Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight New stealth fighter is dead meat in an a

A SINGLE F-35 is capable of downing 10 Gen 4 Fighter Aircraft of any Nation including 10 F-15C's....as long as the F-35 is fighting in an aerial combat with these 10 in the manner it was designed to fight.

As another member posted an F-16 is about the most manuverable and capable high rate of acceleration fighter in the world but a single F-35 which is nowhere NEAR as manuverable as an F-16 would EASILY shoot down 10 F-16's as long as the F-35 is operating in full stealth mode and is using Aerial Combat Tactics that have been developed for the F-35.

In a scenario....the F-35's currently most advanced avionics and target aquisition and fire control system in the world would have the F-35's Targetting and Fire Control System select the targets that the F-35 Pilot would first shoot down at distance as the F-35 either using it's current Air to Air Missiles or an F-35 using the just now being installed CUDA HYPERSONIC MISSILES which are small missles mounted in a Rotating Wheel carried internally by the F-35 once launched obtain Hypersonic Velocities and as the CUDA Missile is traveling at such a high rate of speed it was not necessary to include an explosive warhead and the CUDA Missile will directly impact the enemy aircraft as such high velocity that the CUDA causes more damage to an aircraft than any currently existing Air to Air Missiles with an explosive warhead due to the Kinetic Transfer as F=MA or Force = Mass x Acceleration.

Here is an article about the CUDA from 2012.

New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”
Nov 30 2012 - 16 Comments
By David Cenciotti
Until a photo with an interesting caption appeared on the November 2012 issue of Air Force Magazine, few people had noticed that an F-35 display model at the Air Force Association Technology Expo 2012, had its weapon bays loaded with a brand new type of air-to-air missile: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”.



Image credit: Air Force Magazine

“A Lockheed Martin model shows how its “’Cuda” concept for a small AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile could triple the air-to-air internal loadout on an F-35. The missile is about the size of a Small Diameter Bomb and fits on an SDB-style rack.”

Photo caption aside, almost nothing is known about the “Cuda” missile.

“We are having some challenges getting information on Cuda cleared for public release,” Cheryl Amerine, Cuda POC at the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, told The Aviationist.

“Cuda is a Lockheed Martin multi-role Hit-to-Kill (HTK) missile concept. Lockheed Martin has discussed the missile concept with the United States Air Force. The Cuda concept significantly increases the internal carriage capacity for 5th generation fighters (provides 2X to 3X capacity). Combat proven HTK technology has been in the US Army for over a decade. Bringing this proven HTK technology to the USAF will provide potentially transformational new capabilities and options for new CONOPS.”

The Hit-to-Kill missile technology Lockheed is designing for the USAF is still classified and some of the capabilities of the Cuda missile are being reviewed for public release. Still, something can be said based on the few details available.

First of all, the F-35 will carry kinetic energy interceptors: “hit-to-kill” weapons rely on the kinetic energy of the impact to destroy their target. That’s why some HTK missiles don’t carry any warhead (others use a lethality enhancer warhead).

LINK....http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

AboveAlpha

 

Anyways....as I posted this article about the Lochheed Martin CUDA Air to Air Missile that will be carried internally by the F-35 is from back in 2012 and now CUDA's and their Rotating Wheel Rack or the SDB-style rack can carry a CLASSIFIED NUMBER OF CUDA'S as it is whispered that the SDB-style rack would allow an F-35 to carry up to 12 to 16 CUDA's internally as the CUDA is a small diameter and small in length Hypersonic Knetic Kill Air to Air Missile.

An F-35's Targetting and Fire Control System would assign a CUDA to each of the 10 Gen. 4 Aircraft and the Computer would select the order of which aircraft would be shot at and down first thus the F-35 with it's Stealth Capabilities would be able to target and fire it's Hypersonic Air to Air Missiles at those 10 Gen. 4 Aircraft and destroy them before the Pilots of those Su-35's or Typhoons or even F-15C's even knew they were being targeted.

AboveAlpha

 

Sorry, I call "BS" on that claim.

I am aware that you are completely in awe of modern technology. But I am also aware of the limitations of modern technology, and also of tactics, logicstics, strategy, and much much more.

I am sorry, but I find it frankly impossible to believe that in any form of combat, a generation difference means a 10 to 1 combat advantage. That defies every kind of common sense knowledge of warfare, and makes absolutely no sense at all.

