Lockheed Martin's Cuda Missile

The news and info (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1682391&postcount=199) released on the new missile developed by Lockheed Martin are pretty exciting, I thought I should start this thread to discuss the details.

First of all its size is impressive and the possibility to substantially increase the payload (especially that of the F-35) is a great.

What I don't understand is how is it categorized as medium range BVR missile having into account its size of just 1.78m? How are they doing that? How can this missile reach so far when it's so small? Any theories?

Also why the kinetic kill solution? Isn't it easier to guide a missile close to an aircraft and use a proximity fuse instead of trying to direct-hit it? It is understandable why thaad missiles use kinetic energy to destroy warheads, but an aircraft be it a jet, helicopter or a uav is pretty fragile and we all have seen what a blast fragmentation warhead can do with such.

Do you have any clue what the section with the dots (holes) behind the radome is?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1682391&postcount=199

:)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1682391&postcount=199

 

:)

He's already included that in the 1st post.

As for the question posed above about being a a BVR missile... it seems they might make this without an explosive payload. SO I guess more room for the rocket motor, further miniaturization of Electronics I guess aswell add room.

The missile advanced micro processors are capable of much more complex calculations and the proximity fuse and large warhead are no longer required. This missile kills by impact. It can calculate complex interception patterns while doing Mach 5 and crashes into the opponent. These advances allow for more fuel to be carried which means the Missile BVR envelope is much larger. In theory, it'll replace both the AMRAAM and the Sidewinder. Not to mention it's supposed AG capabilities.

He's already included that in the 1st post.

 

Oh.

Don't see it having any more range than a MICA (80km). The warhead is actually only about 10% of an AMRAAM's length. It's useful as a halfway house between an AIM-9 and an AIM-120 but it's no AMRAAM replacement. Then again, when you look at statistics regarding kills from >70-80km, i.e. a blank sheet, that may not be important.

It's radar guided, not IR, as far as I know (and based on nose section of mock-up), so its OBS performance may not be in-line with that of an AIM-9X, MICA IR, Python 5 or ASRAAM either. It's a stealth plane BVR pot-shot missile that can be carried in sufficient quantities to mitigate the affects of missing from extended ranges.

It's multiple seeker. And the difference in size is due to smaller explosive warhead (or lack of it) and lack of proximity fuse. This accounts to a lower weight, lower cost and greater "miles per galon". The calculations are precise enough to hit the target. This is all the information available and several defence specialists who actually work on the thing say it is enough. This missile is all aspect and improves the BVR envelope.

Again, this is what's publicly known and the experts in the area with inside info agree this improves all capabilities of a plane. The holes in the upper section are apparently thrust vents to give the missile faster manoeuvre rate.

EDIT:

Ah, the microelectronics available are smaller than those on the AMRAAM and your diagram is completely bogus as no cutout of the CUDA missile is available. You're just assuming that everything remains the same with that pic of yours...

Now this is really something interesting. It makes great sense, with the rapid capability growth of kinetic kill systems. Here's hoping it lives up to the brochure. (And that the DoD demands extensive and aggressive testing.)

It's multiple seeker. And the difference in size is due to smaller explosive warhead (or lack of it) and lack of proximity fuse. This accounts to a lower weight, lower cost and greater "miles per galon". The calculations are precise enough to hit the target. This is all the information available and several defence specialists who actually work on the thing say it is enough. This missile is all aspect and improves the BVR envelope.

Again, this is what's publicly known and the experts in the area with inside info agree this improves all capabilities of a plane. The holes in the upper section are apparently thrust vents to give the missile faster manoeuvre rate.

 

EDIT:

Ah, the microelectronics available are smaller than those on the AMRAAM and your diagram is completely bogus as no cutout of the CUDA missile is available. You're just assuming that everything remains the same with that pic of yours...

See diagram. The warhead is only a very small part of the AMRAAM. Sure the electronics may be smaller, that's why I have it at less <80km rather than <40km.

