Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JF-17 vs J-10 vs LCA

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Manufacturers the world over have adopted ramjet & turbofan/turbojet propulsion for anti-ship missiles (aside from the Soviets/Russians who used it more for nuclear roles), and for good reason. A rocket-propelled AShM is essentially a glide-weapon. It follows a predictable ballistic trajectory making it vulnerable to interception by area-defences and since it can't be throttled its not very good at terminal stage jinxing (end-stage maneuvers would bleed much more energy than a cruise missile).

    It'll likely be effective against corvettes & smaller classes i.e. those equipped only with point-defence missiles & CIWS (read: RAM, Aster 15, Barak-1, etc.) but any ship equipped with longer ranged systems (read: ESSM, Aster 30, Barak-8) will engage it before it arrives at the 'dive-envelope'.
    End stage manuvering is important by also overstated. The most important factor is being able to overload the defender with as many missiles timed to arrive at the same time. No system today is going to reliably handle 20 simultaneous attacks.

    From the defender's point of view the best option is to down the aircrafts before they launch. Once those missiles are away whether those are jinxing at Mach 3 or diving at Mach 5 the defender is hard pressed.

    For a little jet like JF-17, the ability to carry two hypersonic weapons makes it a formidable threat. There aren't any other hypersonic AshM you can hang two of on a 6 ton jet. Weapons like the ASM-3 will be more common in time, but even Japan haven't put it into mass production yet.
    pb::

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by eagle
      Are we sure about that? It's a pretty large missile, like 50% more weight than the old ASM-1/2 missiles.
      only 2000 lbs similar weight to JASSM or PGM-2000
      F-16E with smaller wing can carry 4 of those

      Comment


        #63
        only 2000 lbs similar weight to JASSM or PGM-2000
        F-16E with smaller wing can carry 4 of those
        I should have added ...while carrying 2 600 gal fuel tanks.
        All the pics I've seen show the F-2 carrying 2 ASM-3 plus various other stuff, but never 4 ASM-3. 2 ASM-3 plus tank is about 4000 kg under one wing, that's a lot for an F-16 derivative.
        How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
        Yngwie Malmsteen

        Comment


          #64
          All the pics I've seen show the F-2 carrying 2 ASM-3 plus various other stuff, but never 4 ASM-3. 2 ASM-3 plus tank is about 4000 kg under one wing, that's a lot for an F-16 derivative.
          F-2 has bigger wing so it can generate more lift.
          Even normal F-16 sometimes tested with very strange load

          Are you sure the fuel tank is 2000 kg ?
          Last edited by garryA; 13th October 2017, 03:54.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by Multirole
            End stage manuvering is important by also overstated. The most important factor is being able to overload the defender with as many missiles timed to arrive at the same time. No system today is going to reliably handle 20 simultaneous attacks.
            That's not a factor insofar as the question of 'which missile' is concerned. Its like the pilot skill, important yes, but irrelevant to a comparison of aircraft.

            From the defender's point of view the best option is to down the aircrafts before they launch. Once those missiles are away whether those are jinxing at Mach 3 or diving at Mach 5 the defender is hard pressed.

            For a little jet like JF-17, the ability to carry two hypersonic weapons makes it a formidable threat. There aren't any other hypersonic AshM you can hang two of on a 6 ton jet. Weapons like the ASM-3 will be more common in time, but even Japan haven't put it into mass production yet.
            A JF-17 carrying two CM-400AKGs isn't necessarily anymore formidable than one equipped with two C-802s. The 'carrier-killer' thing is pretty much a myth, else it'd be the weapon of choice for the J-10 & J-11 as well.

            The CM-400AKG like I said in my previous post - is a boost-glide weapon that follows a predicable ballistic trajectory that makes it susceptible to interception by medium/long range SAMs, as compared to conventional i.e. air-breathing missiles.

            The actual USP of the missile is that its light enough to equip the JF-17's mid-board pylon (which is rated for Mk83s) - thus freeing up the inner-pylons for fuel tanks - while being a lot cheaper than something like the NSM.

            (All pictures show it on the JF-17's inner pylons but I'm assuming that's to preserve airframe life.)

