Loral (Ford Aeronutronics) "HAVE DASH II"
- Thread starter vulture
- Start date
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
Kind of. B2T uses lift generated by the missile shape. Banking changes the direction of the lift and thus turns the missile. It is polar in concept.
RP1
RP1
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
Bank to turn means an aeroplane-like configuration missile with wings (or lifting body) configured to give lift strongly in one plane, the control surfaces generally tail mounted but are not necessarily cruciform. It was mostly associated with ramjet engines which have intakes with low tolerance for sideslip - essentially it needs to turn like a plane to keep air going in the intake. Control is generally harder to do than with a normal cruciform missile arrangement.
Examples - ASALM, Hughes AAAM.
Twist and steer is essentially the same thing, but specifically uses differential wing movement to bank and synchronized wing movement to turn. Bank to turn can use other control surfaces to achieve the banking and turning, not the wings. So twist and steer is one type of bank to turn design.
Examples: Bloodhound, Bomarc.
Examples - ASALM, Hughes AAAM.
Twist and steer is essentially the same thing, but specifically uses differential wing movement to bank and synchronized wing movement to turn. Bank to turn can use other control surfaces to achieve the banking and turning, not the wings. So twist and steer is one type of bank to turn design.
Examples: Bloodhound, Bomarc.
- Joined
- 19 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,339
- Reaction score
- 2,341
Some Have Dash II images are attached. The Have Dash I effort included conceptual studies (building on ERMAAT studies, but stepping back from the longer range EMRAAT flight profiles), wind tunnel testing and RCS testing, and ground qualification testing. The period of performance was 1985-88. The follow-on Have Dash II project started in 1989 and culminated in the construction of three Fight Test Vehicles (FTV). The test missiles were originally planned to be launched from the F-111; retirement of the aircraft after Desert Storm required the transition to an F-16 test asset with a modified stores pylon (replicating the originally planned F-111 interface). Although the FTVs were all intended to be recoverable, all three were expended for different causes, after one flight each. The program concluded in late 1992 with the loss of the last FTV.
Attachments
pathology_doc
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,573
- Reaction score
- 1,443
Why not just turn out Have Dash II as a service weapon, rather than waste extra time and $$$$ incorporating its technology into next-gen AMRAAM?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,238
- Reaction score
- 13,335
Because it probably wasn't designed as a production missile. Hand-made tech demonstrators don't always translate neatly into productionized operational systems.
Moving the autopilot tech into an existing missile design would likely be a lot less expensive than fielding an entirely new missile.
Also, there wasn't really a platform that needed a stealthy AAM for external carriage, so there wasn't much benefit to be gained from the trapezoidal fuselage shape, which was surely more expensive than a simple cylinder like AMRAAM.
Moving the autopilot tech into an existing missile design would likely be a lot less expensive than fielding an entirely new missile.
Also, there wasn't really a platform that needed a stealthy AAM for external carriage, so there wasn't much benefit to be gained from the trapezoidal fuselage shape, which was surely more expensive than a simple cylinder like AMRAAM.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,299
- Reaction score
- 2,744
Sliding mode control of HAVE DASH II missile systems
MODERN CONTROL BANK-T0-TURN AUTOPILOT FOR HAVE DASH II MISSILE
www.scribd.com
Missile Endgame Analysis
MODERN CONTROL BANK-T0-TURN AUTOPILOT FOR HAVE DASH II MISSILE
Bank HaveDashII | PDF
Missile Endgame Analysis
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
Well the composite body and trapezoidal shape reduced the missile's RCS.
As for the low observable F-15 in the Aerospace section under the post Boeing bullish over F-18 and future programs in the article Not quite invisible a Boeing engineer told aviation week that the company (probably the Phantom works when they where owned by MDD. Boeing just took credit like they did with BOP after the merger) modified an F-15 during the late 80's or early 90's to reduce RCS. Its RCS the engineer claimed was close to the F-22.
I would think that RCS claim would be from the front quadrant with heavy modifications. Maybe (and this is just me speculating) a new wing with edge alignment like on the F-15U, radar blockers in the air intakes like on the B-1B, canted vertical stabilizers, redesigned radome, and RAM. Fire Eagle.
Could the mystery YF-24 be this aircraft as it fell between ATF and JSF.
So the Have Dash missile would have allowed flush external carriage on such a modified design. Who knows???
