I was thinking of why not make a ALAA (air launched anti air) version of cruise missile?
Something that has range of ~5000km, can be launched from heavy bombers for extra range, that could possibly be stealthy like JASSM.
Main idea behind it would be to dab on heavy bombers and AWACS planes and maybe some high value target i.e. general in civilian plane that are deep inside enemy territory.
Yes, it would be expensive as hell, but all cruise missilies are, and it offers and brand new capability for enemy ai denial and surgical attacks.
Is this concept idiotic or is someone already working on this?
A missile needs to be a lot faster than its target and supersonic flight is very energy consuming, which means the missile runs out of fuel 20 minutes into the cruise, which is not nearly enough to be useful.
>Yes, it would be expensive as hell, but all cruise missilies are
This is orders of magnitude difference. Subsonic cruise missiles with moderate range of 1000-2000km already cost $1mil+, a supersonic one with the same range is much bigger, more cumbersome and expensive. Something with an even bigger range may be unfeasible to fit onto a bomber at all.
Historically, only ballistic missiles were considered for aircraft with that range, and even then they hardly got anywhere. >5500km is already into ICBM territory if you go by the standard definitions.
Just make it two stage. One that is moving slowly like a regular cruise missile, and then a second stage with an actual rocket engine.
I'm sure that there's other problems, like how to lock on, but having a two stage rocket isnt one of them.
Two stage missile, intermittent or highly efficient slow jet engine for long distance cruise, then a 2nd stage solid booster for terminal performance.
>A missile needs to be a lot faster than its target
Well you can kinda predict the area where slow moving targets like awacs and bombers are, that would reduce the speed requierments a little
>supersonic flight is very energy consuming, which means the missile runs out of fuel 20 minutes into the cruise, which is not nearly enough to be useful.
Thats all true, but as an idea - Russian kh-101 alcm range is~5000km, speed of mach .78, making it a two stage missile and strapping AIM-120 on top of kh101 for the last 50km, would solve this problem.
>Subsonic cruise missiles with moderate range of 1000-2000km already cost $1mil+, a supersonic one with the same range is much bigger, more cumbersome and expensive.
Basically im not arguing that it would be easy or remotely cheap, but imo it would be doable if you throw obscene amount of money to US MIO just as a strategic threat to bonbers/awacs and high value targets.
Just seems like a huge deterrent when enemy bomber 5000km away is a threat to all big things in your sky.
Ki
>5000km, speed of mach .78
+5 hours
That isn't tempo, that's moronic.
>Russian kh-101 alcm range is~5000km, speed of mach .78, making it a two stage missile and strapping AIM-120 on top of kh101 for the last 50km, would solve this problem.
See the thing about that is at a certain point you can just use actual aircraft and have the advantage of carrying dozens of missiles and maybe some bombs into the area instead of just a few AAMs.
It would have a use but I don't see any country that would have a pressing need for this that couldn't just use aircraft. Except maybe Ukraine, but Ukraine's problem is really that it's unable to frick up Russia inside Russia itself, not the lack of this specific tech.
>It would have a use but I don't see any country that would have a pressing need for this that couldn't just use aircraft
There are really only 2 counties that could develop a missile with such a long range and they are USA and China - and chinesium one would suck so realistically only USA.
And as US just completely assfricks everyone in the air with their stealth hacks, they idd just do not desperately need it.
I would think though that maybe some optimistic general will push this into development inside next 20 years. Some republican politicians would be happy as this kinda power projection makes their peepee hard.
I mean the French and the Iranians and probably the Germans, British, Japanese, Indians etc could all do it. But the real problem is like, in what situation do you really need to deploy an AAM several thousand km inside enemy territory, from a missile that will take several hours to get there? Why can't you just use the cruise missile as a cruise missile and hit the air base the aircraft come from?
Don't get me wrong it's a cool concept and I love this type of shit but there's a reason it's not really a thing. Maybe in the future with UCAVs we'll see it, since I assume something like Starlink/Starshield could let you do extremely long range operations like this.
>I mean the French and the Iranians and probably the Germans, British, Japanese, Indians etc could all do it.
The project alone would eat double digit % of their military budget, let alone production and fielding of the weapon. For the highly questionable benefit it's more expensive than the B-2.
>Why can't you just use the cruise missile as a cruise missile and hit the air base the aircraft come from?
That is a good point - unless target aircraft are in some extra hardened hangars immune to cruise missiles or target aircraft come from airbase so far away that cruise missiles dont actually reach the airfield - there is little point. Besides of course the obvious immidient tactical advantage if you shoot down enemy awacs during airbattle.
Pretty niche scenarios probably.
>speed of mach .78, making it a two stage missile and strapping AIM-120 on top of kh101 for the last 50km, would solve this problem.
How about we make the first stage stealthy, reusable and capable of mid-flight refueling? We could even put a human inside for terminal decision making
Make a hydroplane/amphibious version too.
How are you supposed to have a lock of 5000km on any air asset? Cruise missiles work because thier targets have a known ground location that isn't moving. Air targets can move and any maneuver robs the missile of energy when it tries to adjust its course.
>How are you supposed to have a lock of 5000km on any air asset?
Probably satelites and active seeking for last few hundred km.
>5000km
where is an aircraft going to be in 5 hours?
>all cruise missilies are expensive
No. They're 'cheap', an AMRAAM is almost as expensive as a Tomahawk. A Meteor is more expensive than a Tomahawk.
If you need something really fast just go ballistic.
we have the tech to build those missiles but just like building a modern nuclear powered battleship, it would be too expensive and inefficient
Why fly far to hit something that comes to you. Just use the minimum that reliably intercepts and you can have more. Because at some point you're better off striking the launch platforms on ground.
This whole thread is moronic. Yes OP it's a thing, it's being developed under Darpa's LongShot program which has already passed the CDR stage and moved into flight testing
>Darpa's LongShot program
>LongShot — a turducken-like unmanned aircraft system dropped from a bomber or fighter that can launch missiles of its own — a potentially useful for both the Air Force and Navy.
>“The objective is to develop a novel UAV that can significantly extend engagement ranges, increase mission effectiveness, and reduce the risk to manned aircraft,” “It is envisioned that LongShot will increase the survivability of manned platforms by allowing them to be at standoff ranges far away from enemy threats, while an air-launched LongShot UAV efficiently closes the gap to take more effective missile shots.”
Interesting.
Bomber>disposabledrone>missiles.
With stealthy drone the range and effectivness could be pretty insane.
It's more likely to be F-15EXs and the like which launch them. It's likely part of the replicator initiative, probably will be used in conjunction with F-35 with Link 16 or MADL to provide targeting data
>cruising at 200 mph
>plane flies away
Well, frick
>denies airspace to enemy aircraft
mission accomplished