SiAW (Stand-in Attack Weapon)

[Scott Kenny]

Air launch at subsonic speeds and ~50kft gives you +1100m/s delta vee. Kick that up to Mach 2 and you get +1600m/s or so.

Yes, the only real issue might be the way the fins currently fold for ground launch, the folding fins may need modifying to a double fold or a curved profile.

I thought the fins had a combined fold and wrap already?

Mass may also be an issue for the internal points.

That's definitely a concern, ATACMS is 3700lbs.

Worst case scenario, you may have to use a PrSM instead for internal fit.

While PrSM is 17" diameter instead of 24", I think it's still over 2500lbs.

 

[Forest Green]

Air launch at subsonic speeds and ~50kft gives you +1100m/s delta vee. Kick that up to Mach 2 and you get +1600m/s or so.

M2.0 is a little ambitious for an F-35, or an external carry, except maybe on an F-15EX but yes, dramatic things are possible as regards range with ALBMs.

I thought the fins had a combined fold and wrap already?

They do but the even folded they stick out a little bit and may exceed 25in wingspan, assuming that's the limit. This sort of curved folding fin design would solve that:

That's definitely a concern, ATACMS is 3700lbs.




While PrSM is 17" diameter instead of 24", I think it's still over 2500lbs.

Shouldn't be, Block 4 ATACMS is 1.34t (<3,000lbs).

 

[Scott Kenny]

M2.0 is a little ambitious for an F-35, or an external carry, except maybe on an F-15EX but yes, dramatic things are possible as regards range with ALBMs.

Right, but you get 2/3 of that boost just from being airborne and subsonic.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Wow, no wonder this argument is going nowhere. You've misunderstood the concept, and all the figures completely. Kinzhal goes 2,000km with a 480-500kg warhead. It's strongly based on a Iskander-M SRBM, which goes 500+km with a 700kg warhead. Air-launching missiles supersonic at altitude gets you way more range than a ground-launch from a TEL, simple physics, just as a rocket launched from an aircraft takes less fuel to put a payload in orbit.

I think you simply don't know why the Kinzhal's figures are so different from Iskander, despite being the same missile with an aerocone.

The "2,000 km" figure is somewhat misleading because Rostec/KTRV likes to include the combat strike radius of the MiG-31 in that figure, which is true albeit counter-intuitive, because the MiG-31 laden with a Kinzhal has a ~1,500 km strike radius on a hi-hi-hi mission at a subsonic cruise speed.

This belies the purpose of an air-launched ballistic missile: to rapidly position an otherwise ordinary surface launched ballistic missile where it needs to fire. A land-based battery of Iskanders might take several hours to move 200 kilometers south to strike a target 500 kilometers behind Ukrainian lines, while a MiG-31 can do it in about 20 minutes or so. This makes it useful for time critical targets.

Deriving the Kinzhal Missile’s Actual Range and Speed: An Aerospace Engineering Analysis

An Open-Source Aerospace Engineering Analysis of the Kh47M2 Kinzhal Missile System indicates the missile’s public information is misleading…

medium.com

The Tu-22M3 adds an additional 1,000 km to the "range" of the Kinzhal solely by having bigger fuel tanks than the MiG-31 and carries two. Which is to say, once we account for the differences in combat radius, the Kinzhal has the same "strike range" as the Iskander. An air-launched ATACMS would have little real range differences between a surface launched one too, but it is compromised because it had to fit inside a M269 LLM, while Iskander/Kinzhal had to fit inside the 9P71.

In other words, it would be similar to Kinzhal, but you can claim "1,000 km range" by combining JSF's ~700 km with ATACMS' ~300 km.

 

[Forest Green]

Right, but you get 2/3 of that boost just from being airborne and subsonic.

Yes, because KE and drag increase with the square of velocity. The main advantage of being airborne is the lower density at altitude, which massively reduces drag and the work done against it by the rocket and the PE. The extra speed between M1.0 and M2.0 will not mean anything to a rocket accelerating from M10-M11 (factor of 7 difference in drag difference betwen M10 and M11 vs M1 and M2), and the rocket also moves a much greater distance against that drag because it's going faster. Extra altitude is good because you can see that the first 10km reduces density by a factor of ~5 and so does the next 10km and the next, plus the gain in PE that a ground launched rocket would have to do itself. In fact the main benefit in extra speed would be reaching those higher altitudes. The range of a SRAM launched from an SR-71 was supposed to be something ridiculous, "SR-71 Origins and Evolution" quoted 500nm for a launch from an SR-71Bx at 90kft.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I always have this thought .... I know that "stand-off" means from a far distance away ...

But what does "stand-in" here means in SiAW context?

"Stand-in" just means it's fired from within range of either SAMs or DCA tasked fighters, but out of range of Bde and below SAMs like Roland.

 

[Forest Green]

I think you simply don't know why the Kinzhal's figures are so different from Iskander, despite being the same missile with an aerocone.

The "2,000 km" figure is somewhat misleading because Rostec/KTRV likes to include the combat strike radius of the MiG-31 in that figure, which is true albeit counter-intuitive, because the MiG-31 laden with a Kinzhal has a ~1,500 km strike radius on a hi-hi-hi mission at a subsonic cruise speed.

I think we need some Russians in here to comment on this, because it's not the widely held conception about the Kinzhal's range and frankly makes no sense at all. An Iskander-M does 500+km with a 700kg warhead from a ground-based TEL, and you're seriously telling me that a missile of the same size with a 480kg warhead and an independent RV launched at ~60kft from a MiG-31 at Mach 1.5+ still only has a range of 500km despite having a much higher speed of Mach 10 vs Mach 6?

https://cenjows.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Russian-Hypersonic-Weapons.pdf

Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile, Russia

The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile is a part of the hypersonic weapons developed by Russia.

www.airforce-technology.com

Kh-47M2 Kinzhal | Missile Threat

The Kinzhal is a air-launched ballistic missile, likely derived from the ground-launched Iskander-M. It is one of Russia's six “next generation” weapons.

missilethreat.csis.org

This belies the purpose of an air-launched ballistic missile: to rapidly position an otherwise ordinary surface launched ballistic missile where it needs to fire. A land-based battery of Iskanders might take several hours to move 200 kilometers south to strike a target 500 kilometers behind Ukrainian lines, while a MiG-31 can do it in about 20 minutes or so. This makes it useful for time critical targets.

Deriving the Kinzhal Missile’s Actual Range and Speed: An Aerospace Engineering Analysis

An Open-Source Aerospace Engineering Analysis of the Kh47M2 Kinzhal Missile System indicates the missile’s public information is misleading…

medium.com

Yeah, it's nonsense. The range of Kinzhal is a lot more than 500km ask @paralay and co.

The Tu-22M3 adds an additional 1,000 km to the "range" of the Kinzhal solely by having bigger fuel tanks than the MiG-31 and carries two. Which is to say, once we account for the differences in combat radius, the Kinzhal has the same "strike range" as the Iskander. An air-launched ATACMS would have little real range differences between a surface launched one too, but it is compromised because it had to fit inside a M269 LLM, while Iskander/Kinzhal had to fit inside the 9P71.

In other words, it would be similar to Kinzhal, but you can claim "1,000 km range" by combining JSF's ~700 km with ATACMS' ~300 km.

Yeah.... so what's Stratolaunch, Starliner and Pegasus XL all about again? And how come an SL-AMRAAM launched from a truck has a range of only about 30-40km vs 120-160km when launched from a aircraft?

 

[paralay]

paralay said:
Using the Sputnik program, calculate the speed and flight range of a hypothetical rocket depending on the launch conditions.

Initial data:
Starting mass 3800 kg, fuel mass 2300 kg, mass after fuel production 1500 kg
The thrust of the engine at the ground is 100 kN, in vacuum 120 kN
The specific impulse at the earth is 2551 m/s, in vacuum 2700 m/ s
The diameter of the rocket is 0.72 m

Start conditions: height 0 m, speed 0 m/s, pitch 54 degrees
Active section 0 – 55.2 sec, speed at the end of the active section 1783 m/s, 6419 km/h, M=6
Flight time 350 seconds / 5.83 minutes, speed at the time of arrival 1247 m / s, 4493 km / h, M=3.67
Trajectory length 462 km, flight range 383 km, maximum flight altitude 113 km at 192 seconds

MiG-31I
Start conditions: altitude 15,000 m, speed 650 m/s, 2340 km/h, M =2.2, pitch 44 degrees
Active section 0 – 52 sec, speed at the end of the active section 2785 m/s, 10026 km/h, M=9.44
Flight time 483 seconds / 8.05 minutes, speed at the time of arrival 1815 m / s, 6534 km / h, M = 5.34
Trajectory length 1121 km, flight range 980 km, maximum flight altitude 229 km at 249 seconds

The range of the carrier without external tanks is 1178 km, the complex is 1178 km + 980 km = 2158 km (no more)
The range of the carrier with external tanks is 1568 km, the complex is 1568 km + 980 km = 2548 km (no more)

