Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LM Cuda AAM

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • A&D
    A&D
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2012
    • 134

    #21
    With the existing problems of developing the tri head seeker how can a miniature AAM missile be developed ? Just marketing gimmick of companies.

    Comment

    • Snow Monkey
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Feb 2009
      • 839

      #22
      Since this isn't using a tri-mode seeker, I would guess because problems with tri-mode seekers are irrelevant to it?
      Overall budget issues are another matter of whether it is funded, but I don't see a TECHNICAL issue with it.
      And the US DoD budget is still huge no matter what, so advancing a new product innovative in some areas while using the best off-the-shelf in other areas, is not unbelievable.

      I think djcross's comparison to MICA is spot on, if MICA is already a 250 lb. class weapon, it isn't really all that far of a reach to achieve this, and achieve AMRAAM ranges or more. I believe that gel fuel isn't containing oxidizer like solid fuel (except ramjets like Meteor) so it's efficiency goes up for that reason amongst others.

      But if opponents have Meteor or similar class weapons, that would seem to be the performance level you want for BVR, and I'm not sure if this is really up to the task (Meteor being 400lb class and without oxidizer). Perhaps the US may not want to buy an MBDA product and prefer to develop their own equivalent, but I'm not sure if this weapon as described would be ideal... Not to say that gel fuels and hit-to-kill couldn't be implemented on a larger Meteor class weapon. If the US isn't worried about opponents with advanced capabilities, then there is no need to change their current armament. ...There is also the possibility of an even smaller version for WVR, even signifigantly extending the range of that to approach MICA.
      Last edited by Snow Monkey; 8th December 2012, 23:15.

      Comment

      • SpudmanWP
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2009
        • 5292

        #23
        A few things to keep in mind.

        1. The CUDA is not only lacking a warhead, but also a proximity fuze.
        2. Since the CUDA is in its early concept phase, its electronics will be build using tomorrow's electronics. For a little perspective, the AIM-120C3 is almost 20 years old. What did computers look like in the early 1990's?
        3. With advances in datalinks and GPS the active seeker does not have to be as large.
        4. Focus on newer propellents is aimed at faster missiles so flight times are shorter
        5. Battery tech is much better allowing for a smaller battery with the same power.
        6. With a smaller seeker, lack of proximity fuze, better battery tech, and shorter flight times, the battery is much smaller than on AMRAAM.

        This all boils down to a missile that has a larger motor to case ratio than even AMRAAM.

        Here is a measured CUDA that I found (based on a SDB sized case).



        I ran some numbers on the CUDA and here are results.

        I pulled these motor number directly from ATK and they include the blast tube (links below). I pulled the overall length from Raytheon (links below) and it's in inches.

        Code:
        Missile	Length	Motor	Ratio	Ratio with Thruster Section
        AMRAAM	144	74.4	51.67%	
        9x	119	78	65.55%	
        CUDA	70.8	46.25	65.32%	82.27%
        9x info:
        http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities...s01_054518.pdf
        http://www.atk.com/wp-content/upload...Propulsion.pdf

        AMRAAM info:
        http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
        http://www.atk.com/wp-content/upload...Propulsion.pdf

        Even without counting the 12 inch mystery section as part of the motor(yes I think they are maneuver thrusters ala PAC-3, another LM HTK missile), the CUDA beats the AMRAAM ratio and ties the 9x.

        Takeaway: Motor ratio is not the only determining factor in range as the 9x does not come close to the AMRAAM's range despite having a larger motor (in percentage and actual length).

        ---On the weight issue---

        As far as weight goes, no way CUDA is in the ~250 class. SDB weighs 250 due to a thick & hard steel case needed for penetration.

        Given that an AMRAAM is twice as long as CUDA (144" vs 71"), is a fatter missile (7" vs "6), and has a warhead.... I would postulate that CUDA weighs in the 125-150lb range given AMRAAM's 345lb.

        Here is the math

        Code:
        All Measurements in inches
        Missile	Length	Width	Volume	Surface
        AMRAAM	144	7	5540	3170
        CUDA	71	6	2010	1340
        So, the CUDA has 36.3% of the volume and 42.3% of the surface area of an AMRAAM. Surface area is important because it's the weight of the missile's body.
        Last edited by SpudmanWP; 9th December 2012, 08:32.
        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

        Comment

        • Distiller
          Talent on Loan from God
          • Oct 2003
          • 4760

          #24
          The motor length says little about range since you don't know the burn pattern. Btw, who says it's radar guided? So it's a hittile against aerial targets - meaning a CEP of a couple of inches only. 5 or 6 inch diameter gives you a 4 or 5 inch radar antenna. How much range has that at what frequency? And how does such a small antenna perform against LO targets? And is in turn that frequency good enough for MMW-type resolution you need for a hittile? So what about a high speed laser beam rider? For the lazy guys who don't have a gun and don't want to / can't dogfight? LMCO has experience with CKEM ...

          AIM-4 revisited?
          "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

          Comment

          • SpudmanWP
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2009
            • 5292

            #25
            who says it's radar guided
            That was the caption that accompanied the model in the original photo.
            AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile

            It's not about "don't have / can't dogfight", it's about first-shot / first-kill. Besides, with HTK this thing might be capable of anti-AAM.
            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

            Comment

            • Wanshan
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2004
              • 3929

              #26


              Comment

              • over G
                Muttley!Dooo sooomething!
                • Jul 2004
                • 1975

                #27
                Let me be the prophet of doom...

                That missile will become in a complete failure, and at the end will be used as a propelled dumb bomb, to their save facing.

                Cheers
                "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. annoys the hell out of me."

                -Best joke ever

                Comment

                • sferrin
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Apr 2005
                  • 9981

                  #28
                  Originally posted by Snow Monkey View Post
                  Of course, solid-fuel motors CAN be throttled, ala Meteor, although gel-fuel will probably offer better specific impulse....
                  Meteor uses a solid-fuel ramjet. Think of it more as a hybrid-rocket using atmospheric oxygen for it's oxydizer rather than a solid-fuel rocket. This also why it would have a better (likely MUCH better) ISP than a gel-fuel motor.
                  A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw

                  flag@whitehouse.gov

                  Comment

                  • Snow Monkey
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Feb 2009
                    • 839

                    #29
                    Yeah, for some reason I was thinking there of oxidizer-less gel fuel, but of course the pictured missile doesn't have an intake like Meteor...
                    Like I wrote before, Meteor is almost certain to outclass this missile as pictured... An even smaller missile, replacing AIM-9X, outclassing ASRAAM and 'competetive' with MICA range seems do-able... but I question the need there, a superior high-end BVR weapon seems more important vs. high-end opponents and vs. the rest the US armory is completely fine (if anything, lighter weight/lesser capability weapons that are cheaper is the trend). If the US wanted extreme BVR weapons superior to Meteor, gelfuel + ramjet seems a plausible way to go, but I haven't seen any sign that is desired, and such a project would just seem to undercut the rationale for stealth platforms achieving A2A superiority. Developing both would indeed be formidable, but there's even less evidence that is in the cards any time soon.
                    Last edited by Snow Monkey; 29th December 2012, 07:47.

                    Comment

                    • Sintra
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2007
                      • 3849

                      #30
                      Snow

                      While "CUDA" is just an internal LM study, Darpas "Triple Target Terminator" is an actual program with a contract and budget alocation. And Darpas T3 is very much a long range BVR weapon.

                      http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Pr...ator_(T3).aspx

                      Cheers
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • Wanshan
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2004
                        • 3929

                        #31
                        Whoever though up that name ought to be fired!

                        Comment

                        • bring_it_on
                          2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                          • Jun 2004
                          • 12480

                          #32
                          Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                          Snow

                          While "CUDA" is just an internal LM study, Darpas "Triple Target Terminator" is an actual program with a contract and budget alocation. And Darpas T3 is very much a long range BVR weapon.