Please, I would absolutely love to see a reference saying even anything close to that. Because even 30 year old aircraft can carry modern ordinance, which does not care what generation the aircraft firing it is.

And "kinetic energy interceptors" are really not all that impressive. It just means it has exchanged the explosive proximity fuze with a contact penetrator. And from my own first hand knowledge, those are really not as effective against aircraft as they are against other targets, like missiles. Against a "soft target" like an aircraft, we still use proximity fuzed missiles, not kinetic kill missiles (we save those for use against other missiles).

Think of the targets as being a car, and a person behind a brick wall. For a person in a car, a shotgun with 00 buck is best, because the sides of a car are thin metal, so the shot penetrates easily. But a slug has to hit him exactly or no effect, there is no spread for a slug.

But if they are behind a wall, the shot may not penetrate at all. So there you use a slug, to ensure that there is actual penetration.

A ballistic missile has a thick nosecone to allow it to penetrate the atmosphere without friction causing damage or destruction. And as we saw in GWI, hits on that nosecone with a shrapnel weapon did little to no damage. So we adaped the PAC-3 warhead (and others) to the PATRIOT system. But we have not thrown away the older missiles, we keep the proximity fuzed missiles for the event we fire at aircraft. In these cases, the "shotgun" effect is more effective, as it destroyes fuel lines, control lines, and other critical and vulnerable parts of the aircraft.

Where as a "solid slug" would say just pass through a wing, only doing superficial damage at best, no damage at wors (there is a lot of empty space in something like a wing or body of an airplane).

 

Even at best, CUDA is still years away from being deployed operationally, if it ever is!

Will you ever stop confusing the difference between a concept in testing, and an actual operational and in service system?

Gods, I am sorry... but CUDA is about as "in service" as "Rods of God", or "Sharks with freaking laser beand shooting out of their heads".

Stick to real life systems will you please, and not fanatasies that are still years at best (decades or never at worse) frmo ever actually being deployed.

Notice, I almost never go into things that are not actually in service, like MEADS. If it is not tested, proven, accepted and deployed into actual combat units, to me it really does not exist. So CUDA to me no more exists in "real world" then anti-air drones, rail guns, or anything else caught somewhere in between the idea of some scientist, and people in the military actually getting it in their hands and using it in combat.

 

From what I understand as far as how a Cuda is capable of creating massive damage to an aircraft is that the Cuda is going to use a combination of both Radar Tracking and IR-Tracking.

This will allow the computerised guidence system of the Missile to strike an aircraft in the exact spot where it will do the most damage.

As well I have been told the Cuda when it strikes the aircraft at such high velocities has a nose cone that can withstand the air friction due to the hypersonic nature of the missile yet upon impact the nose flattens out or spits open causing the missile not to travel right through the aircraft.

The Cuda is using a much more precise method of tracking than anything we have had before and just as that SM-3 AMB/ASAT was able to just directly impact the Hydrazine Tank of that failing Satellite....so will the Cuda be able to target and impact the area of the aircraft that it impacts will cause catostrophic damage so that the aircraft it impacts cannot survive such an impact.

AboveAlpha

 

Since that system does not exist yet, you might as well be talking about the damage catapaulting a 1960's VW can do if it lands on an enemy.

 

I was going to write a responce, but nope, I won't, you fail in reading comprehension, you don't read your own posts, you are putting words into my mouth. Replying to you is pointless.

 

First of all I NEVER posted that the RODS OF GOD Space Based Kinetic Impact WMD has been deployed.

The RODS OF GOD is not even the actual name of this Space Based System as that is just the name given to it by Tom Clancy.

RODS OF GOD is a very simple in it's construction as all RODS OF GOD is made up of is between 12 and 16 Telephone Pole sized Tungsten Steel Cased DEPLEATED URANIUM and as this Depleated Uranium is encased in a thick casing of Tungsten Steel and at one end of these Telephone size and length RODS is a SMALL ROCKET MOTOR that can vector thrust....and at the other end of the ROD which has been designed with a pointed end like any missile and this end is covered in a heat reflecting and protecting CERAMIC COATING which just like the Space Shuttles Ceramic Tiled undercarriage....which protects the Shuttle from burning up as it re-enters Earth's Atmosphere so does the RODS Ceramic Coating.