            Comment


              #66
              A JF-17 carrying two CM-400AKGs isn't necessarily anymore formidable than one equipped with two C-802s. The 'carrier-killer' thing is pretty much a myth, else it'd be the weapon of choice for the J-10 & J-11 as well.

              The CM-400AKG like I said in my previous post - is a boost-glide weapon that follows a predicable ballistic trajectory that makes it susceptible to interception by medium/long range SAMs, as compared to conventional i.e. air-breathing missiles.
              While it may be able to fly a boosted, ballistic trajectory with a terminal glide stage, there's no reason to assume this is the only way it will be employed. Given it's stated range, it's most likely to still be powered in the terminal stage allowing it to perform evasive manoeuvres, which is one of it's key capabilities, along with around Mach 5 terminal speed. The glided ballistic trajectory would only be used to extend its range beyond that of its rocket powered stage.

              In any case, although it may not be used by the PLAF, they do seem to be using traditional ballistic missiles as part of their "carrier killer" capability, with bona fide ballistic flight paths and gliding terminal warheads, but which they claim are capable of performing evasive manoeuvres, so there is some validity to this approach.

              Furthermore, how many ship based anti-air systems have actually been demonstrated to be effective against a ballistic threat, aside from say the US SM series?

              Comment


                #67
                AShM with ballistic trajectory plays a huge part in modern naval tactics today. If an Arleigh Burke destroyer fights a peer surface threat today guess which is its weapon of choice, Harpoon? Nope, short ranged, subsonic. The Burke's first choice is actually SM-6 which has a secondary ballistic anti-ship capability. It would spam the target with up to 30 missiles, overload its defences and either set that ship on fire or damage it's sensor arrays with those relatively light warheads.

                Harpoons are more powerful, but their slow speed and short range means they can't sync on target with simultaneous SM-6 strikes.

                Low altitude ramjet missiles like YJ-12, HF-3, ASM-3 are theoritically better, but don't discount hypersonic dive missiles in large numbers. The USN is betting on it.
                pb::

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Alpha Bravo
                  While it may be able to fly a boosted, ballistic trajectory with a terminal glide stage, there's no reason to assume this is the only way it will be employed. Given it's stated range, it's most likely to still be powered in the terminal stage allowing it to perform evasive manoeuvres, which is one of it's key capabilities, along with around Mach 5 terminal speed. The glided ballistic trajectory would only be used to extend its range beyond that of its rocket powered stage.
                  That is the way it'll be employed because that is the way all missiles of the type work. It'll fire off into a climb to gain altitude before the motor burns out and then coast to the target. Some SAMs & AAMs feature a dual pulse rocket for greater terminal energy but its not something a diving ballistic missile needs.

                  Nothing to do with the stated range of the system - the Phoenix & R-37 achieved similar ranges with a mono-pulse rocket motor.

                  In any case, although it may not be used by the PLAF, they do seem to be using traditional ballistic missiles as part of their "carrier killer" capability, with bona fide ballistic flight paths and gliding terminal warheads, but which they claim are capable of performing evasive manoeuvres, so there is some validity to this approach.

                  Furthermore, how many ship based anti-air systems have actually been demonstrated to be effective against a ballistic threat, aside from say the US SM series?
                  The real world efficacy of the DF-21D aside, fact remains, it adopts an exo-atmospheric flight path - given its 1,500 km range, I'm guessing its apogee would be in excess of 300 km (the typical fighter jet cruises at an altitude of 10-15 km) - unlike the CM-400AKG which coasts well within the envelope of mid-ranged ship-borne SAM systems.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Multirole
                    AShM with ballistic trajectory plays a huge part in modern naval tactics today. If an Arleigh Burke destroyer fights a peer surface threat today guess which is its weapon of choice, Harpoon? Nope, short ranged, subsonic. The Burke's first choice is actually SM-6 which has a secondary ballistic anti-ship capability. It would spam the target with up to 30 missiles, overload its defences and either set that ship on fire or damage it's sensor arrays with those relatively light warheads.
                    The operative word is 'secondary'. The primary anti-surface weapon for the USN remains SH-launched Harpoons.. to be eventually replaced by the LRASM & JSM - both powered by turbojet engines.