As for the low observable F-15 in the Aerospace section under the post Boeing bullish over F-18 and future programs in the article Not quite invisible a Boeing engineer told aviation week that the company (probably the Phantom works when they where owned by MDD. Boeing just took credit like they did with BOP after the merger) modified an F-15 during the late 80's or early 90's to reduce RCS. Its RCS the engineer claimed was close to the F-22.
I would think that RCS claim would be from the front quadrant with heavy modifications. Maybe (and this is just me speculating) a new wing with edge alignment like on the F-15U, radar blockers in the air intakes like on the B-1B, canted vertical stabilizers, redesigned radome, and RAM. Fire Eagle.
Could the mystery YF-24 be this aircraft as it fell between ATF and JSF.
So the Have Dash missile would have allowed flush external carriage on such a modified design. Who knows???
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,496
- Reaction score
- 4,140
Empire said:
Shaping may have reduced the *missiles* RCS, but it is unlikely that it was a good thing for the aircraft RCS. Carrying a "stealthy" weapon conformally (or not) on an aircraft will rarely lower the RCS of the aircraft+weapon, and more often than not increases it. Imagine HAVE DASH II carried externally on an F-117. The edges of the missile and the aircraft would not align - which would create additional spikes in the radar return. For an external store to mitigate the impact on the overall RCS of aircraft+store it would need to be optimized for the particular aircraft carrying it. This is one of the reasons the conformal weapons programs of the 80s and 90s did not result in production, and why solutions like the Boeing F-18E weapons pod are favorable. The Boeing pod is optimized for that aircraft, and does not require specialized weapons.
dumpster4
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 November 2017
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 104
According to:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/261556288/ramjet-bvraam-used-in-gulf-war-combat
Some of the "Have Dash" technology may have been used in combat:
"Under a "black" programme the US Department of Defense has developed a ramjet‐powered beyond‐visual range air‐to‐air missile (BVRAAM). The weapon was
deployed to the Gulf in 1990‐91 for use by a single USAF F‐15 squadron, Jane's Missiles & Rockets has been told. It was used in combat, downing at least one Iraqi
aircraft whose destruction was officially credited to another type of missile."
"The concept of applying air‐breathing propulsion to an AMRAAM‐class weapon was also investigated in the late 1980s and early 1990s under two USAF "black"
programmes code named "Have Dash 1" and "Have Dash 2"."
But if a weapon like this existed, wouldn't we have heard more about it by now? Is this missile just a military urban legend?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/261556288/ramjet-bvraam-used-in-gulf-war-combat
Some of the "Have Dash" technology may have been used in combat:
"Under a "black" programme the US Department of Defense has developed a ramjet‐powered beyond‐visual range air‐to‐air missile (BVRAAM). The weapon was
deployed to the Gulf in 1990‐91 for use by a single USAF F‐15 squadron, Jane's Missiles & Rockets has been told. It was used in combat, downing at least one Iraqi
aircraft whose destruction was officially credited to another type of missile."
"The concept of applying air‐breathing propulsion to an AMRAAM‐class weapon was also investigated in the late 1980s and early 1990s under two USAF "black"
programmes code named "Have Dash 1" and "Have Dash 2"."
But if a weapon like this existed, wouldn't we have heard more about it by now? Is this missile just a military urban legend?
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,143
- Reaction score
- 8,899
Attachments
-
usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb.jpg -
usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (1).jpg -
usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (2).jpg -
usaf-dash-ii-missile-desktop-model_1_8ee06e91b4a24354776a1a96d7d846bb (3).jpg -
usaf-dash-ii-missile-sew-patch_1_b65117076635c554e4abcd2ba1ebeb5e.jpg
- Joined
- 8 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,605
- Reaction score
- 736
is this referring to the two-page spread that was used in ad in an old AW&ST issue? Somewhere I think I have some lithographs of that, and the companion cutaway illustration, that I got from Loral at the time.vulture said:
Maury Markowitz
From the Great White North!
- Joined
- 27 February 2014
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 138
twist-n-steer uses the missile's wings for lift and generally has a cylindrical fuselage that adds little or no liftCJGibson said:
bank-to-turn has no wings and uses the asymmetric shape of the missile fuselage for lift
They are similar only in that both require the missile to rotate to a given angle before they can maneuver.
Bloodhound was unique in that the wings rotated independently, in contrast to most missiles where the wings are fixed to the fuselage and the entire missile has to rotate into the apparent wind in order to generate lift. This puts it in a sort of intermediate group of its own, perhaps relegating Brakemine to "twist-n-bank"?
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
quellish said:
Conformal missiles really belong to the "supercruise with reduced RCS" era. Its a lower drag solution to weapons carriage without the space and weight penalty of an internal bay. With the advent of stealth, the RCS penalty of conformal missiles became unacceptable.
It's increasingly looking like AIM-260 is Have Dash II with a separating KKV.
If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a D-shaped missile body, possibly with a chine, and using a '+' not 'x' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly step-tapered conical, not ogival, seeker 'radome' as possible high-Mach _aerospike_. All HDII features.
At least implying more of an anti-missile (Kinzhal, Iskander, Zirkon) role than necessarily an air breathing target one after a very fast loft to a high midcourse, aimed to conserve Delta-V by using a lifting body and twist-to-steer controls, limiting airframe skid.
Get it high, get it fast, let it coast, separate the tail controls/motor casing and switch to a skirted secondary propulsion (TVC?) with perhaps flick-spoilers (ala Redeye) and ACM driven terminals (note the dark-anodized area, right behind the seeker, which appears built into the 'radome'). If the radome is, in fact, just a frangible aero cover for the IIR seeker, ala AAAM, then they must imagine using the F-22 to get the missile launch point very high indeed, 60-80,000ft @ Mach 1.5 or more, looking for a Mach 6-8 intercept in the 100-150,000ft range, probably as BPI, maybe even as API.
For ballistics, you hit to kill. For air breathers, depending on range, maybe you keep the tail attached and eject lethality enhancers.
It's almost as if NCADE and LREW had been merged. And it begins to explain the airspace allocation of the Eglin range space in testing JATM within an 'AMRAAM sized missile'. They are going //up// and then out. In a very long range parabola to either capture a ballistic intercept or to play Phoenix after a long midcourse and staging event to regain second-burn energy on the slide vs. an airbreather.
It's almost like someone wanted to have a little war in Ukraine. And here I've been wondering how we were going to provide frontal level missile defense to a GCE maneuver force...
I mention this in context with your post because those LDTP on the F-22 look an awful lot like Have Slick once did and if they wanted to make them into weapons pods, ala the Lockheed ALHTK attempt to stuff an ERINT into a 610 for DOHMA, you could get a lot longer boost stage and/or a rather more believable single stage, low altitude, capability by going big behind. Like an ESSM 2 with a large primary booster and a tapered interstage to the separating KKV.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,238
- Reaction score
- 13,335
If it's the same update picture I've seen with the stealth fuel tanks, the missile shown is definitely not chined. It's a pointed cylinder with tail fins.
F-22 MLU Article
New Official Art Reveals Advanced F-22 Capabilities, Possibly JATM | Air & Space Forces Magazine
An illustration of the F-22 offers a glimpse of new capabilities for the Raptor, including a possible first look at the AIM-260 JATM missile.
www.airforcemag.com
Bigger Image
NCADE
Have Dash II
Have Slick
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8126331738
ALHTK
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,964
- Reaction score
- 11,197
None of that matches this:
"If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a chined missile with a '+' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly tapered conical, not ogival, seeker or even _aerospike_."
The thing in the F-22 pic just looks like a generic rocket. One could almost be forgiven for thinking it was a GMLRS if it weren't being launched from an F-22.
"If you've seen the AFM F-22 update artwork, it looks like a chined missile with a '+' control configuration and a potentially separating KKV with ACM behind a similarly tapered conical, not ogival, seeker or even _aerospike_."
The thing in the F-22 pic just looks like a generic rocket. One could almost be forgiven for thinking it was a GMLRS if it weren't being launched from an F-22.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,143
- Reaction score
- 8,899
too much "it almost' "increasingly looking like"
NO, IT'S NOT. PLEASE DO NOT LITTER SPECIFIC THREADS WITH YOUR THEORIES MIXING HALF A DOZEN DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN ONE - LIKELY NOT RELATED AT ALL
THIS TOPIC IS ON HAVE DASH II MISSILE
NO, IT'S NOT. PLEASE DO NOT LITTER SPECIFIC THREADS WITH YOUR THEORIES MIXING HALF A DOZEN DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN ONE - LIKELY NOT RELATED AT ALL
THIS TOPIC IS ON HAVE DASH II MISSILE
I provided imagery. I am using the facts as the imagery supports. The imagery is official USAF concept artwork. It's their 'litter'.
To be honest, we operate in the dark on so much of this and the 'Secret Projects' title of your website is almost a tongue in cheek commentary on that truth.
Look at the fins on that missile. They are NOT indexed in an 'X' cruciform but a '+'. Why would you do that if it meant having to hinge at least two of the controls, to clear the fit inside the weapons bays?
You would do that if you were trying to use twist to steer rather than skid to steer to retain essential, directional, control authority in a missile which is lofting to height on a flat bottomed fuselage.
Why would you want to use a loft on a fighter sized target when an F-22, at Mach 1.5, already provides a 50% missile F-Pole range improvement and the parent air vehicle is flying so high, at launch, that the missile drag is already greatly reduced?
Lofting adds dozens of seconds of TOF as much as tens of nautical miles of downrange, and fighters do so many, deliberately random, things to complicate mid-course geometries on BVR shots, especially in the face of shooter:illuminator, global datalink and RFLO threats. 'Long straights, filled with lots of little hooks'.
Well, one reason is that new sensor technologies and specifically longwave IRST, are compromising single-spectrum stealth. Particularly if this problem is also being compounded by a realistic laser threat. Both of which are suggested reasons for the 'Chrome Raptor' and various other assets.
Are there other reasons for having this missile be a body lift system? Yes, extreme altitude capability is the baseline for anti-missile systems which natively try to drop mass as a function of dual staging a KKV.
Is there any visual indications of this? Yes. In addition to the control configuration, there is an apparent chine, running down the side of the missile which is NOT repeated on the upper side.
Thus cannot be presumed to be a longitudinal strake like on a MICA or ESSM.
There is a major transverse break on the fuselage, and it is not painted yellow or brown so it doesn't denote warhead location nor motor limits as lift points.
There is plethora of shapes on the forebody which are too large for fuse windows and there is an overly long and frankly deformed radome which would make sense for a missile which was so high-Mach that incorporated a dual taper tip, indicating a possible aerospike.
Are at least some of these unusual features present on the Have Dash II?
Yes.
Are they present on other missiles with similar or indeed different, roles?
Yes.
The early versions of the NCADE is an explicitly bistage weapon with an implied missile defense orientation, within a similar-to-AMRAAM missile envelope.
Most people scoffed at that, when they first saw it. Because who would think of using a 350lb X 12ft X 7" airframe for missile defense? Especially when Raptor Talon was centered around a HARM and then an ASAS (target/booster increment), so much larger?
Could this be proof of a major impulse improvement in long chain molecule propellant polymers? Could it be indicative of an improvement from D shaped missile motor volumes? Or even just an artifact of having aircraft quickly accelerating to Mach 1++ from an already high altitude before boosting their weapons, even higher, based on some 'unknown' sensor hand from a HALE or Satellite (SBIRS) warning?
What is explicitly wrong with these speculations? Are you telling me that, even with the larger image, you cannot see the features I mentioned?
Are you unaware of the suggested use of an alternative seeker on the JATM which includes IIR? Do you not recall what AAAM ended up looking like?
What if this-
Is NOT this-
But rather some crude carriage trial condition of an actual body lift missile?
It's not on a modified Phoenix Pallet. It's being tripleted under the wing glove. Which is not low drag and doesn't call for encapsulation. Not with all that tunnel effect.
Look at that map-
Look at the JATM test area. That's a big envelope for an AMRAAM equivalent carriage box, even if it is an 8" airframe.
Now look at this external carriage capability.
To me, that's not an IRST pod. Though I admit I don't know what it could be if it's not. Stand forward jammer? Is that an admission that F-22 LO is really super duper or no longer functional? A missile midcourse guidance capability ala AAAM?
With regard to the very idea of 'stealth and external carriage do not mix'. Apparently that is no longer the case now, is it? Look at the faceted tank and compare it to the Have Slick shape. Reset your clocks as well as your RCS bar-standard for how stealth works. And ask why, if multipath and cavity resonance is not an issue for jets with external, podded, carriage, all jets are not now 'weapons bayed' with several types of munitions within a single pod, on far fewer (not toed out) pylons?
