Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: PAC-3, ESSM and SM-6 as AAMs.
dwightlooi    9/7/2007 8:05:27 PM
The Russians have modified the SA-6 to become a long range AAM (KS-172) which is rumored to have a 300~400km reach against big and slow targets like AWACs. I believe that converting land and sea based SAMs for AAM duty is a low-risk, fast and cheap way of putting a long range missile into service. The three candidates are:-

The PAC-3 is a 10-inch, Mach 5+, 700 lbs weapon. As an AAM it will have a range in excess of 150~200km (roughly quadruple the SAM's effective range). It is an MMW missile with hit-to-kill accuracy, exceptional high altitude agility and proven ABM capability. At twice the weight of an AMRAAM not too heavy to hang on the teens or to be launched from the F-22/35 internal ejectors. The fins fold and the F-22 will be able to carry six of these in lieu of six AMRAAMs in the same space.

The ESSM is another 10" weapon which is 620 lbs. It's fin also fold and you can again pack six into the same internal bay space currently used to hold 6 AMRAAMs. The ESSM has a higher propellant fraction than the PAC-3 -- it carries a smaller warhead, doesn't pack the lateral divert control thruster assembly and has an 8" guidance section. This gives it a 50km surface launched effective range and probably around 200~250km range as an AAM. The problem is that the ESSM is currently a semi-active missile. Not much of a handicap on a ship which isn't going anywhere in a fight and has multiple time shared illuminators, but fitting the AMRAAM's seeker is probably a must for AAM duty.

The SM-6 is basically the SM-2 Block IV with an AIM-120D based guidance package. Also known as the Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), it is a monsterous SAM weighing 1600 pounds without its 1st stage booster and almost 3000 pounds as a 2 stage weapon. It is effective out to 167km as a single stage (MR) weapon and 370km in 2-stage (ER) extended range form. The single stage missile at 1600 pounds is heavy, but as a long range anti-AWACs weapon it is not unreasonable. Range will be phenomenal at roughly 600~700km and will be limited mostly by the firing aircraft's EW suite or its ELINT feed.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
WarNerd    PAC-3, ESSM and SM-6 as AAMs   9/8/2007 3:52:39 AM
Does anyone besides the US have a significant AWACS capability?
If not this is a solution in search of a problem.
 
But it is a good idea, just put them on something larger than a fighter.  
 
A B-52 with a bomb bay full of one (or more) of those missiles orbiting with an AWACS could form a formidable area defense anti-aircraft / anti-missile system covering a huge area.  It might be also be more cost effective than the robotic fighter proposals that crop up from time to time.
 
 Unfortunately, I don't think you would be able to find anyone to support the idea.  The Airforce will hate it because it would displace some fighters.  The Army will fight it because they don't trust the Airforce to provide dedicated support, and the Airforce will not allow the Army to control the planes.
 
The Navy might like it, but with the P-3's retiring they don't have anything suitable to base it on.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       9/8/2007 9:56:27 AM
I have seen rumors of PAC-3 being evaluated for airborne launch.  It's too long, however, for internal carriage on an F-22, IIRC.

ESSM makes more sense since it's no longer than an AMRAAM.  There is also work underway to mate the ESSM motor and warhead to the AMRAAM seeker for the SLAMRAAM-ER  program.

An air-launched SLAMRAAM-ER on the Super Hornet or F-15 might be a quick, short term solution to the problem posed by our enemies using Flankers armed with longer ranged ARH missiles against us. 

The VLO F-22 doesn't need it as much as the F-teens.


 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       9/8/2007 10:50:15 AM

ESSM makes more sense since it's no longer than an AMRAAM.  There is also work underway to mate the ESSM motor and warhead to the AMRAAM seeker for the SLAMRAAM-ER  program.

The ESSM airframe has an added bonus. It takes up less room than an AMRAAM despite being 3" larger in diameter and almost twice the launch weight.

The AIM-120C/D occupies a 12.5" x 12.5" box cross section -- including finnage. If you stagger the fins (ala F-22) you can fit three into a space 32" across and 12.5" tall without any clearance. Realistically however, the F-22 fits it three into a space about 35~36" across per bay with about a little under an inch of clearance between missiles and the walls.

