What do you do when your crappy aircraft has serious problems?
You try more blue-sky marketing in hopes that the audience (like visitors to an AFA conference) might be gullible enough go those extra yards with more faith.
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The 'CUDA' concept being floated by LM is actually not a bad half-baked AAM proposal being highlighted for the F-35.
Let's face it, the F-35 will absolutely need a high-performance 360 degree WVR dogfight missile launched from the internal bay.
You can't just slap 2-4x AIM-9x or ASRAAM under the wing of the F-35 and head into a possible air engagement when you are depending on maximal LO for your survival (as an offset to your lack of competitive flight performance envelope). That defeats the whole purpose of going into a potential air engagement in stealth mode and then simply zapping your opponents without the need for symmetrical flight kinematics and agility.
So yes, the F-35 will absolutely require a superior enxtend-range HOBS dogfight missile, as is popularly envisioned and marketed in some of the videos depicting the F-35 ability to dogfight in future scenarios.
And lastly, the F-35 will also require more internal rounds carriage capacity, no doubt. With far fewer than currently assumed and expected F-35s to actually be acquired and operated in the future, each ship will further depend on maxed out capacity to shoot as an offset.
With respect to the F-22, it's possible that Raptor pilots are rather assessing the requirement to engage farther out, with a higher pK round (eg, with a mixed-seker (or dual-seeker) BVR missile loadout and a round with potentially even greater NEZ and better agility at terminal stage). In that case a Stunner type munition, or air launched ESSM variant might be worthy to evaluate...something which could enable the F-22 to engage with more confidence where it fights best: high, fast and at out of touch by an opponent wishing to return a shot. Additionally, perhaps 2x CUDA could squeeze into each of the F-22's current AIM-9x bay?
That is quite funny. A classic 101 on how to turn a turd into a polished one. Strangely there will be people getting impressed. Either by ignorance or stupidity.
Maybe they should concentrate on getting the MBDA Meteor to fit instead of developing another "clean sheet" designed system.
How's that propriety engine, helmet mounted display, stealth coating, and "fueldraulic" system working out so far, Lockheed?
That bad huh? Ever think of using existing "off the shelf parts that actually work? No? I guess when your contract is based on "cost plus profit" it's better to get the costs up as high as you can.
LockMart's business model resembles that of Sony a few years ago, with its proprietary Memory Sticks, MiniDiscs, and speaker wires forcing you to buy Sony's overpriced accessories to go with its overpriced electronic gadgets.
Well, in case you didn't see it, even a recent Time Magazine article here was highly critical of the F-35. As a virtually official Pravda-like booster of Obama and his policies, this could be an opening signal that the F-35 is going to be cancelled.
Sometimes, I get this eerie feeling that Obama keeps the F-35 going only as a black whole into which to pour U.S. defense dollars for which we get zero capability in return, keeping the U.S. weak. Does that sound plausible to you? Do I give too much credit to Obama's devious ways?
Like you, I wouldn't cry at all if the F-35 were cancelled. I worry though, that knowing Obama, he wouldn't do nearly enough to recapitalize U.S. tactical fighter fleets, and just let them whither on the vine.
I heard recently, as you no doubt did, that even your fair land is having doubts at an official level. I have no doubt whatever that the post you made a while back describing your own hypothetical order for Super Hornets for Canada is going to become reality, to a tee. Heck, your Defense Minister could probably just save himself a lot of work, look up your post, make the order, and take a nice vacation.
Here, in lieu of the F-35, what we'd need to do is replace older F-16s with late model F-16V-class jets, buy more Super Hornets for the Navy (their very wise hedge, in hindsight, despite its weaknesses), and make the USMC also buy Super Hornets, which are actually perfect for their mission.
We have the institutional problem of the USMC being obsessed with VSTOL, even though this has never been proven objectively useful in actual combat, and even though the Harrier has been a maintenance/peacetime safety disaster for the Corps. The legacy Hornet - which the USMC originally resisted with about as much fury as they resist the SH today - has turned out to be their most reliable and effective platform.