Has anyone even bothered to try and scale that missile, for length relative to the airframe, and determine if it is, in fact, 12ft long and will fit inside the F-22 weapons bay? How does this compare to ALHTK as a concept?
You people are not following your own 'Secret Projects' moniker. You're not showing any ability for critical technical analysis. Awareness of the material on your own site. Or intuitive understanding that the Air Force _lies_ through partial truths as obfuscation. But what it means is that nothing here is opsec critical. Because they have already given the game away. We can discuss it as much as we like.
We should be helping each other decypher the enigmas of that shape.
Why would the AIM-260 need it's own secure storage facility, like a nuke, if it's just another rocket? The only thing which would possibly justify that, would be if it was truly something exotic, like a torsional slip-field propulsion or lift assist.
Otherwise, it's no more exposed (certainly on an internal carriage platform) than any other missile is. Because the guts-on-the-inside is what matters.
Why does this concept art-
Look like it does? I have given one possible explanation. I would like to hear from SMEs in the field, what their alternative version is. Am I on the wrong forum to ask that question?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,496
- Reaction score
- 4,140
You are definitely in the wrong thread.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,496
- Reaction score
- 4,140
If a moderator wants to transfer the post or delete it, that's their business. Their site, their rules. I would like an explanation, privately if need be, why a missile that looks like Have Dash cannot be brought up on a Have Dash related forum when the missile in the artwork is itself not even named as AIM-260.
I took the missile image right off the Have Slick page among multiple other photos of the same and similar missiles. The one shot of the drop test flight vehicle, suspended beneath an F-111 centerline is admittedly more dubious. But the concept is still there. This: \```/ is the Have Slick shape. It is also the LTDP shape. Why.
With LTDP, everything we know about stealth has just been challenged, AGAIN.
At one point, the Have Slick was scoffed at because it interrupted the stealthy lines of the jet and 'everyone knew' external carriage of stores, let alone pyloned stores would render signature reduction pointless. Except now we have an F-22 testbed with what looks like external jammer or IRST systems containers and tanks which look almost exactly like 1980s conformal carriage 'stealth' cruise missile shapes.
Why can't a similar era air to air missile be one the table when it too has the D shaped body format?
Stealth is not what we were told it is. It is not shape-shape-shape-materials. It is materials only. Or materials with a very minor modifier in edge diffraction alignments. Because the F-35 is a conventional airframe shape with bulges and discontinuities all over it. And wings that have more in common with an F-5E than an F-117 or A-12.
From that point, you have to start asking: Is the F-22 so dated/compromised in what -makes- it stealthy that it has been arbitrarily transfered to a missile defense or standoff HVA killer role? Or is modern stealth, whatever that chrome jet might now multi-spectral mean, so inherently about materials that 'beast mode' is a thing?
If we could get genuine determination of the scale of that missile to that airframe as specifically whether it came out of a weapons bay or from within that 'low observable tank', we could start to reorder what it truly means to be stealthy in the contemporary sense.
Maybe it's meta materials. Maybe it's active cancellation. But if it's able to significantly change the carriage mode of the fighter, that could comprehensively change the analyst communities' understanding of how airpower works. What are it's new limits. And that Have Dash like missile is the opening entry to having that conversation.
I took the missile image right off the Have Slick page among multiple other photos of the same and similar missiles. The one shot of the drop test flight vehicle, suspended beneath an F-111 centerline is admittedly more dubious. But the concept is still there. This: \```/ is the Have Slick shape. It is also the LTDP shape. Why.
With LTDP, everything we know about stealth has just been challenged, AGAIN.
At one point, the Have Slick was scoffed at because it interrupted the stealthy lines of the jet and 'everyone knew' external carriage of stores, let alone pyloned stores would render signature reduction pointless. Except now we have an F-22 testbed with what looks like external jammer or IRST systems containers and tanks which look almost exactly like 1980s conformal carriage 'stealth' cruise missile shapes.
Why can't a similar era air to air missile be one the table when it too has the D shaped body format?
Stealth is not what we were told it is. It is not shape-shape-shape-materials. It is materials only. Or materials with a very minor modifier in edge diffraction alignments. Because the F-35 is a conventional airframe shape with bulges and discontinuities all over it. And wings that have more in common with an F-5E than an F-117 or A-12.
From that point, you have to start asking: Is the F-22 so dated/compromised in what -makes- it stealthy that it has been arbitrarily transfered to a missile defense or standoff HVA killer role? Or is modern stealth, whatever that chrome jet might now multi-spectral mean, so inherently about materials that 'beast mode' is a thing?
If we could get genuine determination of the scale of that missile to that airframe as specifically whether it came out of a weapons bay or from within that 'low observable tank', we could start to reorder what it truly means to be stealthy in the contemporary sense.
Maybe it's meta materials. Maybe it's active cancellation. But if it's able to significantly change the carriage mode of the fighter, that could comprehensively change the analyst communities' understanding of how airpower works. What are it's new limits. And that Have Dash like missile is the opening entry to having that conversation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
In case you didn't figure it out yet, "LEG", the name of this website comes from the "Secret Projects" series of books published by Midland/Ian Allan about unbuilt projects and is not about Area 51 UFOs or whatever. The primary focus behind its creation was documenting real historic unbuilt projects and prototypes, not speculating on possible black programs. The purpose of this specific topic is to gather and post information on the actually existing Loral HAVE DASH II.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with your post, speculation is fine, but it belongs in a different topic. I will move it.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with your post, speculation is fine, but it belongs in a different topic. I will move it.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,099
- Reaction score
- 22,833
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,238
- Reaction score
- 13,335
Very true. One thing we should remember is that as of last year, the USAF felt the need to build separate magazines for AIM-260 because it is a SAP. And the justification for that request strongly suggests it is a sight-sensitive design. In which case, you can be very sure that the USAF's approved and released F-22 artwork shows nothing too much like the actual AIM-260.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,496
- Reaction score
- 4,140
There is also a historical precedent, as the Air Force did the same about 10 years ago for another (very long running) SAP. A new weapons storage area at Hill was built for it.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,496
- Reaction score
- 4,140
I do not see any resemblance between HAVE SLICK and the tanks or pods depicted in that artwork. Perhaps you can elaborate.
No, it has never been the case that anyone who understood the technology thought that external stores would render signature reduction pointless. In fact there were multiple efforts to create external stores that had little negative effect on the signature of aircraft, and some that had positive effects. Those designs were specific to the aircraft carrying the store.
I am not certain that HAVE SLICK was ever intended to affect the RCS of the carrying aircraft. Rather, like many other conformal stealthy weapons it was to reduce the negative aerodynamic effects. Stealthy shapes in the 1980s were often high drag. Carrying conformally and removing the need for a draggy pylon reduced the negative effects of the munition.
No, because physics.
RF signature reduction is primarily shaping, There is no way around that. You can always reflect away far more energy than you can ever possibly absorb. Applying shaping to reflect radar away was the major breakthrough in the 1970s that made -20dbsm signatures no longer state of the art. This is well documented. The underlying physics is well understood.
In yon elden days...
There was once a picture of an 'ATF assembly line' that showed what looks like a very compressed fighter fuselage sitting on a rotating cradle jig as part of an automated assembly line and it's all scifi wow compared to how the actual FACO lines at Marietta and Ft. Worth truly appear, which is to say more Ford and less Skynet.
There is another image of an 'ATF firing a missile' which repeats this basic design configuration, right down to the fixed canards, behind the cockpit, as it charges across a stormy sky, burners glowing.
Finally, there is an image of a jet sitting in front of a shelter with a preloaded rotary launcher as another 'ATF' taxis by, out of the HAS farm.
And the one thing you are left feeling is that this is a Tardis Engineering Exercise into which a lot of very small missiles are being jammed on an airframe no larger than a faceted Rafale.
Yet, if you pull the faux canards, the concept artwork is almost a perfect reproduction of the UPPER HALF of the F-22 fuselage. Minus the correct vertical tails and stabs and with some monkeying of the inlets.
When AvLeak published the first images of the ATF, almost half a year before rollout, they too were pretty close to what the actual CD prototypes looked like.
Don't pretend that the USAF doesn't have a joke at our expense while controlling for espionage leaks by showing something which is and isn't real.
Similar threads
-
Sidewinder AIM-9X Development - Have Thrust, Box Office, Boa, Top Hat- Started by GWrecks
- Replies: 50
-
Combined Arms Multipurpose Missile (CAMM)- Started by AN/AWW-14(V)
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Cancelled AGM-65 Maverick projects
- Started by AN/AWW-14(V)
- Replies: 18