how about a 1960, nuclear tip missile?  (aim 47 Falcon > 0.25 kiloton ) 

 

 ok, ok, ultra small thermo nuclear! (stupid environmentalist )

 How about a two stage AIM 120D+    like the proposed AAAM aim152 by  GD/Westinghouse :   

link...

That would not be the case in that timeframe. By then MADL or similar will be operational.

Additionally, if the F-22 were to use a less stealthy method or even voice. At that point it would only be telling the enemy what they already know. Somebody is up there shooting at his jets, probably F-22/35 and the approximate location. During the Confusion, the B-1R which has a HUGE power and most likely big LPI AESA could detect, track and kill on it's own. So could AESA Super Hornets and Eagles. Once AIM-120 gets 3rd party capability this would be possible with legacy aircraft and F-22. Don't forget "lofting" of AIM-9X. 

Another possibility would be to put the AMRAAMs on Reaper/Aveger or similar HALE UAV or even UCAS and they could loiter after the initial sweep and catch any enemy trying to scramble and take off. That might serve to seriously impair an organized response.

A lot has changed since the 1990s and the latest state of the art in theory should allow for vast increases in the combat effectiveness and lethality of advanced fighters integrated into the network. 

-DA 

 

we talked about an identical concept a wile back, with F/A-22 and B-2 bombers as AMMRAM "trucks" against the North Koreans fighter formations.

 

YUP  back when we use to call it the F/A-22 and not the F-22

and in our scenario, the bomber had internal aim-120d racks, not external crap!

 

hay the B-1A also had a mach 2 top speed, the only difference between the b-1b was a stelthyer air intake and therefore slower mach 1.3 speed at high altitude! 

 

Need to put an active DP seeker into it and miniaturize the telemetry setup so that we can use satellite link tele-command.. 

 

Can you say to the limits of the flyout? (400+kilometers)

I think the GD AAM-152 version of the JDRADM would be the way to go.  It could be cleared with larger boosters tho be carried under the wings of F-35s.

 

The second benefit is that the JDRADM will be ready before the B-1R could go IOC.

Besides I'm a RAYTHEON man.

 

Herald

Unfortunately, Raytheon was on the wrong side of the AIM-152 prototypes, IMHO.

 

Check my "Perfect JDRADM" post for my thoughts.

 

Post sustainer burn timed delay ignition of your endgame rocket is adding a fourth step to your already complex three step rocket. I don't like that for very obvious reasons. You are already Murphied with your first second step first stage rocket motor. The BEST air to air missiles are the simplest constructed that get the job done.

 

That means to me that I want a dual burn candle with a sharp start section that grains immediately into a sustainer.  For the sustainer, I have three choices, solid fuel candle with air rammed oxidizer(almost impossible to build right and not throttable . Liquid fueled ramjet or throttable solid fueled hybrid motor. The last has an advantage pover the ramjet as it doesn't have an absolute ceilung dictated by atmosphere and it has near ramjet performance (about 400+ impulse seconds thrust)    

I like the hybrid. You can throttle that candle and modulate thrust with the gas bottle oxidizer flow rate. With the choice of missile body, I skid or I can turn depending on the length of the tube to diameter ratio. (Barn door broadside effect) If I want to turn it with fins (the way to turn sharp early) use canard fins that generate huge shove foirces ahead of the CG (unload inertia early). I have to accept a huge drag penalty and loss of delta vee for that turn. If I use exhaust vane deflection and midbody thrusters then I adopt  late unertia unloading  into the turn and a high point alpha as I go into the turn FAST. U cannot make a sharp turn but I can POINT with all the inerta and inertia I've conserved (pendelum effect)  I DON'T want a short fat missile for that. I want a skinny telephone pole that can lift into the turn from tail controls and I will correct with the smallest fins I can get away with:

 

 

 

 That is an aerodynamically well-designed missile for what was wanted. Note the canards for roll and yaw control!

 

 

 

.A very simple and clean design, but you can see that its designed to point and that it is intended to use the missile body and not just the fins to lift into the turn. The TAIL fins and exhaust vane are there to apply side shove forces after the CG. or unload late.That tells you something about the seeker too. Very wide FoV.

 

 

 

You get it?

 

Of course you do. That last missile needs all the lift help it can get to turn, and the bozos who designed it; sacrified MER reach and NEZ  for it.

 

 

 

Obviously for what I want I want (LOB+F-pole pointer endgame). I can only get that with a restartable hybrid rocket in telephone pole configuration shoved off a fighter WITH NO STAGING. as a trajectory fail. That means RAYTHEON. . 

 

Herald