With the money saved by ditching the F-35, we could also probably buy that Silent Eagle variant of the Strike Eagle. Israel wants those as well, but of course, Obama has said no. He likes the F-35 for Israel because they are so far away from being delivered, he can hold that over their heads as a method of blackmail for a nice long while. Perhaps that is the only reason Obama is keeping the F-35 going after all; everything he does in foreign and defense policy seems to revolve around screwing Israel and forcing them to capitulate to the thugs of the PA. The F-35 is a very useful tool for him that way.
Just watch: If Israel gets fed up with the problems and delays of the F-35 to the point where they beat Obama to the punch and cancel their order in favor of something else (Typhoon via Italy? Souped-up Flanker via India or China? Israelized Chengdu J-10? Who knows?), THEN Obama will cancel the F-35, which will, per him, outlived its usefulness as a coercive tool against the Evil Zionists.
Sidenote: You may wonder why a military aerospace establishment as otherwise as demonstrably smart and accomplished as Israel's would maintain interest in this loser, the F-35, to the point where they express interest in nothing else, at least not officially. And the answer to this is for now, they have no choice, politically speaking. Like I said, they tried to get the more readily available and more cost-effective F-15SE, but could not. Obama won't sell them ANY tactical fighters or even attack helicopters at all, save for the useless F-35. Israel just hasn't been able to line up any alternatives yet, but you can rest assured that behind the scenes, they are trying...
I don't quite follow your criticism. CUDA is a great AAM for any aircraft but is particularly useful on aircraft that have internal carriage. It shares commonality with Lockheed's PAC-3 MSE and if you'll forgive the "appeal to bandwagon" I haven't really seen anyone who has been anything other than enthusiastic about it.
I'd love to see CUDA along with an internally carried variant of Rafael/Raytheon's Stunner ("David's Sling") AAM.
It is all about program management competence. Note that the USAF takes 10 years to field a turbo-prop CAS aircraft, and, other silliness. I know, lets add Lockheed Martin to that equation. The LCS and F-35 are such great successes. F-22 while a great idea, is riddled with serious airframe-life issues. Any new air-to-air missile should require competition and a open requirement from the services. Given things like AMRAAM motor QC problems, we should open this to foreign vendors too. Letting LM drive this conversation is rather funny--in a sick way. What block? 6? If the program lives that long? How will the missile be cued? Gee fortunately F-35 mission systems and weapons cueing is robust. This is just more blue-sky marketing by you-know-who. And, the F-35 will never become an air dominance fighter based alone on performance.
No, the CUDA is NOT a great AAM for any aircraft! The semantics need to be changed. It's an unproven concept future missile being floated by LM currently and hasn't even begun the long, expensive and uncertain development process.
It's ok, since this is a common mistake made in discussions when advocating for one's favored system, etc, so it simply needs to be rephrased; for example: "the F-35 could hypothetically become a capable, operational fighter one day in the future as part of an over-all mix, if it every achieves maturity and can actually be sold at an affordable price, etc"...or, "the CUDA missile could hypothetically become a capable and worthy AAM in the future, if it actually reaches the development stage, is actually affordable and can in fact achieve it's capability specs being advertised in the future."
See?
And also... take note that the hypothetical, proposed CUDA AAM does NOT share commonality with PAC-3 SME! the PAC-3 SME is a massive missile body with a very large (thick) Boeing made terminal MMW seeker head! Whereas the conceptual CUDA a miniaturized missile body less than 6' long and possibly not even a full 7" diameter and is most recently being postulated as a dual-seeker missile, including a MMW seeker (raising the bar on complexity, risk and cost). So, that and the proposed capability for 'hit-to-kill' suggests similarity, not commonality.
It's a radically proposed, albeit innovative, clean-sheet concept missile which could some day indeed be arming follow-on block IV F-35s.
"It's an unproven concept future missile being floated by LM currently and hasn't even begun the long, expensive and uncertain development process."
Most of the key enabling technologies in CUDA have been flight proven and in some cases used operationally including the solid-fueled DAC thrusters (PAC-3, PAC-3 MSE), the multi-mode seeker, the guidance and control algorithms (Hit-to-Kill) and the rocket motor (from JAGM or NCADE).
Naturally, as with most engineering, integration will be challenging but there are no real show stoppers.
"It's ok, since this is a common mistake made in discussions when advocating for one's favored system"
I'm not a huge fan of the F-35 (the F-15SE seems like a better fit for most applications if only Boeing had offered it like 10 years ago) but I recognize a good AAM design when I see one especially one that has good economies of scale behind it.