                          http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Pr...ator_(T3).aspx

                          Cheers
                          The T3 will likely be cancelled (if it hasn't all ready) , as there is very little support for an urgent Aim-120 replacement...The Aim-120D is not all that old, and i do not think there is political support for a expensive effort to develop and field a replacement for thousands of Aim-120's in service. The Services and DOD willl likely not push for this until atleast the F-35 is well spoken for and they are deep into the LRS-B ... The US really does not face much a2a threat from its short-medium term threats , so the money is going into strike oriented assets such as a new bomber, VLO strike fighter etc...Perhaps post 2020 they will look at putting something together but i do expect T3 to be terminated whenever its current contracts expire.
                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                          Comment

                          • djcross
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 5456

                            #33
                            DARPA's purpose is to invest in technologies which will bring the warfighter needed future capabilities.

                            But if USAF, USN, USA or USMC does not agree to become the sponsor for continued technology development, the project gets canceled.

                            Comment

                            • bring_it_on
                              2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                              • Jun 2004
                              • 12480

                              #34
                              Yes, Darpa will validate technologies that can be used any time in the future if required. USN has the most need for a new missile, but given that they had their say with JHMCS 9X development, i think they would sit back and pass on the ball into the future. Any new replacement for the Aim-120, would almost certainly have to be Multi-Role and probably Multi seeker...
                              Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                              Comment

                              • djcross
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jan 2000
                                • 5456

                                #35
                                The greatest needs from USAF, USN, USA and USMC are:
                                • Small smart munitions (<20kg) to increase the loadout for UAVs
                                • The ability to engage time sensitive targets from a distance
                                • The ability to destroy hard and deeply buried targets

                                None of those priorities involve A2A weapons.

                                Comment

                                • bring_it_on
                                  2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                  • Jun 2004
                                  • 12480

                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by djcross View Post
                                  DARPA's purpose is to invest in technologies which will bring the warfighter needed future capabilities.

                                  But if USAF, USN, USA or USMC does not agree to become the sponsor for continued technology development, the project gets canceled.
                                  Do you have pictures of the two T3 Mockups released by Boeing and Raytheon? Flight global link which had the concept mockups seems to be damaged...And is the test fire still scheduled for October of this year?
                                  Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                  Comment

                                  • Tu22m
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2012
                                    • 1151

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Snow Monkey View Post
                                    Yeah, for some reason I was thinking there of oxidizer-less gel fuel, but of course the pictured missile doesn't have an intake like Meteor...
                                    The physics behind the CUDA are probably not the same as for all other elements in the universe, just like it is regarding the F35.

                                    The missile has 6 inch diam and Aim120 has 7 inch. The frontal cross section is very closely related to drag. So in order to get similar range performance it needs a similar drag/thrust ratio that in this case will come from diam/engine length.

                                    So we have Aim120 engine length = 74,4' and CUDA engine length = 46,25'. To have same [cross section]/engine ratio the CUDA needs ~64 inches long engine which is 38% more than it has.

                                    Assuming is has a speed of mach 4 (~1200m/s) it will have a burn time that is 27% less than the Aim120, Aim120C has 8-9 seconds and the CUDA will thus have around 6 seconds out of which 2,3 seconds are lost to acceleration.

                                    Outside the 6,3*1,2km range it simply is a guided bullet that loses energy fast as hell because of turning, drag and loss of propulsion. In other words its not very useful, unless of course they can alter the laws of physics or go for a lower speed (but that would make it pretty useless as a KE weapon...)
                                    Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfights

                                    The most useful link on the forum:

                                    Comment

                                    • bring_it_on
                                      2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                      • Jun 2004
                                      • 12480