I think I heard that it has MWR as well as 'normal radar', but to date I've not seen any evidence of an IR seeker. It may well be that there are 2 versions as with the MICA.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline//2013/02/more-details-about-lockheeds-c.html

Read the brochure details. Second bullet point on Key design features.

Multi-mode seeker.

LM is developing this:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/LockhMart_Tests_JAGM_Tri_Mode_Seeker_999.html

So yeah, radar and other sensors at the same time. Also, the missile will have a lob trajectory so that further expands range and it's fuel is used at bursts unlike the AMRAAM. The missile is lighter (It'll probably weight less than half the AMRAAM does) and the engine has a higher percentage weight comparing to the AMRAAM.

Interesting information from a guy that actually participated in missile development:

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.pt/2012/12/the-mysterious-lm-cuda-missile.html

It clearly shows that the missile can have superior range to the AMRAAM which falls into line with the "expands BVR environment" line.

Question is, will it be replacing C (100 Km), or D (180 Km)?

To help with the discussion, take a look at this interesting info and speculation gentlemen.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-mysterious-lm-cuda-missile.html

The Mysterious LM 'CUDA' Missile"...

 

 

 

May not be that mysterious after all.

 

 

readers will remember a couple of days ago when I put up my first post speculating about features seen on representations of a, I assume, proposed Lockheed Martin initiative: the 'CUDA' missile. I showed a 'rough estimate' of it's proportions and component locations IF the missile were truly "SDB-size".

 

 

 

It didn't take much research to come up with what I think is a highly-probable explanation for those 'mysterious' spots. I assume someone else has probably already figured out a likely explanation somewhere as well, and since I work long hours, they probably have already spilled the beans, but here comes my analysis anyway, with some weight and performance analysis thrown in to boot :

Kudos to Scott Lowther Who Was, at the Very Least, MOSTLY Right...

 

In his original post at the Unwanted Blog, Scott Lowther had speculated:

"My guess would be that this might be a large number of small solid rocket divert motors designed to help pitch the missile hard over in order to nail incoming jinking missiles head-on".

While I wouldn't rule out the capability to pitch the missile hard over to get 'incoming', I'm convinced the 'divert motors' idea is 'spot on' for the missile concept as shown. I believe that if the details are ever revealed, in retrospect, this feature is easy to explain.

Ockham's Razor

 

The spots are almost certainly Attitude Control Motors (ACMs). The design and placement are most suggestive of Lockheed Martin's PAC 3 Missile design:

 

I couldn't find a technical description of the PAC 3's ACMs, but did find a paper (

source) that discussed the ERINT-1 missile's (from which the PAC 3 evolved) ACM installation:

The ACS contains 180 solid propellant Attitude Control Motors (ACMs) that thrust perpendicular to the centerline of the missile to provide pitch and yaw control during the homing phase. The ACMs are spaced evenly around the centerline of the missile in rings containing 18 motors. There are 10 rings in the ACS in the longitudinal direction for a total of 180 motors. The ACMs are commanded by the Motor Fire Circuit (MFC).

I did manage to find a closeup of the PAC 3 ACM module being manufactured in a Lockheed Martin PAC-3 product brochure. It appears to be just as the one described in the ERINT-1 paper. :

 



I submit that the ACMs are what puts the 'Hit' in "Hit to Kill" for the CUDA design.Estimating CUDA Component Weights and Performance

 

[And remember, we're basing all this 'estimating' on a convention display model, vague comments, and a computer graphic!]

 

The discovery of what the magic spots were all about greatly simplified some assumptions that needed to be made as to CUDA missile weights, which in turn can give us clues in estimating performance.

 

Rather than 'absolute' performance, I will be discussing the possible CUDA numbers in terms of relevance to AMRAAM performance. I'm doing this for a couple of reasons. First, there is an EXCELLENT discussion of air-launched missile performance in general and likely AMRAAM performance available as 'backgrounder' on a thread here. Second, the AMRAAM makes an excellent 'baseline' for comparative analysis.