"recently being postulated as a dual-seeker missile, including a MMW seeker (raising the bar on complexity, risk and cost)"
I think LM and other primes have a good handle on multi-mode seekers in general and MMW seekers in particular. One challenge may be the need for a conformal
"It's a radically proposed, albeit innovative, clean-sheet concept missile which could some day indeed be arming follow-on block IV F-35s"
I'd say that Raytheon/Rafael's Stunner meets the above definition far more than CUDA.
You'd argue that integrating an already operational Stunner missile into an air-launched configuration would be more radical and more 'clean-sheet-defined' than developing from scratch and creating an operational 5'11" long , possibly 6-6.5" dia. multi-mode seeking AAM, with complex motor and thrusting?
Interesting.
You can argue that, sure, but it's actually not as easy as simply saying you want to scale down a Boeing-made mmW seeker found on the PAC-3 and install it (form and function-fit) on CUDA and call it a day for your concept missile.
Let's face it, how truly easy were the well-intended NCADE and JDRADM systems to develop?
No, it's not so easy, despite marketing a sound-good-on-paper design and arguing the intended technology to be incorporated is 'common', and thus low-risk to develop.
That said, one problem some might have with an emerging 'CUDA' camp fan club (saving the day for the vulnerable F-35 once caught in a WVR HOBS dogfight), is that the apparent profile of such supporters typically tend to actually discount and balk at a suggestion of an evolved capability upgrade possibly being advantageous, via a viable bridging capability, such as w/ an IIR-tipped AIM-120, Stunner, or development even more innovative and capable, eg an hypothetical air-launched ESSM variant?
Regardless, CUDA, as postulated, is a radical, highly complex, far-off concept missile being floated by LM, which would apparently attempt to utilize certain 'similar' designs and methods of existing missiles.
Thus, if it's such a promising and 'common' missile simply employing off-the-shelf technologies, then LM should absolutely go ahead and start funding it in-house and seek partners for accelerated joint-development already. Lead and customers will follow.
If they do start this soon, and can pull it off...it could indeed be a viable and functional weapon system by the time block IV F-35 rolls around.
Stunner isn't operational; I believe it just had its first publicly disclosed test launch in November.
There are a variety of MMW seekers that LM and others have used on operational and flight tested platforms. The same applies to the DACS, motor and FCS. Both Raytheon and LM have indicated that HTK is well enough understood to the point that they both favor it for CUDA and NCADE.
I have no objection to a multi-mode AMRAAM or an air-launched ESSM variant. However, such variants are likely to be heavy and expensive though we'll have to see in the case of the forthcoming ARH version of ESSM.
Neither satisfy the oft repeated pilot desire for more missiles.
Given the budget situation, self-funding of concepts seems to be the wave of the future (the Sikorsky S-97 comes to mind).
No doubt CUDA will pose its own unique integration and development challenges but it's no GD/Westinghouse AIM-152.
Thanks for the follow up and I concede that it was only Stunner's first successful 'test' intercept was conducted last Nov, and not yet an operational system -- perhaps to occur later this year.
The confusion with your previous post however, and on which was merely seeking clarification, was that you were seeming to claim that CUDA would take less time to develop than AL-Stunner and would be further along to achieving an air-launched operational status, than an air-launched Stunner variant?
If that misconception was in fact being made vis-a-vis CUDA being further along as being a capable, operational missile, it should be clarified that an air-launched, 'HTK', multi-pulse-powered Stunner would of course be much further along in ability to achieve likely operational readiness (and with far less risk than a clean-sheet, mock-up CUDA design), if a decision was given to develop either of the two. That's all I was saying.
That being said, CUDA, if ever developed, could in fact one day be an effective weapon system capability for any platform employing it, be it existing legacy fighters, new 4.5+ gen, P-8(?), unmanned vehicles, F-22 (2x ea. per side-bay?) or yes, even an eventual, notional block IV F-35 as probably being the first block to clear it.
In the meanwhile, an air-launched Stunner might be a worthy and viable 'bridging' next-gen AAM capability (perhaps fitting in the F-22's side-bay?) and at least something to fall back on if an hypothetical CUDA development was ever canceled or deemed too complex to develop -- perhaps ahead of it's time??