                                      #38
                                      You have to understand the PR behind this effort, Lockheed's main competitors Raytheon (incumbent) and Boeing are working on official DARPA contracts for advanced technologies related to the NGM...Lockheed martin (and NG) in order to stay relevant decided to spend their own money on concepts, technologies that they see relevant for the future. The Cuda probably originates from one of those. Its no way representative of the direction the USAF (and DARPA) want toe NGB missile to go, but keeps LMA busy (Cuda is probably not the only design Lockheed is internally working on) so that it does not have to play catch up once the USAF decides formally to invest in something post T-3 (they have to decide by 2014 so that the current design teams assigned to T-3 do not go to waste)...Other then that The CUDA is a PR effort to tell the defence industry, DOD and enthusiasts that LMA is also working on something...Rayheon and Boeing do not need to get into it since they are working on official DARPA funded projects...The CUDA has next to ZERO Chance of actually being built...the direction the T-3 program has taken is different, multi sensors , milti role ramjet powered system with directional warhead...Not sure if they want to integrate IR sensor as well but that could well be an option...The T-3 should give you a credible system design and propulsion layout, the rest (Brains) would take time post T3. DARPA was scheduled to begin aerial testing of the 2 prototypes (Raytheon and Boeing versions) around October of this year, following which the program would end.

                                      I also do not think Either DARPA or the USAF/USN would be interested in a pure HTK BVR weapon therefore the CUDA may well have been designed for Missile defence, anti UAV/Drone targeting...When the dust settles and the T-3 winds up, and the USAF Formally decides to venture for an eventual Aim-120 Replacement (Anytime from 2014-2018) i think the best bet for Lockheed would be to team up MBDA and offer something that is based on the Meteor but uses the Multi seeker, multi use design required for the NGM. Such a tie-up would be the best business case given lower risk (Should mitigate the propulsion R&D advantage that ATK, Raytheon and now Boeing would get) and greater export potential. Beacuse of the cancelation of the JDRADM the NGM Future is a bit foggy, however what is KNOWN is that the concept of the JDRADM LIVES ON and that the main issues were with cost and not design and concept, so the USAF and/or DARPA may venture into something else to work on after the T-3 winds up and before actual program launch in the future. This approach could enable the contractors to keep on working on key enabling design and technology without the formal program launch which would earmark billions. Basically if the USAF Decides to start a program in 2018 they could fund the major players to keep them working on refinement and de-risk. Lockheed Martin would be essentially competing for such contracts, and given that DARPA and other institutions have already funded a raytheon competitor (Boeing) Once they may wish to award a contract to Lockheed just to keep another player in the "GAME"..expect a LMA, NG Alignment here or an LMA , MBDA alignment

                                      DARPA Graphic (Maybe darpa needs to start a new program to improve its graphics)
                                      Click image for larger version

Name:	t3_terminator.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	13.3 KB
ID:	3644120

                                      Widely believed to be the Raytheon solution for the T-3, based on a concept Rayhteon had been showing for some time. This is no way a final version of the NGM, only something that verifies technology..An eventual missile based on this technology could look totally different.

                                      Click image for larger version

Name:	rayi.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	6.3 KB
ID:	3644121

                                      Do not have a picture of the Boeing proposal..
                                      Last edited by bring_it_on; 19th May 2013, 18:34.
                                      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                      Comment

                                      • Siddar
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Feb 2013
                                        • 263

                                        #39
                                        Not sure why everyone thinks range is a issue. The goal here may well be a smaller short range missile.

                                        Whats wrong with a 50 Kilometer small hit to kill radar guided missile that could also be used as a 15 kilometer ground/ship based point defense missiles as well.

                                        Also consider potential uses on smaller air platforms like UAV and helicopters where a full sized amraam maybe to large.

                                        As ranges of existing missiles continue to grow eventually it makes sense return to a shorter range but with a smaller sized new missile that can still meet the original range requirements of larger missiles.
                                        Last edited by Siddar; 19th May 2013, 21:08.

                                        Comment

                                        • bring_it_on
                                          2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                          • Jun 2004
                                          • 12480

                                          #40
                                          The goal here may well be a smaller short range missile.
                                          May be Lockheed's goal here, But the goal of the USAF with the NGM was to have range and more umph at normal Aim-120 range..You'd also need decent range against IADS rather then shorter range.(HARM replacement)

                                          Also consider potential uses on smaller air platforms like UAV and helicopters where a full sized amraam maybe to large.
                                          Thats where such a missile could work, fit an Aim-9x seeker (Ala NCADE) and you have a fairly good UAV/UCAS/Cruise Missile/BM Killer.

                                          The problem with that is, there is no DEMAND for such a weapon by the USAF.
                                          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X