Su-34M
Start conditions: altitude 10000 m, speed 265.5 m/s, 956 km/h, M=0.9, pitch 48 degrees
Active section 0 – 52 sec, speed at the end of the active section 2332 m/s, 8395 km/h, M=7.9
Flight time 423 seconds / 7.05 minutes, speed at the time of arrival 1579 m/s, 5684 km/h, M=4.64
The trajectory length is 793 km, the flight range is 683 km, the maximum flight altitude is 175 km at 222 seconds

The range of the carrier without external tanks is 1178 km, the complex is 1354 km + 683 km = 2037 km (no more)
The range of the carrier with external tanks is 1615 km, the complex is 1615 km + 683 km = 2298 km (no more)

 

[Training_Dummy]

The AL-ATACMS launched outside enemy air space would still work when the latter happens, the deep penetration strikes will not. But hey, you still have the AARGM-ER, which seems to nearly fill the SiAW role anyway, so why spend money developing a clean sheet missile that does nearly the same thing, when you have an exsiting design that with some mild-mos and some kind of double-hinged, or spiral folding fins might even fit internally anyway and gives way more range and stand-off capability at the same price point?

I think there have been hints about a common manufacturing platform for AARGM-ER and SiAW that appeared compelling - there’s a Twitter link higher in this thread.

still the idea of AL-ATACMS is appealing insofar that ATACMS that were destined to be replaced by PrSM over the coming years find a new mission, that gives the US a capability . Ideally, given the lessons learned in Ukraine, production of both would be continued, especially if AL conversion kits were reasonable and practical.

 

[TomS]

I think there have been hints about a common manufacturing platform for AARGM-ER and SiAW that appeared compelling - there’s a Twitter link higher in this thread.

still the idea of AL-ATACMS is appealing insofar that ATACMS that were destined to be replaced by PrSM over the coming years find a new mission, that gives the US a capability . Ideally, given the lessons learned in Ukraine, production of both would be continued, especially if AL conversion kits were reasonable and practical.

ATACMS production ended years ago (I think c 2007). At this point, basing an air-launched missile off of PrSM makes far more sense.

 

[Forest Green]

ATACMS production ended years ago (I think c 2007). At this point, basing an air-launched missile off of PrSM makes far more sense.

Possibly, even using a 500lb warhead, you probably still get 600+km from an air launch.

 

[Forest Green]

@paralay What range does the Sputnik calculator given for an Iskander-M from the ground with a 700kg warhead then (assume 220kg less fuel)?

The package used for AL-ATACMS was this one, here's what it gives for Iskander-M and Kinzhal:

Few Ballistic Missile Analysis w/ Aerospace-SIM - Part. 3 - Iskander-M & Kh-47M Kinzhal

[See Previous Contents] Aerodynamics Series There is a previous result for Iskander-M and Kh-47M in my blog ( https://jaesan-aero.blogsp...

jaesan-aero.blogspot.com

 

[Josh_TN]

No one is weaponizing the Army missiles. Whatever NG came up with, likely using the same rocket motor of AGM-88G, is going to fulfill the role. Again, cost of development, cost per round, and rate of production probably drive these decisions far more than capability. The PrSM line is going to be busy filling army needs and as far as I know ATACMs missiles are merely being regrained to ensure their motors work, not put back into production.

 

[NMaude]

The range of a SRAM launched from an SR-71 was supposed to be something ridiculous, "SR-71 Origins and Evolution" quoted 500nm for a launch from an SR-71Bx at 90kft.

I think I have that book lying around and I remember reading about the proposed B-12 strike bomber (Which IIRC only got as far as engineering mockup stage before being cancelled by that arsehole McNamara) which would've carried either three of four AGM-69 SRAMs with a massive range.

 

[sferrin]

ATACMS production ended years ago (I think c 2007). At this point, basing an air-launched missile off of PrSM makes far more sense.

Doesn't have much of a warhead though. Seems to have given up a lot to get that range in a small package.

 

[sferrin]

I think I have that book lying around and I remember reading about the proposed B-12 strike bomber (Which IIRC only got as far as engineering mockup stage before being cancelled by that arsehole McNamara) which would've carried either three of four AGM-69 SRAMs with a massive range.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-a-12-and-sr-71-projects.3780/page-3#post-312542

 

[Josh_TN]

Doesn't have much of a warhead though. Seems to have given up a lot to get that range in a small package.

Yes, I think only 200 lbs, which is almost HIMARS is size. But I think the goal was engaging soft point targets, so that was considered acceptable given superior range and double the firing load. Also I think it is a particularly sophisticated unitary warhead that is 3D printed, so it probably has an absolutely optimal fragmentation pattern. It’s basically a collection of layers of fragments in different sizes and shapes to produce a near perfect distribution, printed with just enough connections to make a single case that can be loaded with explosives.

 

[Ronny]

I think best candidate for SIAW probably just an air launched PRSM

 

[Josh_TN]

I think best candidate for SIAW probably just an air launched PRSM

SiAW is an NG product, likely based an AGM-88G which is also an NG product. Full stop.

 

[Ronny]

SiAW is an NG product, likely based an AGM-88G which is also an NG product. Full stop.

yes, I was talking about from performance stand point

 

[paralay]

@paralay What range does the Sputnik calculator given for an Iskander-M from the ground with a 700kg warhead then (assume 220kg less fuel)?

Unfortunately, I am not very well versed in the settings of the Sputnik program. Yesterday it was not possible to make adjustments in terms of fuel weight and warhead. It can be assumed that with a decrease in fuel mass by 14%, the flight range will change as well

I understood how to calculate, the starting mass of 3800 kg is known, it is necessary to change the mass after generating 1800 kg of fuel, the mass of fuel is 2000 kg. The flight range is 227 km instead of 382 km, that is, 40 less%

 

[Forest Green]

Yes, I think only 200 lbs, which is almost HIMARS is size. But I think the goal was engaging soft point targets, so that was considered acceptable given superior range and double the firing load. Also I think it is a particularly sophisticated unitary warhead that is 3D printed, so it probably has an absolutely optimal fragmentation pattern. It’s basically a collection of layers of fragments in different sizes and shapes to produce a near perfect distribution, printed with just enough connections to make a single case that can be loaded with explosives.

It's exactly HIMARS size, but if you air launch it, it will probably get 700-900km even with a 227kg warhead or 300xM74 bomblets weighing 174kg total.

 

[Forest Green]

Unfortunately, I am not very well versed in the settings of the Sputnik program. Yesterday it was not possible to make adjustments in terms of fuel weight and warhead. It can be assumed that with a decrease in fuel mass by 14%, the flight range will change as well

I understood how to calculate, the starting mass of 3800 kg is known, it is necessary to change the mass after generating 1800 kg of fuel, the mass of fuel is 2000 kg. The flight range is 227 km instead of 382 km, that is, 40 less%

Kinzhal mass seems to be stated at 4,300kg and a Google search gives Iskander-M at 4,615kg. However, I've seen 3,800kg, 4,020kg and 4,615kg. There may be some conflation with the -E variant with less fuel. Kinzhal should be lighter than Iskander-M due to reduced warhead weight. 3,800kg might be missile weight minus warhead.

Russia deploys Iskander-M Missile Systems in Newly Formed Kaliningrad

google_ad_client = "pub-4068738923530102"; /* 468x15 data sheet menu top dark green */ google_ad_slot = "3500417247"; google_ad_width = 468; go

armyrecognition.com

The Russian Iskander-M travels at a hypersonic speed of 2100–2600 m/s (Mach 6–7) and reaches an altitude of 50 km. With a weight of 4,615 kg, it carries a warhead weighing between 710–800 kg, boasting a range of 500 km.

SiAW is an NG product, likely based an AGM-88G which is also an NG product. Full stop.

For now, but that's not the final version according to sources.

 

[paralay]

If the missile has become heavier, then its dimensions should change in the direction of increase. I haven't seen that yet.

 

[kqcke for you]

How about AIR Lora as alternative to AL-ALTACMS
https://www.iai.co.il/p/air-lora

 

[Forest Green]

How about AIR Lora as alternative to AL-ALTACMS
https://www.iai.co.il/p/air-lora

That's certainly not going to fit the inetrnal bays of an F-35 and weighs 1,600kg but still good for stand-off. A M1.5 launch at 40kft should give around 950km, maybe 1000km at 50kft. Blue Sparrow or Silver Sparrow might not make a bad stand-off weapon for an F-15EX either.

 

[NMaude]

How about AIR Lora as alternative to AL-ALTACMS
https://www.iai.co.il/p/air-lora

The LORA looks a bit like the bastard offspring of an ATACMS and a AS-24 Killjoy.

 

[kqcke for you]

That's certainly not going to fit the inetrnal bays of an F-35 and weighs 1,600kg but still good for stand-off. A M1.5 launch at 40kft should give around 950km, maybe 1000km at 50kft. Blue Sparrow or Silver Sparrow might not make a bad stand-off weapon for an F-15EX either.

If it doesn‘t fit make it fit

 

[sferrin]

View topic - Israeli Air Force gets LORA • F-16.net

Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130.

www.f-16.net

 

[Forest Green]

View topic - Israeli Air Force gets LORA • F-16.net

Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130.

www.f-16.net

View attachment 731091

I remember my username for that site but I've forgotten my password and the e-mail address I used. I have a feeling the e-mail may have been the one that expired.

Ha, remember it.

 

[Forest Green]

Posting for posterity since there isn't another thread for this:

• Lockheed designed the Mako for the Stand-in Attack Weapon competition, but they lost the competition to Northrop Grumman
• The missile is hypersonic and can be carried internally in an F-35
• According to Lockheed Martin, in reporting by Sandboxx News, “Mako does not travel in a pure arcing ballistic flight path. It is a true hypersonic weapon that operates and maneuvers in a high-altitude hypersonic regime”

The Lowdown On Lockheed’s Newly Revealed Mako Hypersonic Missile

Mako is an interesting weapon with compelling features, and may offer clues as to the capabilities of a similar weapon the USAF is procuring.

www.twz.com

Mako: Arming the F-35 with hypersonic missiles

Lockheed Martin's hypersonic MAKO missile is the first in the world designed to be carried inside stealth fighters like the F-35.

www.sandboxx.us

https://twitter.com/x/status/1799506443374149731

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1799506443374149731

 

[Forest Green]

Army's New PrSM Ballistic Missile Should Be Adapted Into An Air Launched Weapon

Precision Strike Missiles offer a path to a US air-launched ballistic missile, a weapon increasingly fielded abroad and missing from America's arsenal.

www.twz.com

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1815713467313045698

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1815713467313045698

 

[Josh_TN]

No one is buying it.

 

[NMaude]

Army's New PrSM Ballistic Missile Should Be Adapted Into An Air Launched Weapon

Precision Strike Missiles offer a path to a US air-launched ballistic missile, a weapon increasingly fielded abroad and missing from America's arsenal.

www.twz.com

That would be good if an air-launched variant was created, by the way does the PrSM have a DoD tri-services designation yet?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1815713467313045698

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1815713467313045698

It would be interesting if a surface-launched version was developed (Maybe with the Harpoon's A/B44G-2 or -3 launch-booster).

No one is buying it.

Not yet.

 

[aonestudio]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNfwNsa55ys

Mako, A Hypersonic Missile That’s More Than Ready

Hypersonic missiles take time to develop. Especially those compact enough to stow in the internal bay of stealth aircraft for close-up launches—and innovative enough to maneuver in the hypersonic regime.

www.lockheedmartin.com

 

[bring_it_on]

No one is buying it.

Not yet. Still, LM keeps pursuing it and is putting it out there which is usually not the case once you don't advanced beyond a certain stage of a program (like they did with USAF SiAW). I suspect that there may be other missions for which this may be a potential solution especially considering the platforms they did external checks on. If HALO goes to Raytheon or is cancelled owing to technical risk, cost or other factors, an anti-ship optimized MAKO could be LM's option for a fast anti-ship missile. At 1300 lbs it would be very suitable for carrier aircraft. We should probably be pursuing it regardless of HALO/HACM especially since ARRW seems to be dead so we have nothing out there outside of the less mature air breathing scramjet programs.

 

[kqcke for you]

Not yet. Still, LM keeps pursuing it and is putting it out there which is usually not the case once you don't advanced beyond a certain stage of a program (like they did with USAF SiAW). I suspect that there may be other missions for which this may be a potential solution especially considering the platforms they did external checks on. If HALO goes to Raytheon or is cancelled owing to technical risk, cost or other factors, an anti-ship optimized MAKO could be LM's option for a fast anti-ship missile. At 1300 lbs it would be very suitable for carrier aircraft. We should probably be pursuing it regardless of HALO/HACM especially since ARRW seems to be dead so we have nothing out there outside of the less mature air breathing scramjet programs.

Honestly for those who can afford it they should buy it. Atleast for the F-35 User it could give some good stand Off capabilitys with high speed until SiAW (and AARGM-ER but im not sure about it) is ready for Export

 

[bring_it_on]

AARGM-ER is already cleared for export and has foreign approvals. SiAW is a USAF effort based on it (for now). MAKO would still need development so its not like LM can just sell a developed capability. Someone in the US or elsewhere would have to pay to develop it.

 

[kqcke for you]

AARGM-ER is already cleared for export and has foreign approvals. SiAW is a USAF effort based on it (for now). MAKO would still need development so its not like LM can just sell a developed capability. Someone in the US or elsewhere would have to pay to develop it.

Its a developed system but we need to get it into production.