The ESSM's aft fins fold and the strakes are designed such that they do not extend beyond the 10" diameter of the fuselage. This is necessary to fit four ESSMs into the 21" box section of the Mk41 VLS cell (excluding cannister walls). In otherwords, three 10" ESSMs actually fit a space 10" across without clearance and about 33~34" across with realistic clearances. This allows 6 to be fitted in the belly of the F-22 with more room to spare than the AMRAAM affords. It also allows six to be fitted to the F-35's bays with ample clearances when six AMRAAMs will have been very tight and possibly requiring innovative ejector contortions. It is also light enough (620 lbs including the ejectable thrust vectoring adapter which probably can be eliminated for air launch applications) for for of the 5th generation fighters to carry in those quantities.



 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       9/8/2007 5:05:29 PM

Does anyone besides the US have a significant AWACS capability?

If not this is a solution in search of a problem.


 
Among threat nations, Russia has some capability, China is starting to, and India will have some capability soon. 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/8/2007 5:31:47 PM
Even semi-active homing isn't as much of a problem as it used to be. In the old days the problem was that not only was the aircraft limited in its ability to maneuver, but the radar had to be kept locked on the target preventing it from scanning for other threats. With AESA radar that is much less of an issue. In fact it seems like it might be an advantage in certain situations because the only radar signal that would be illuminating the target aircraft would be the LPI radar of the launching fighter, and the missile itself would not have its own active radar.
 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       9/8/2007 6:22:15 PM

Even semi-active homing isn't as much of a problem as it used to be. In the old days the problem was that not only was the aircraft limited in its ability to maneuver, but the radar had to be kept locked on the target preventing it from scanning for other threats. With AESA radar that is much less of an issue. In fact it seems like it might be an advantage in certain situations because the only radar signal that would be illuminating the target aircraft would be the LPI radar of the launching fighter, and the missile itself would not have its own active radar.

I don't think you can use LPI modes when illuminating for the missile. But the ESSM flies on inertial navigation + command updates until it receives terminal homing illumination anyway. So the target wouldn't be lit until 5~10 seconds before impact. The lack of ability for the fighter to turn away is also less of an issue with a 200km missile than it is on a 75 km missile. There isn't very many enemies who can shoot back that far out.

 
Quote    Reply

caltrop    ALHTK   9/8/2007 9:46:11 PM
Dwight, came across this while surfing the net.  From earlier this year.  link is ht*p://http://www.spacewar.com/reports/F_15s_May_Air_Launch_PAC_3s_999.html ;
 
Lockheed Martin has won a contract from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency to explore firing Patriot Advanced Capability-3 anti-ballistic missiles from airplanes. The company said the tests would initially focus on using the Boeing McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle as the launch platform for the PAC-3s. Although the initial $ 3 million funding for the research program is small by the expensive R and D budgets of the BMD programs, its implications could be far reaching.

The program is known as the Air-Launched Hit-to-Kill, or ALHTK, initiative. If successful, the program would eventually see U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft equipped with PAC-3s that they could air launch. The speed and range of the F-15s would carry the PAC-3s far closer to their targets than was previously imagined possible and give them a boost of up to around 1,500 miles per hour, or faster than Mach 2, significantly improving their performance and the likelihood that they could intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.

 
Quote    Reply

ambush       9/8/2007 11:02:56 PM
 Was there not a rumor that Iran did something similar with the Hawk?
 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       9/9/2007 6:15:37 PM

 Was there not a rumor that Iran did something similar with the Hawk?

Well, the Hawk does resemble the Phoenix to some extent...

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       9/9/2007 7:09:31 PM
The Iranians have definitely fired Hawks from their F-14s.  The pictures are easy to find on the net, and there was a video of one firing a Hawk that made Youtube last year.  AFAIK they were only able to mount them on the lower wing glove pylons, due to the Hawk's large fins.  They could probably fire them from the wing pylons of F-4s as well.

The other SAM body that was used as an air-launched weapon was of course Standard.  The AGM-78 Standard ARM was basically an SM-1 with a Shrike seeker, fired from F-105s and F-4s and saw wide use in Vietnam and remained in the USAF inventory until the 1980s.  The AGM-97 Seekbat was a development of that, with a dual thrust motor and additional IR seeker, designed to go after the MiG-25.  It was fired against drones but did not enter production.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics