Air Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics
Sidewinder Takes Down Ballistic Missiles
   Next Article → SUPPORT: Outsourcing Pilot Training
December 8, 2007: The U.S. Department of Defense has developed seekers for AIM-9X (Sidewinder) and AIM-120 (AMRAAM) air-to-air missiles that enable ballistic missiles to be shot down. This happens when the missiles are in their "boost" (moving skyward) phase. Moreover, the seekers were transmitting their images via a NCADE (Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element) communications system. NCADE links aircraft and UAVs, equipped with air-to-air missiles, into a network of sensors, looking for ballistic missile launch. Second count, so the system would have to promptly alert any aircraft near enough to launch a missile, and get that missile moving in the direction of the rapidly climbing ballistic missile.

 

Equipping aircraft with NCADE missiles would provide another layer of anti-missile protection. It will be several years before NCADE completes testing, then a decision must be made as to whether it's worthwhile putting into service. In several recent wars, the U.S. has had air superiority, but the enemy still had some hidden ballistic missiles that could be fired. This would be the case with Iran and North Korea.

 

The AIM-9X has a max range of about 18 kilometers, while the AIM-120 is about a hundred kilometers.  The NCADE version of the AMRAAM is equipped with a heat seeking guidance system from the Sidewinder, and a rocket booster (making it a two stage missile) so that it can hit ballistic missiles that have moved to a high altitude.

 Next Article → SUPPORT: Outsourcing Pilot Training
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
reefdiver       12/8/2007 12:32:03 PM
I would think it would be nice to have these seekers on an updated AIM-54 Phoenix that could be carried at least on F-15-E and F-18E/F. You'd have double the range of the AIM-120. Of course I suppose its possible that if you detected a launch, the longer distance might make it impossible to reach the BM in time anyway. I do note that the Phoenix had a published speed of mach 5 while the AIM-120 claims "only" mach 4.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       12/8/2007 7:52:43 PM
Kinda off topic but has anyone else noticed the range disparity between U.S. and Russian AAMs? U.S. has AIM-120 with range of 100 kilometers or so, while the Ruskie's have two missiles (Vympel R-37, and Novator KS-172 AAM-L), both with ranges over 300 kilometres. Seems like a bit of an issue doesn't it? I mean like maybe the thinking is that an F-22 wouldn't be detected at those ranges and could close in to launch an AMRAAM, but thats a lot of space to cover where at any time a Russian fighter could achieve lock on and the Raptor couldn't do a damn thing about it...
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       12/8/2007 8:24:32 PM

Kinda off topic but has anyone else noticed the range disparity between U.S. and Russian AAMs? U.S. has AIM-120 with range of 100 kilometers or so, while the Ruskie's have two missiles (Vympel R-37, and Novator KS-172 AAM-L), both with ranges over 300 kilometres. Seems like a bit of an issue doesn't it? I mean like maybe the thinking is that an F-22 wouldn't be detected at those ranges and could close in to launch an AMRAAM, but thats a lot of space to cover where at any time a Russian fighter could achieve lock on and the Raptor couldn't do a damn thing about it...


 
1)  Neither the R-37 nor the KS-172 is actually in service with the Russian Air Force.
2)  If either ever see service, the actual range of the KS-172 will probably be about 150km (maybe 200km), while the R-37 will be about 100km.
3)  No Russian fighter could track an F-22 at more than about 30km, so with regard to engaging the F-22 using these currently-hypothetical missiles (or any other radar-guided AAMs) it's the F-22 that actually has a huge range advantage with AMRAAM.
 
Quote    Reply

ker       12/9/2007 4:24:14 PM
"Sidewinder Takes Down Ballistic Missiles"
 
I will not say I have not desired this.
 
This changes the equation on balistic missile chicken.  Now for people planning for ballistic missle programs and in time for people who have them.  Keep taking away those enemy options.  Give the enemy a chance in peace but no chance in war.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       12/9/2007 10:30:22 PM

Kinda off topic but has anyone else noticed the range disparity between U.S. and Russian AAMs? U.S. has AIM-120 with range of 100 kilometers or so, while the Ruskie's have two missiles (Vympel R-37, and Novator KS-172 AAM-L), both with ranges over 300 kilometres. Seems like a bit of an issue doesn't it? I mean like maybe the thinking is that an F-22 wouldn't be detected at those ranges and could close in to launch an AMRAAM, but thats a lot of space to cover where at any time a Russian fighter could achieve lock on and the Raptor couldn't do a damn thing about it...


So does anyone know why the US has abandoned long range AAM - like the Phoenix? I'm rather curious why they didn't continue development of it and adapt it to some of the common systems for various aircraft. If they had, it would seem it might have been relatively easy (but still expensive...), to adapt these modified terminal seekers to them.
 
Quote    Reply

JohnHunt    Strategic Impact   12/12/2007 7:53:41 PM
How does this capability change the strategic equation regarding North Korea & China.  For example, in a first strike scenario, could the US have stealth aircraft within range of all of their BM launch sites and successfully intercept or prevent their launch?
 
