Elements of Power Blog wrote an article a year or so ago (I think) that covered the development of a new missile by Lockheed Martin called the "Cuda".
Since then I've heard absolutely nothing.
Why am I curious about it? Well the thought of F/A-18's filled to the gills with the missile (how many could they carry...20?) is pretty exciting, my focus is on a mid-level player for ground based air defense. Longer ranged than the Stinger but more mobile than the Patriot and able to keep up with maneuver forces...that's where I see a "Cuda" based ground system coming in.
I wonder what's going on with it.
where's boeing B1-R missile carrier that will tag along these stealth aircraft and act as a flying arsenal of AMRAMs ?
ReplyDeletewill shrinking an AAM affext its performance ?
A hypothetical B-1R arsenal truck would want a better stand-off range - i.e. a bigger AAM than AMRAAM. AMRAAM's kinetic performance is reportedly not sufficient at the longer ranges within it's designed medium range envelope. A high-value bird and large target such as your B-1R would thus want to be lobbing longer-ranged rounds such as PAC-3 MSE (perhaps tipped with enhanced seeker(s) vs LO, which could be migrated from other systems under development or in the field). Tactical fighters could also take handoff of the midcourse round, sure. A comprehensive upgraded B-1R (multi-mission) system as part of an alternative NGB requirement mix of platforms, could likely be game-changer though. Consider cheek-array S-band, multi-aperture IRST, NGJ integration, and next-gen offensive/defensive Laser kit. Such an air vehicle could arguably be the optimal (cost-effective) enemy-bomber intercept/escort platform to tag along during the Atlantic and Alaska/Pacific coastline patrols too? I'd just be in the camp cringing at arming such an asset with these short to medium-ranged Cuda, or AMRAAM, et al vs a next-gen tactical adversary.
DeleteThe concept is brilliant but do you really think something as big as the B-1 is needed? I would think something around the size of the MiG-31 would work perhaps slightly larger. Yeah you would need to shed a few of the subsystems you listed but overall I think the platform would be cheaper and more flexible.
Deletewhy are people so hot about the B-1R concept? its time has passed. quite honestly i wonder how long missiles will be used for aerial warfare. energy weapons are the future...the US Navy is looking at them as we speak for its next gen fighter, they're already being tested aboard ship.
Deleteslug throwing aircraft are going the way of the dodo bird.
They said the same thing about tanks almost half a century ago. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War tanks got slaughtered by ATGMs and theorists had concluded that the ATGM effectively nullified any advantages tanks once had. Since then things like composite armor, ERA, and APS have made tanks once again a central part to ground warfare. Energy weapons are very limited in application not to mention how inefficient they are at this time. Like everything else energy weapons can be countered, how I am not entirely sure but I assure you missiles are here to stay.
Deletemaybe but not in the form we see today. think about it. the F-35 will be the last high subsonic fighter/attack plane built. from here on higher and faster will rule the roost. the Russians never forgot this and the US got fooled into believing that you could use an attack plane as a fighter but having said all that ... higher and faster planes you're going to need either a breakthrough in propellants or bigger missiles. add super manueverability to the mix and you need a missile that is agile at the end of a 100 plus mile trip to its target. unless you're going to hang pylons off 747's that means that you're going to need B-1 sized fighters that are super agile to fly, fight and survive future air combat.
DeleteHigher and faster has always been the objective and I had hoped the F-22 would signal the end of subsonic fighter aircraft but then this fat little thing we know as the F-35 showed up. And I agree missiles will need to advance quickly, in a few decades I think we will start to see multistage missiles with highly agile kill vehicles and multiple guidance systems. Eh, who knows.
DeleteB1-R wouldn't stand much of a chance as it a big and slow target begging for some Mig-31 attention it beterr be somwhere warm as AMRAAM motors fail the cold unless they are made by Norwegian Finish company Nammo(Finland had a fair share of problems with dudsin cold weather)
DeleteAnd to be fair considering that AMRAAMs were sold to Pakistan ,Chinese already have a copy and a countermesures for it.
It was a Lockheed proposal. The Pentagon wasn't interested in it, so it went nowhere.
ReplyDeleteBeside, the CUDA was a radar guided missile, making it a poor fit against stealthy opponents when the trend is toward BVR IR missiles to defeat stealth, such as the new 60 km range Sidewinder X Block 3 proposed by the US Navy.
Deletecuda was suppose to be an AMRAAM replacement and have long range, not act as a within visual range missile
DeleteLM says that teh CUDA is specifically designed with WVR combat in mind.
Delete"Cuda will be a low cost weapon that will support "360° coverage", expand beyond visual range engagement zones and improve within visual range no-escape zones. It will also have extremely high-g maneuverability"
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/details-emerge-about-lockheeds-cuda-missile-382670/
the very statement you quote backs my position....
Delete"EXPAND BEYOND VISUAL RANGE ENGAGEMENT ZONES"
geez spudman....i would so love to meet you in person. are you this know it all in real life? correction, do you have to contradict even the most obvious of facts in real life the way you do on this blog?
"and improve within visual range no-escape zones. It will also have extremely high-g maneuverability"
DeleteI did not say it ONLY dealt with WVR, just that it was designed with WVR in mind (in addition to BVR).
I was just correcting your mistaken assumption that it would "not act as a within visual range missile".
And yes, I do tend to correct others when I see them misstating a fact, history, etc much to the aggravation of my wife.
bullshit Spud. the statement i made didn't indicate that i assumed anything. as usual you're reading what you want to read to justify an arrogant act. i read history. i know that AMRAAMs have been used in short range engagements. fix yourself dude. its not a good look.