 

Sizing the CUDA

If the CUDA is as it appears to be, it is just under half the length of the AMRAAM.

 

AMRAAM Profile Layed Over CUDA Graphic to Estimated Scale. (AMRAAM is white space INSIDE border shown)

But the relative fractional composition of the CUDA and the AMRAAM are significantly different. The following shows the CUDA's estimated relative proportion to the AMRAAM.(Notes: 1. Length is in Inches, 2. Rocket Motor (RM) Length is without blast tubes that run through the rear control section. 3. RM% comparison indicates that percentage of length of the CUDA that is RM is 26% greater a proportion of overall length than the AMRAAMs % and 4. Estimated total volume is not including radome which is assumed to be mostly 'empty'.)

The CUDA estimate indicates a larger rocket Motor as a Percentage of total Length and Volume than the AMRAAMFrom comparing the two missiles, I find that the CUDA could weigh as little as 153 Lbs. Knowing more about the 'mystery spots' makes me think the weight would be slightly higher. If I include the ACMs as part of the Warhead module weight, I think the breakdown of weight by Rocket Motor, Warhead and Guidance and Control in comparison to the AMRAAM should look very much like:

 

With most trade off variability in the CUDA WH and G&C weights. the fraction most important to get right is the RM propellant weight as a percentage (I used 85% as they did in the linked thread) of total RM weight.

 

If we refer to the 'Delta V' formula at the thread I linked to above, and assume the CUDA uses the same rocket propellant mix that the AMRAAM does, we will find that the CUDA can weigh as much as 181 lbs, providing ~71.15 of the CUDA's 83.7 lb RM is propellant, to have an EQUAL top speed potential of the AMRAAM. As the discussion thread also notes, the AMRAAM isn't advertised to go as fast as the RM could carry it, because a percentage of propellant is reserved for a reduced 'sustainer boost'. This could also be true for the CUDA.

 

Depending upon how fast the CUDA decelerates due to drag after the RM burns out will determine what the actual range of the CUDA would be compared to the AMRAAM. Again, from the thread linked to above, we find:

Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A

 

P = Density of Air (kg/m^3)

V = Velocity (m/s)

Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ;

~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage,

nose and tail profile

A = Sectional Area (m^2)

We've reduced the variables for our comparison to Cd and A

 

Since,

1. we've already established the fineness ratio for the CUDA concept shown is closer to the optimum '14' than the AMRAAM is in my earlier post, and

2. it appears the finnage and tail profile may be slightly higher drag features than the AMRAAM's (hard to tell, perhaps insignificantly so, or little better or worse either way), in all likelihood the Cd of the CUDA is approximately equal to the AMRAAM.

3. In any case, the 'A' of the CUDA is about 27% lower than the AMRAAM's which is definitely an advantage to the CUDA

 

We can reasonably conclude that the CUDA is a Medium Range Missile design, and approximate to the AMRAAM in range.

 

I like the idea of an F-35 carrying 8-12 of these suckers and I'd like to see this kind of missile come to fruition.

 

I'm MOST certain that if I missed anything on this late night exercise, SOMEONE will let me know. Did I mention we're basing all this 'estimating' on a convention display model, vague comments, and a computer graphic?

If you bother to read the post directly before yours, you'd notice the link was already posted.

When it could be entered into "active" service??

Geez, my blood sugar must be low, sorry about that Maior, I had the biggest brain fart doing that, my apologies.

If any of us could tell you that, we wouldn't be posting here. :doh:

If any of us could tell you that, we wouldn't be posting here. :doh:

:pilotfly:

lol, all speculation, but if the U.S. military selects this missile for production, it has to be flight tested and qualified on the intended aircraft, which means it could be months,years, or never because a competing design was selected instead. :smilewink: