance or reduces range and velocity? Sure.

But that's the thing - SACM employs HTK capabilities to minimize warhead mass needed (which propagates upwards to reduced propellant needed) without affecting the performance of the missile otherwise. The ONLY downside is that your missile won't be able to produce appreciable splash damage if it fuses on a nearby countermeasure instead of the aircraft itself - but with modern seekers that's a near-nonexistent issue.
>>
>>28651105
>CUDA = Lockheed's entry for SACM; SACM itself is the USAF program and has the requirements set for size, etc. Raytheon will essentially be building tech for CUDA and then either Raytheon or another company will get the contract for production.
I understand that. CUDA had some appealing features (in particular, I thought the forebody ACMs were rather clever), which Raytheon may or may not implement for themselves.
>>
>>28651000
Is it time?
>>
>>28651105
Fuck it then I guess lol. It just seems fucking retarded to start acting like Russian fuckwits by sending our aircraft into the blue with sixteen missiles and a salvo doctrine.
>>
>>28651159
>Salvo doctrine
Whether or not you would consider salvoing missiles would depend on the target you're facing and it's capabilities. One way or another, having a missile that's light enough to do so without concern of running out of missiles is nothing but good.
>>
>>28651159
It's not the same thing, it just means that where an F-22 or F-35 would previously fire an AMRAAM, they'll fire 2. As it sits, some engagements mean that F-22s will ripple-fire multiple AMRAAMs to ensure a kill, this is similar, except now instead of having 6 internal AMRAAMs, you can have up to 12 SACMs or a mix of missiles. MSDM (if it's like KICM) is basically an anti-missile missile or short range dogfighting missile. It might not become a thing because laser tech might exceed it too quickly, but it would allow for 3 MSDMs for every AMRAAM.
>>
>>28651183
So you support turning aircraft into simple missile trucks?
>>
>>28651208
Current US doctrine doesn't call for salvos lol
>>
>>28651234
Learn the difference between what a doctrine and what a tactic is.
>>
>>28651247
Doctrine was used correctly
>>
>>28651224
Do you suck cocks? Because that's all I hear you saying right now
>>
>>28651301
>asks question about topic
>do you suck cocks

What?
>>
>>28651279
The doctrine as a whole might not call for it, but specific tactics can. Saying otherwise is similar to suggesting that firing bursts isn't a thing.

>>28651321
/k/
>>
>>28651353
Give me an example of when an American pilot last salvoed
>>
>>28651501
As I can't, I'll concede that, but ignoring the fact that more missiles =/= salvo tactics as >>28651159 was suggesting, at least having a larger missile 'magazine' is beneficial to combat endurance.
>>
>>28651224
>>
>>28651562
There's no reason for American aircraft to carry such a large missile magazine. In the event that the aircraft stated would be fighting multiple enemies at such a large opposing force, their would likely be friendly aircraft involved. We don't need this bullshit, anorexic missile stacked sixteen deep up the ass of our F-35 pilots.
>>
>>28651585
Why the holy hell are you so angry about this? In what possible fucking world is MORE MISSILES not an excellent idea if range and pK is unaffected?
>>
>>28651585
>Boy, I sure wish I had less ammunition and less loadout flexibility, that will surely make me more effective!
>>
>>28651621
Well because the missile itself is not cosmetically pleasing.
>>
>>28651585
The reason is that ECM is becoming a concern, as well as targets with reduced signatures (remember that these missiles aren't due to enter service until the mid-2020s at the earliest). While modern AMRAAMs, etc can see right through many types of ECM, they won't always have a high pK, so it's important to be able to fire enough missiles (simultaneously or sequentially, I don't care) so that you regain the necessary aircraft killing capability.
>>
>>28651585
Can you give an actual explanation why 12 missiles of comparable performance to the AIM-120 is not desirable over 6 AIM-120s?
>>
>>28651633
Oh. So you're basically just like every anti-F-35, modern battleship, submarine carrier rule of cool fucking moron. Carry on then.
>>
>>28651082
>I mean air-to-air capabilities

You can potentially use laser guided zuni rockets against large and slow targets like bombers and transport aircraft, retard.
>>
>>28651159
>sending our aircraft into the blue with sixteen missiles and a salvo doctrine.

That's what we did in Vietnam though, and it worked. Learn some history. Firing a slavo of missiles at an enemy formation has always been an American thing, and was epitomized in the F-14. If you think 16 missiles is a lot, then look at the B1-R project.
>>
>>28651660
So laser guided bombs are air to air as well, right? Don't even bother bringing up the helo kill from '91.

Fuckwit.
>>
>>28651585
Do you carry a 1911?
>>
>>28651652

Hey, that's me!!

I want submersible carriers because I can't think of any other way to safeguard carriers against ballistic missiles. Stealth planes, stealth carriers. Carriers are our most important assets.

I want a modern battleship that can practically never leave port and still provide fire support with its main battery.

And... I want spaceships.

AND ALL THOSE THINGS ARE UNBELIEVABLY COOL!!
>>
>>28651224
Yes.

And going even further, I support cooperative engagement using unarmed AEW and long-range SAMs as an alternative air defense scheme. For some situations, you don't even need fighters anymore.
>>
Macross in real life when?
>>
>>28651562
>Other

please tell me thats shit like the EF-111A that got a kill through manouvering a retard opponent into the deck
>>
>>28652439
That includes maneuver kills, and one case where an F-15E (I think) hit a helicopter mid flight with a laser guided bomb.
>>
>>28652170
I disagree with that. Certainly such a thing would be fantastic and would certainly lessen the need for a fighter, but fighters would also be necessary in this. Fighters allow you to better cover blind spots and react to attacks, as well as having a physical presence. Ideally, your SAM site locations shouldn't be known at all, but knowing there are birds in the sky is enough. Further, fighters can react to the enemy's concentrations more easily, and hit them in cases where the SAMs might not. And in this case, the fighters could run back to SAM cover if they need it.
>>
>>28651159
Loadout: 12 missiles that have PK 0.6 and are fired in salvos of three
4 missiles PK 0.9

Pick one
>>
I LOVE THE IDEA :D

I hope the military finds better explosives... comparing the explosives the military uses to nitroglycerin, or even TNT, it's kinda sad... I'm no expert though.

There has to be a way to get a stable explosive that's almost as powerful as nitro.
>>
>>28652533
The trend is towards finding insensitive explosives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMX-101
>>
>>28652551

That's as powerful as TNT by weight and mass?

Awesome!

Being able to do the same job with less is an important thing to me.
>>
HANG ON...

THESE MISSILES DON'T HAVE A WARHEAD??

For fucks sake they could probably fit twice the HE a 40mm grenade has in there without changing any dimensions!

I don't think relying SOLELY on kinetic impact is a good idea!!

A couple ounces of HE and an impact fuse would be better IMO

Because impact fuses might not be reliable, what about a "crumple fuse" that activated when the missile got deformed, confirming a hit?
>>
>>28652797
There's no confirmation that they don't have a warhead. They're intended for hit-to-kill, but they could still have a small warhead.

That said, you don't add a warhead onto an air-to-air missile in order to damage it more, you add a warhead so that if your missile is going to miss by a few meters, the proximity warhead can fire shrapnel sideways and catch the aircraft.

If you can make a missile agile and accurate enough that you can almost guarantee an impact though, there's no need for a warhead, because ~100lb moving at 4 times the speed of sound is still going to blow a hole through the enemy, and even if they're not entirely destroyed, they're almost certainly not going to be able to continue their mission.
>>
>>28652823
*proximity fuse
>>
>>28652823

Is better to have a warhead and not need it, than need it and not have it.

What do you think of my "crumple fuse" idea?

I've got no idea how well modern fuses perform...

I admit I like throwing out weird ideas :)
>>
>>28652838
It's not better to have a warhead if it means you can't fly far enough or be half the size of an AMRAAM though, which is the point of this missile.

As for crumple fuzes, it could work, but I'm not sure - the reason I say that is that these missiles are meant to be very tough; able to handle ~40x their own weight, etc. In addition, at the front of the missile is the camera / radar, which could be an issue.

As I was saying though, if you wanted a fuze for the missile, you'd want the primary fuze to be a radar/radio-based proximity fuze, with an impact or crumple fuze as a backup.
>>
>>28652829
Look at all hat fucking shrapnel flying to empty space. Might have something to do why the missile is XBOX huge.
>>
>>28652866
Yep - I can't remember if the AMRAAM does this or if this is just a new concept in testing, but some newer warheads are being designed to have directional warheads, where you basically have a set of energy-reflecting prisms around the warhead with fuzes attached to them. When you set off one or more fuzes on one side, there's a difference in the pressure on the casing and it causes the opposite side of the warhead to rupture, focusing the energy and projecting shrapnel further in a certain direction (for the same warhead size). Or all the fuzes can be set off for an omnidirectional effect with a regular blast / fragmentation range.
>>
File: 0333cf87.jpg (52 KB, 640x482) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
0333cf87.jpg
52 KB, 640x482
>>28652894
>>28652866
Here we are - I found the image I was thinking of - it's still only a concept / WIP, but could be applied to the SACM or new missiles (even newer versions of the AMRAAM).
>>
LOCKMART BEE TO THE FO BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
Thread replies: 52
Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 458743



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.