DeleteVery doubtful that such an hypothetical Cuda produced by LM will be 'low cost'. Sorry, but I don't buy that advertised pitch. Maybe a buck or two cheaper round than AMRAAM, but it will be a complex missile and the supposed demand for it will further boost the cost. It might still be justified to ramp up spending on the actual AAM munitions loaded up on upgraded legacy aircraft in the near-future, so that might be the paradigm shift to come. That is: investing heavier in more capable and potent munitions.
DeleteThe latest I could find was a Dec 2013 (1 year after the EoP article) AW article where LM was showing off the concept.
ReplyDeletehttp://aviationweek.com/awin/lockheed-reveals-new-air-launched-missile-concepts
Remember that because CUDA is an internal LM concept, there will not a be a public money trail to follow for clues and it will not appear in budget docs until if & when it becomes a program.
Ok, take a look at the range penalty the AMRAAM suffers when ground lauched.
ReplyDeleteSo a " hypotetical" CUDA will have even less range.
No ground launched A to A missile , can replace a dedicated SAM.
the range penalty isn't actually a problem. we don't need it to replace the Patriot or the Stinger but merely to fill the gap in coverage...and maintain pace with the maneuver force. additionally you can simply resurrect the old Nike Hercules practice of attaching a booster to the Cuda missile to negate the penalty of ground launch.
DeleteWell, until now no one added boosters to the AMRAAM, and the NASAMS 2 is being exported.
DeleteThe israelis did not add a booster the the Derby missile used in the Spyder.
Fact is unless the US does not pay for the development of a booster no one will.
well i don't see a need to add a booster to the Cuda either. remember i said that i want it to fill a gap, not replacement the Patriot or Stinger. the Israeli's weren't looking for a Patriot replacement either that's why they didn't add one. i'm talking about a battlefield weapon that can engage targets outside the Stinger engagement envelope and protect the maneuver force.
DeleteSolomon has a point. Even without a booster the CUDA would have considerably more range than the Stinger while at the same time being vastly more mobile than the Patriot. Unlike the Russians who have an incredibly well layered IADS we have only two ground based air defense systems and their engagement envelopes are polar opposites. In general you can argue that the USAF is unlikely to lose air superiority but the point remains.
DeleteBTW can the F-35 open the weapon bays during supersonic flight? Missiles started from a mach 1.0 + platform have far better range.
ReplyDeleteYes and they have done so in testing.
DeleteI wonder how the Stunner wouldn't be a much better air to air interceptor. Imagine the Growlers/SH detecting EM signals, pin point and geolocating stealth targets, then launching the stunners to the area at 300km of distance. Close to the target they will find and destroy it with its double seeker EO/R.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/stunner-terminal-missile-defence-interceptor-israel/
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/eurosatory2008/DSCN1054_DCE.JPG
Something like this
ReplyDeleteLockheed Martin ALHTK - Air-Launched PAC-3:
http://youtu.be/OnVHEmROaMM
Vaporware for the gullible. Intended as some kind of blue-sky-marketing when people bring up the many short-comings of the F-35 design.
ReplyDeleteMaking an air-to-air missile a hit-to-kill weapon is a bit concerning, especially as a BVR weapon. Since the AIM-120 and AIM-9 have proximity fuses, a near miss can still generate a kill, while a near miss with this weapon has no chance of killing the target.
ReplyDeleteTraditional AAMs have proximity fuzes because their endgame maneuverability capability is very low. The CUDA combines traditional fin-based maneuverability throughout its flight combined with thruster-based (think PAC-3) maneuverability in the endgame.
DeleteI found the roots of CUDA, and it was not in the depths of LM.
ReplyDeleteThe earliest info that I could find (don’t worry, it will all tie together in the end) is from Feb2011:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011PSA_AnnualReview/Day1ColDavisFinal.pdf
On page 14 there is a vague entry titled “Small Advanced Capabilities Missile” with production in the “far term”. No other info in the PDF talks about it.
Next up is another PDF from later in Sep2011 (page 24):
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/archive/37th_symposium/Day2/12WilcoxAirArmSymp2011.pdf
No detailed info but it does show SACM (1st use of the acronym) being used on both the F-35 and an AWACS. Not only does it show it shooting at a fighter, but also at in inbound missile (even from the AWACS).
Not much else was found till April 2014 (page8):
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014SET/Wilcox.pdf
This is what it said about the goals of SACM
• Flexible hyper-agile airframes, high impulse propulsion, affordable wide field of view seeker, anti-jam guidance integrated fuze, aim-able kinetic and non-kinetic effects
• Increased A/C loadout ---> increased sortie effectiveness
• Increased Pwe with kinematic advantage & increased lethality
Finally, there is another PDF from Nov 2014 (page 18) where the tie to CUDA and the DARPA ADI (Air Dominance Initiative) program is made.
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/archive/40th_Symposium/AFRL_WilcoxAAS2014.pdf
Here is what it said
• High Load-Out
• AMRAAM Complement
• Counter 4th /5th Gen A/C & Cruise Missiles
• Low Cost
• Working Collaboration with DARPA under ADI
There is a CGI graphic on page 18 showing what is a dead-ringer of the CUDA in the bay of the F-35.
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/CUDA_2_zps25c5a58f.png
Now it makes sense where the Dec2013 AW Article LM said:
"Both Cuda and SSTRR are being supported by independent research and development money and are being pushed as concepts of interest under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Air Dominance Initiative project."