12 comments:
The 'CUDA' concept being floated by LM is actually not a bad half-baked AAM proposal being highlighted for the F-35.
Let's face it, the F-35 will absolutely need a high-performance 360 degree WVR dogfight missile launched from the internal bay.
You can't just slap 2-4x AIM-9x or ASRAAM under the wing of the F-35 and head into a possible air engagement when you are depending on maximal LO for your survival (as an offset to your lack of competitive flight performance envelope). That defeats the whole purpose of going into a potential air engagement in stealth mode and then simply zapping your opponents without the need for symmetrical flight kinematics and agility.
So yes, the F-35 will absolutely require a superior enxtend-range HOBS dogfight missile, as is popularly envisioned and marketed in some of the videos depicting the F-35 ability to dogfight in future scenarios.
And lastly, the F-35 will also require more internal rounds carriage capacity, no doubt. With far fewer than currently assumed and expected F-35s to actually be acquired and operated in the future, each ship will further depend on maxed out capacity to shoot as an offset.
With respect to the F-22, it's possible that Raptor pilots are rather assessing the requirement to engage farther out, with a higher pK round (eg, with a mixed-seker (or dual-seeker) BVR missile loadout and a round with potentially even greater NEZ and better agility at terminal stage). In that case a Stunner type munition, or air launched ESSM variant might be worthy to evaluate...something which could enable the F-22 to engage with more confidence where it fights best: high, fast and at out of touch by an opponent wishing to return a shot. Additionally, perhaps 2x CUDA could squeeze into each of the F-22's current AIM-9x bay?
That is quite funny.
A classic 101 on how to turn a turd into a polished one.
Strangely there will be people getting impressed. Either by ignorance or stupidity.
Maybe they should concentrate on getting the MBDA Meteor to fit instead of developing another "clean sheet" designed system.
How's that propriety engine, helmet mounted display, stealth coating, and "fueldraulic" system working out so far, Lockheed?
That bad huh? Ever think of using existing "off the shelf parts that actually work? No? I guess when your contract is based on "cost plus profit" it's better to get the costs up as high as you can.
LockMart's business model resembles that of Sony a few years ago, with its proprietary Memory Sticks, MiniDiscs, and speaker wires forcing you to buy Sony's overpriced accessories to go with its overpriced electronic gadgets.
Well, in case you didn't see it, even a recent Time Magazine article here was highly critical of the F-35. As a virtually official Pravda-like booster of Obama and his policies, this could be an opening signal that the F-35 is going to be cancelled.
Sometimes, I get this eerie feeling that Obama keeps the F-35 going only as a black whole into which to pour U.S. defense dollars for which we get zero capability in return, keeping the U.S. weak. Does that sound plausible to you? Do I give too much credit to Obama's devious ways?
Like you, I wouldn't cry at all if the F-35 were cancelled. I worry though, that knowing Obama, he wouldn't do nearly enough to recapitalize U.S. tactical fighter fleets, and just let them whither on the vine.
I heard recently, as you no doubt did, that even your fair land is having doubts at an official level. I have no doubt whatever that the post you made a while back describing your own hypothetical order for Super Hornets for Canada is going to become reality, to a tee. Heck, your Defense Minister could probably just save himself a lot of work, look up your post, make the order, and take a nice vacation.
Here, in lieu of the F-35, what we'd need to do is replace older F-16s with late model F-16V-class jets, buy more Super Hornets for the Navy (their very wise hedge, in hindsight, despite its weaknesses), and make the USMC also buy Super Hornets, which are actually perfect for their mission.
We have the institutional problem of the USMC being obsessed with VSTOL, even though this has never been proven objectively useful in actual combat, and even though the Harrier has been a maintenance/peacetime safety disaster for the Corps. The legacy Hornet - which the USMC originally resisted with about as much fury as they resist the SH today - has turned out to be their most reliable and effective platform.
With the money saved by ditching the F-35, we could also probably buy that Silent Eagle variant of the Strike Eagle. Israel wants those as well, but of course, Obama has said no. He likes the F-35 for Israel because they are so far away from being delivered, he can hold that over their heads as a method of blackmail for a nice long while. Perhaps that is the only reason Obama is keeping the F-35 going after all; everything he does in foreign and defense policy seems to revolve around screwing Israel and forcing them to capitulate to the thugs of the PA. The F-35 is a very useful tool for him that way.
Just watch: If Israel gets fed up with the problems and delays of the F-35 to the point where they beat Obama to the punch and cancel their order in favor of something else (Typhoon via Italy? Souped-up Flanker via India or China? Israelized Chengdu J-10? Who knows?), THEN Obama will cancel the F-35, which will, per him, outlived its usefulness as a coercive tool against the Evil Zionists.
Sidenote: You may wonder why a military aerospace establishment as otherwise as demonstrably smart and accomplished as Israel's would maintain interest in this loser, the F-35, to the point where they express interest in nothing else, at least not officially. And the answer to this is for now, they have no choice, politically speaking. Like I said, they tried to get the more readily available and more cost-effective F-15SE, but could not. Obama won't sell them ANY tactical fighters or even attack helicopters at all, save for the useless F-35. Israel just hasn't been able to line up any alternatives yet, but you can rest assured that behind the scenes, they are trying...
I don't quite follow your criticism. CUDA is a great AAM for any aircraft but is particularly useful on aircraft that have internal carriage. It shares commonality with Lockheed's PAC-3 MSE and if you'll forgive the "appeal to bandwagon" I haven't really seen anyone who has been anything other than enthusiastic about it.
I'd love to see CUDA along with an internally carried variant of Rafael/Raytheon's Stunner ("David's Sling") AAM.
It is all about program management competence. Note that the USAF takes 10 years to field a turbo-prop CAS aircraft, and, other silliness. I know, lets add Lockheed Martin to that equation. The LCS and F-35 are such great successes. F-22 while a great idea, is riddled with serious airframe-life issues.
Any new air-to-air missile should require competition and a open requirement from the services. Given things like AMRAAM motor QC problems, we should open this to foreign vendors too. Letting LM drive this conversation is rather funny--in a sick way. What block? 6? If the program lives that long? How will the missile be cued? Gee fortunately F-35 mission systems and weapons cueing is robust. This is just more blue-sky marketing by you-know-who. And, the F-35 will never become an air dominance fighter based alone on performance.
To Robman -
Good post.
To Marauder -
No, the CUDA is NOT a great AAM for any aircraft! The semantics need to be changed. It's an unproven concept future missile being floated by LM currently and hasn't even begun the long, expensive and uncertain development process.
It's ok, since this is a common mistake made in discussions when advocating for one's favored system, etc, so it simply needs to be rephrased; for example: "the F-35 could hypothetically become a capable, operational fighter one day in the future as part of an over-all mix, if it every achieves maturity and can actually be sold at an affordable price, etc"...or, "the CUDA missile could hypothetically become a capable and worthy AAM in the future, if it actually reaches the development stage, is actually affordable and can in fact achieve it's capability specs being advertised in the future."
See?
And also... take note that the hypothetical, proposed CUDA AAM does NOT share commonality with PAC-3 SME! the PAC-3 SME is a massive missile body with a very large (thick) Boeing made terminal MMW seeker head! Whereas the conceptual CUDA a miniaturized missile body less than 6' long and possibly not even a full 7" diameter and is most recently being postulated as a dual-seeker missile, including a MMW seeker (raising the bar on complexity, risk and cost). So, that and the proposed capability for 'hit-to-kill' suggests similarity, not commonality.
It's a radically proposed, albeit innovative, clean-sheet concept missile which could some day indeed be arming follow-on block IV F-35s.
@Anonymous
"It's an unproven concept future missile being floated by LM currently and hasn't even begun the long, expensive and uncertain development process."
Most of the key enabling technologies in CUDA have been flight proven and in some cases used operationally including the solid-fueled DAC thrusters (PAC-3, PAC-3 MSE), the multi-mode seeker, the guidance and control algorithms (Hit-to-Kill) and the rocket motor (from JAGM or NCADE).
Naturally, as with most engineering, integration will be challenging but there are no real show stoppers.
"It's ok, since this is a common mistake made in discussions when advocating for one's favored system"
I'm not a huge fan of the F-35 (the F-15SE seems like a better fit for most applications if only Boeing had offered it like 10 years ago) but I recognize a good AAM design when I see one especially one that
has good economies of scale behind it.
"recently being postulated as a dual-seeker missile, including a MMW seeker (raising the bar on complexity, risk and cost)"
I think LM and other primes have a good handle on multi-mode seekers in general and MMW seekers in particular. One challenge may be the need for a conformal
"It's a radically proposed, albeit innovative, clean-sheet concept missile which could some day indeed be arming follow-on block IV F-35s"
I'd say that Raytheon/Rafael's Stunner meets the above definition far more than CUDA.
Wow, a last-second marketing gimmick to divert attention away from the F-35's failure to safely perform even the simplest functions!
How sad...
You'd argue that integrating an already operational Stunner missile into an air-launched configuration would be more radical and more 'clean-sheet-defined' than developing from scratch and creating an operational 5'11" long , possibly 6-6.5" dia. multi-mode seeking AAM, with complex motor and thrusting?
Interesting.
You can argue that, sure, but it's actually not as easy as simply saying you want to scale down a Boeing-made mmW seeker found on the PAC-3 and install it (form and function-fit) on CUDA and call it a day for your concept missile.
Let's face it, how truly easy were the well-intended NCADE and JDRADM systems to develop?
No, it's not so easy, despite marketing a sound-good-on-paper design and arguing the intended technology to be incorporated is 'common', and thus low-risk to develop.
That said, one problem some might have with an emerging 'CUDA' camp fan club (saving the day for the vulnerable F-35 once caught in a WVR HOBS dogfight), is that the apparent profile of such supporters typically tend to actually discount and balk at a suggestion of an evolved capability upgrade possibly being advantageous, via a viable bridging capability, such as w/ an IIR-tipped AIM-120, Stunner, or development even more innovative and capable, eg an hypothetical air-launched ESSM variant?
Regardless, CUDA, as postulated, is a radical, highly complex, far-off concept missile being floated by LM, which would apparently attempt to utilize certain 'similar' designs and methods of existing missiles.
Thus, if it's such a promising and 'common' missile simply employing off-the-shelf technologies, then LM should absolutely go ahead and start funding it in-house and seek partners for accelerated joint-development already. Lead and customers will follow.
If they do start this soon, and can pull it off...it could indeed be a viable and functional weapon system by the time block IV F-35 rolls around.
@Anonymous
Stunner isn't operational; I believe it just had its first publicly disclosed test launch in November.
There are a variety of MMW seekers that LM and others have used on operational and flight tested platforms. The same applies to the DACS, motor and FCS. Both Raytheon and LM have indicated that HTK is well enough understood to the point that they both favor it for CUDA and NCADE.
I have no objection to a multi-mode AMRAAM or an air-launched ESSM variant. However, such variants are likely to be heavy and expensive though we'll have to see in the case of the forthcoming ARH version of ESSM.
Neither satisfy the oft repeated pilot desire for more missiles.
Given the budget situation, self-funding of concepts seems to be the wave of the future (the Sikorsky S-97 comes to mind).
No doubt CUDA will pose its own unique integration and development challenges but it's no GD/Westinghouse AIM-152.
Thanks for the follow up and I concede that it was only Stunner's first successful 'test' intercept was conducted last Nov, and not yet an operational system -- perhaps to occur later this year.
The confusion with your previous post however, and on which was merely seeking clarification, was that you were seeming to claim that CUDA would take less time to develop than AL-Stunner and would be further along to achieving an air-launched operational status, than an air-launched Stunner variant?
If that misconception was in fact being made vis-a-vis CUDA being further along as being a capable, operational missile, it should be clarified that an air-launched, 'HTK', multi-pulse-powered Stunner would of course be much further along in ability to achieve likely operational readiness (and with far less risk than a clean-sheet, mock-up CUDA design), if a decision was given to develop either of the two. That's all I was saying.
That being said, CUDA, if ever developed, could in fact one day be an effective weapon system capability for any platform employing it, be it existing legacy fighters, new 4.5+ gen, P-8(?), unmanned vehicles, F-22 (2x ea. per side-bay?) or yes, even an eventual, notional block IV F-35 as probably being the first block to clear it.
In the meanwhile, an air-launched Stunner might be a worthy and viable 'bridging' next-gen AAM capability (perhaps fitting in the F-22's side-bay?) and at least something to fall back on if an hypothetical CUDA development was ever canceled or deemed too complex to develop -- perhaps ahead of it's time??
Post a Comment