Or how about this scenario.  Secretly import such anti-missile missiles to locations near their launch sites.  This would provide a long-term, very low cost, and pretty-effective ABM system.  For that matter, couldn't Russia do the same to us?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       12/12/2007 7:59:41 PM

How does this capability change the strategic equation regarding North Korea & China.  For example, in a first strike scenario, could the US have stealth aircraft within range of all of their BM launch sites and successfully intercept or prevent their launch?

 

Or how about this scenario.  Secretly import such anti-missile missiles to locations near their launch sites.  This would provide a long-term, very low cost, and pretty-effective ABM system.  For that matter, couldn't Russia do the same to us?

No and no.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       12/12/2007 10:11:39 PM




How does this capability change the strategic equation regarding North Korea & China.  For example, in a first strike scenario, could the US have stealth aircraft within range of all of their BM launch sites and successfully intercept or prevent their launch?



 



Or how about this scenario.  Secretly import such anti-missile missiles to locations near their launch sites.  This would provide a long-term, very low cost, and pretty-effective ABM system.  For that matter, couldn't Russia do the same to us?



No and no.

Herald


Hmmm.  Assuming we wanted to and this program became operational, I think it would be quite possible to maintain a couple F-22 im orbits over the sea within range of North Korea's launch site (note the singular).  With China I think/hope this program can be developed into something we can use to at least hold some of their SRBM/MRBMs at some risk as part of our overall countermeasures to protect our carrier battle groups once a war has started, maybe down the road 10 or 20 years using a stealthy, long-duration UCAV design instead of short-duration F-22s that would require an awful lot of rotation of new aircraft to maitain any significant continuous coverage.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       12/12/2007 10:27:45 PM








How does this capability change the strategic equation regarding North Korea & China.  For example, in a first strike scenario, could the US have stealth aircraft within range of all of their BM launch sites and successfully intercept or prevent their launch?





 





Or how about this scenario.  Secretly import such anti-missile missiles to locations near their launch sites.  This would provide a long-term, very low cost, and pretty-effective ABM system.  For that matter, couldn't Russia do the same to us?





No and no.

Herald



Hmmm.  Assuming we wanted to and this program became operational, I think it would be quite possible to maintain a couple F-22 im orbits over the sea within range of North Korea's launch site (note the singular).  With China I think/hope this program can be developed into something we can use to at least hold some of their SRBM/MRBMs at some risk as part of our overall countermeasures to protect our carrier battle groups once a war has started, maybe down the road 10 or 20 years using a stealthy, long-duration UCAV design instead of short-duration F-22s that would require an awful lot of rotation of new aircraft to maitain any significant continuous coverage.


 

If I understand the battle-space properly, DJ, the only way, what you describe, that could work, is during the descent phase of a TBM or SRBM RV. VERY tough to do-which is why we have the SM-3 and SM-6 in development with improved crossing shot/pursuit seekers and guidance updates.  The way I see this application actually used is as an  air incursion event during TEL hunts, where we might not be able to get to the TEL before launch, but where we could aircraft launch as soon as we saw the flame plume and smoke trail. Drop the rocket back in their heads so to speak. That does make a lot of sense as the enemy rocket tries to ascend during the first thirty seconds.

On station UCAVs is actually asking a lot of our technology. If we go that route, I want hypersonics to be the A2G weapon of choice.

Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       12/13/2007 11:08:11 PM



Hmmm.  Assuming we wanted to and this program became operational, I think it would be quite possible to maintain a couple F-22 im orbits over the sea within range of North Korea's launch site (note the singular).  With China I think/hope this program can be developed into something we can use to at least hold some of their SRBM/MRBMs at some risk as part of our overall countermeasures to protect our carrier battle groups once a war has started, maybe down the road 10 or 20 years using a stealthy, long-duration UCAV design instead of short-duration F-22s that would require an awful lot of rotation of new aircraft to maitain any significant continuous coverage.




 



If I understand the battle-space properly, DJ, the only way, what you describe, that could work, is during the descent phase of a TBM or SRBM RV. VERY tough to do-which is why we have the SM-3 and SM-6 in development with improved crossing shot/pursuit seekers and guidance updates.  The way I see this application actually used is as an  air incursion event during TEL hunts, where we might not be able to get to the TEL before launch, but where we could aircraft launch as soon as we saw the flame plume and smoke trail. Drop the rocket back in their heads so to speak. That does make a lot of sense as the enemy rocket tries to ascend during the first thirty seconds.

On station UCAVs is actually asking a lot of our technology. If we go that route, I want hypersonics to be the A2G weapon of choice.

Herald

 

Well, I was taking the "ascent phase" part of the system description literally.  To get within 100miles of the launcher would necessitate orbiting over China, and that's why I specified the necessity of using stealthy platforms.  Since that's an act of war, I also specified only doing it once an invasion attempt had already begun.  Sure it's a long shot and not very practical/likely, but hey, a guy can dream....



 
 
Quote    Reply