                    Harpoons are more powerful, but their slow speed and short range means they can't sync on target with simultaneous SM-6 strikes.
                    No such rule. If anything, the fact that they can be throttled allows for better coordination for arriving at the target zone.

                    Low altitude ramjet missiles like YJ-12, HF-3, ASM-3 are theoritically better, but don't discount hypersonic dive missiles in large numbers. The USN is betting on it.
                    At the moment, even the Chinese aren't taking that route. The go-to solutions for PLAAF & PLAN fighters are still the YJ-8 & YJ-12.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Secondary or not, until next generation missiles enter service. SM-6 is de facto top end USN anti surface weapon. Very doubtful they can sync with Harpoons in wartime conditions, and given its shorter range, highly inadvisable. More likely the enemy would be hit first by SM-6, then if necessary the Burke would close in to finish it off with Harpoons.

                      China doesn't need CM-400AKG because it already has long range land based AShBMs, and heavy fighters to carry ramjet missiles.
                      pb::

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally Posted by Vnomad
                        That is the way it'll be employed because that is the way all missiles of the type work. It'll fire off into a climb to gain altitude before the motor burns out and then coast to the target. Some SAMs & AAMs feature a dual pulse rocket for greater terminal energy but its not something a diving ballistic missile needs.
                        No, not if the target is within range of the rocket motor powered flight range, it wouldn't need a boosted ballistic trajectory. Exocet missiles before the Block 3 MM40 version all used a rocket motor. Range would vary depending on altitude and speed of the launch aircraft.
                        Last edited by Alpha Bravo; 13th October 2017, 12:11.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Multirole
                          Secondary or not, until next generation missiles enter service. SM-6 is de facto top end USN anti surface weapon. Very doubtful they can sync with Harpoons in wartime conditions, and given its shorter range, highly inadvisable. More likely the enemy would be hit first by SM-6, then if necessary the Burke would close in to finish it off with Harpoons.
                          I meant Harpoons syncing with other Harpoons, not with SM-6s. The SM-6 in an anti-ship role is purely a fall-back option (with the USN dispensing with silo-based Harpoons).

                          USN doctrine calls for dealing with surface (and aerial) threats at ranges well exceeding that of ship-launched missiles. That's what the super-carrier and its fighter complement exist for. The de facto top-end USN anti-surface weapons consist of LRASMs & JSMs launched from SHs & F-35Cs.

                          China doesn't need CM-400AKG because it already has long range land based AShBMs, and heavy fighters to carry ramjet missiles.
                          And yet the default anti-shipping missile for the JH-7 & J-15 is the YJ-83K, and that for the Su-30MK2 is the Kh-59MK.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Neither are de-facto weapons for the USN. The USN has no POR for the JSM, and the LRASM purchase is interim and in quite small quantities (and that too split with the USAF) for very specific mission sets and threat scenarios largely in one AOR. The more prevalent missile going forward is likely going to be the standard and Extended Range Harpoon on the Super Hornet.

                            On the Surface Navy side, the SM6 capability is secondary, and only available on the Baseline-9 vessels, but the mission will get an additional capability over the next few years with the TLAM upgrade path that would first introduce the Maritime Targeting Capability and ultimately the MST variant with a new multi-mode seeker early next decade. There are no plans to go back to the Harpoon as far as the VLS is concerned. Since the OASuW Increment 2 was transitioned to an air-launched weapon (from earlier plans to make it a VLC launched weapon) the surface navy plans to grow the TLAM until the NGLAW is fielded which will have dual (ship and land attack) from the start.

                            OASuW Increment 2 remains a Navy program of record, and has since been transitioned to an air-launched concept but the funding stream is quite uncertain, and there does not seem to be much enthusiasm to really make cuts elsewhere to field this capability. Knowing this, Boeing has been quietly pouring in company funds to develop the Extended Range Harpoon knowing that the vast infrastructure and the Navy's investment in the networked Harpoon will give them an edge since fleet integration costs would practically be negligible. The Navy also intends to retain its investment in active-RF seekers and as such views the area that it must improve. None of the competitors on the increment-2 offer an active RF seeker option.
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017, 13:31.
                            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                            Comment


                              #74
                              No, not if the target is within range of the rocket motor powered flight range, it wouldn't need a boosted ballistic trajectory. Exocet missiles before the Block 3 MM40 version all used a rocket motor. Range would vary depending on altitude and speed of the launch aircraft.
                              Assuming a burn time of 30 secs and average speed of Mach 5 (both generous assumptions) we're looking at a powered flight range of 0.34 x 5 x 30 ~ 50 km.

                              The Exocet had a long burn rocket motor but it was designed to fly at subsonic speeds.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by bring_it_on
                                Neither are de-facto weapons for the USN. The USN has no POR for the JSM, and the LRASM purchase is interim and in quite small quantities (and that too split with the USAF) for very specific mission sets and threat scenarios largely in one AOR.
                                The USN barely has any F-35s as well. Its a figure of speech. As I said, two posts back - the LRASM & JSM will over the long term replace the Harpoon in the air-to-surface role.
                                Last edited by Vnomad; 13th October 2017, 13:55.

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  Where does the JSM come into the picture? It is not a part of any USN acquisition strategy. LRASM as per rules has to compete if it is to go beyond the "interim and urgent need" requirement for a few hundred missiles and there is no indication that the OASuW Increment 2 is geared towards buying LRASMS.

                                  The LRASM as things stand won't replace the Harpoon unless the USN gives up the need to maintain an Active seeker which it has held as close requirement over the years. It is also a larger weapon employing a different concept. As to the JSM there is no requirement for an IIR missile with the USN to replace the Harpoon. It will be quite unlikely that this variant ends up de-throning the Harpoon especially with the ER variant in flight testing.


                                  As far as the F-35C surface strike requirements, those have yet to emerge and may or may not influence OASuW Increment 2 which itself is on less than solid grounds. If there is a fresh look at surface attack capability (beyond the standard JSOW C-1 and AARGM profile) on the F-35C the lead time from a budgetary perspective will allow plenty of options to compete to both Boeing and Lockheed. If you do decide to entertain new form factors, then there are a number of programs that both Boeing, Lockheed and others can leverage to get you bay compatibility and RCS optimization. You don't need the stand-off range from an internal bay equipped weapon on a stealth aircraft as you do from a stand off platform so even using the ER-AARGM as a base and trading absolute range for seeker and warhead may be an option as well.

                                  I don't think Kongsberg/Raytheon will have it easy trying to steer the USN away from a concept of employment that it has so far preferred, and that it keeps investing as far asresearch into active RF seekers is concerned at its labs. Given the slow pace of USN acquisition of the F-35C, and the fact that the JSM is not F-35B bay compliant, I don't see this as a competitive advantage as say the NSM (even though what Raytheon offered was not networked) was vis-a-vis the up gunned LCS.
                                  Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017, 14:45.
                                  Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    Originally Posted by Vnomad
                                    Assuming a burn time of 30 secs and average speed of Mach 5 (both generous assumptions) we're looking at a powered flight range of 0.34 x 5 x 30 ~ 50 km.
                                    The Exocet had a long burn rocket motor but it was designed to fly at subsonic speeds.
                                    The cruise speed would be lower, it's only the terminal top-attack speed which approaches mach 5.

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      Where does the JSM come into the picture? It is not a part of any USN acquisition strategy. LRASM as per rules has to compete if it is to go beyond the "interim and urgent need" requirement for a few hundred missiles and there is no indication that the OASuW Increment 2 is geared towards buying LRASMS.

                                      The LRASM as things stand won't replace the Harpoon unless the USN gives up the need to maintain an Active seeker which it has held as close requirement over the years. It is also a larger weapon employing a different concept. As to the JSM there is no requirement for an IIR missile with the USN to replace the Harpoon. It will be quite unlikely that this variant ends up de-throning the Harpoon especially with the ER variant in flight testing.
                                      The Harpoon ER & MTS are upgrades/retrofits for existing missiles - they cannot soldier on ad infinitum. And the JSM & LRASM integration on the F-35 & SH respectively, is already funded, and they've also been shortlisted for the LCS/frigate OTH contract. Its pretty obvious which way this is going to go.

                                      Comment


                                        #79
                                        Originally posted by Alpha Bravo
                                        The cruise speed would be lower, it's only the terminal top-attack speed which approaches mach 5.
                                        Basic point is - if the missile can cruise at high altitude, fast enough (high supersonic) to be a hard target for SAMs but still long ranged, and doing Mach 5 in the terminal stage with evasive maneuvering, all while weighing half as much as its subsonic peers and between a third & a fifth that of conventional ramjet types - the arguments for equipping the PLAAF & PLANAF with other missiles (YJ-8, YJ-83, YJ-12, etc.) sound rather hollow.

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          The Harpoon ER & MTS are upgrades/retrofits for existing missiles
                                          The Harpoon ER is a new build missile and is based on the networked Harpoon which is the most up to date version currently with the USN (Block II+ was brought to the fleet only this year). As per its obselence at the component level, there is a reason why the ONR has S&T and R&D investments to constantly look into seeker upgrades and incorporating emerging technologies into its missiles. If they want to upgrade components they will insert technology as appropriate. What they wan't is something that replaces the older missile, it need not change the concept of employment or what they value as far as capability is concerned.

                                          they cannot soldier on ad infinitum
                                          They won't. You will have newer variants and new missiles, plus perhaps emerging needs over and above NGLAW. But, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the JSM which has nothing as far as a USN roadmap is concerned.


                                          And the JSM & LRASM integration on the F-35 & SH respectively, is already funded
                                          There are many non US weapons being integrated on the F-35 for international customers as partners or export FMS cases. This does not mean that the US services will acquire those weapons. As far as the LRASM - it will not be politically acceptable to acquire extremely large quantities of LRASM since that wasn't how they promised it would go down since it was not a competitive source selection. Urgent needs programs are exempt from competition but neither the DOD nor the Congress will allow this to be made a mainstream weapon w/o inserting competition.

                                          US service requests is pegged with its funded PORs, and identified future needs. I have explained where some of the interests lie. For surface to surface attack from VLS, it is to develop the two TLAM variants (the latter is a multi-spectral system) and then transition to NGLAW. On the Air Launched portfolio, it is to acquire a small batch of interim/urgent needs capability via LRASM and move to the OASuW Increment 2 effort where they will look to replace their Harpoons. Harpoon-ER is being pitched under an MOU with the Navy as a stepping stone to that weapon. Having said that, many don't view OASuW Increment 2 as a very high priority effort for the Navy which is a good sign for Boeing because they have something that is going to be very cheap to put to the fleet given the infrastructure already exists there.

                                          nd they've also been shortlisted for the LCS/frigate OTH contract. Its pretty obvious which way this is going to go.
                                          The up gunned LCS integration is with NSM where others basically bailed out because the Navy wanted a stop gap quickly and didn't want something that was networked and weren't willing to pay extra for that. A networked NSM does not exist yet (at least as far as Kongsberg/Raytheon partnership is concerned) while the other competitors had missiles in that space. This is totally different from where they are on their air launched portfolio where they have invested over the last decade to network their surface attack weapons, and then acquire this capability.

                                          As far as OASuW Increment 2, if it goes anywhere, it will be a structured program where the Navy will look at its entire S&T and R&D portfolio where networking and active RF seekers will surely be at play since they have identified this in their S&T roadmaps. What it would not be is a "RUSHED", urgent needs, as was the case with the LCS requirement, since that requirement has been fulfilled already by the interim LRASM purchase by the USN and USAF.

                                          If the Navy finds cash to go all in into a new program and is willing to pay for designs that will change form factor and explore newer technology insertions then that will be a full fledged competition. I just do not see the Navy ditching its investment in active RF seekers since the primary SO surface attack platform will still be the SH while there are plenty of similar options on the F-35 (JSOW, ER-AARGM, and other PGMs).

                                          I would be extremely surprised if the Navy sunsets its active RF missile portfolio by going in with the LRASM/JSM combo. It would be a big departure from where most that I know expect the Navy to stress its future weapon and targeting requirements or where they have been investing in when it comes to their S&T and R&D efforts aimed at this mission set (Combined mmW/IIR seeker concepts across applications).

                                          If the OASuW Increment 2 is to be moved to the right then the stop gap already exists in the LRASM and latest block Harpoon..There is no need to set up a completely new NAVAIR weapons program with all the costs that it entails. It will not fly politically.
                                          Attached Files
                                          Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017, 17:17.
                                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X