A single RODS OF GOD Orbital System of which NONE have yet been deployed....but several have already been constructed that hold 12 RODS EACH in a 6 RODS surrounding a center cylinder that has arms attached to each ROD near the top and near the bottom of each ROD....and then this cylindar has another grouping below the first grouping of six RODS directly below it or above it depending upon one's perspective and just as the first group of RODS this second group of 6 RODS also is attached to the cylinder by two arms.

When and IF one of these approx 30 feet in length RODS OF GOD SYSTEMS is needed they will send one or two of them up from VANDENBURG and as I said this is not a complex system as all that is needed is for a Groud Station to send a LAUNCH CODE into the system and a single ROD will be detached from the central cylinder....as Vector Thrust Rocket Motors will bring the ROD into a specific reentry angle and the rest is pretty much the same was a MIRV from an ICBM which uses STARLIGHT GUIDENCE.....and the ROD can achive velocities anywhere from 22,000 mph to over 38,000 mph.

When this extremely heavy and massive by weight Tungsten Encased Telephone Sized amount of Depleated Uranium is reentering Earths atmosphere at such High Velocities and then IMPACTS A TARGET....the resulting Kinetic Energy Trasfer...as F=MA...or Force = Mass x Acceleration....and depending upon the velocity the ROD impacts a target can be equalled to between a 1 to 3 Kioton Explosive Yeild.

So this is not that complex or difficult a system to either build or deploy as we have them but we have never deployed one.

As far as the CUDA....your right in that it has not yet been deployed but it will be VERY SOON as in the beginning of 2016 you will see CUDA's deployed not only in F-35's but in F-22's as well and there will be a Land Based Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Missile version of the CUDA as it is that accurate.

AboveAlpha

 

The Lockheed article I posted was from YEARS AGO.

The first CUDA's both the SAM AntiAircraft, ABM/ASAT CUDA varients...as well as the first CUDA Air to Air Missiles will be deployed in early 2016 and they will be deployed as a Ground Based Anti-Aircraft ABM/ASAT as well as deployed and carried by BOTH the F-35 and F-22.

So it's not like I am talking about something that will not be deployed until the 2020's as we are only talking about 4 to 5 months.

The CUDA has been successfully tested at both the USAF Groom Lake Facility as well tasted in Dayton Ohio and tested in UTAH.

The U.S. Navy is looking into a SHIP BASED version of the CUDA to augment the SM-3's carried aboard the Ticonderoga Class Cruisers as well the CUDA AA/AMB/ASAT is being considered a small enough system so that other U.S. Ships including Frigates and other Supply Ships can have CUDA's station aboard them for both protection and Carrier Strike Group Protection.

Your fears of a CUDA Missile shooting through part of the aircraft like you stated just puncture a hole through a wing like a SLUG instead of proximity detonate like a SHOTGUN....are unfounded concerns.

The CUDA is very much like a SM-3 and Advanced Patriot II Missile as all have the advanced Guidence Capabilities to track an incomming enemy Aircraft or Missile or Satellite....and the Navy's CUDA will be capable of downing incomming CRUISE MISSILES....and all of these 3 Missiles have such incredibly accurate Guidence that they can either impact and destroy an incomming Missile or as was shown in Operation Burnt Frost where an Navy SM-3 was launched from the USS. Lake Erie which is a Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruiser and the SM-3 was able to destroy JUST PART OF A FAILING SATELLITE as we directed the SM-3 to strike JUST the Hydrazine Booster Tank which is a very poisonous gas and would survive reentry into Earth's atmosphere and if it hit the ground in a populated area it had the possibility of KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE!!

It was IMPARITIVE that the SM-3 launched from the USS. Lake Erie directly impacted JUST the Hydrazine Tank while in low Earth Orbit and we launched it and guided it directly to target as we watched the 3 stage SM-3 directly strike and explode only that Hydrazine Tank as if the SM-3 was to hit just the Satellite in another area....this could have brought down the Hydrazine Tank unexploded or placed debris in higher orbits that could interfere with other satellites or the International Space Station.

The CUDA is said to have a more accurate guidence than even an SM-3 so that a CUDA with both IR-Light and Radar Guidence can impact any enemy aircraft in EXACTLY a place where it can do the most damage and the CUDA does this at Hypersonic Velocities.

AboveAlpha

 

And do yu have a reference from say the last 12 months giving that 2016 timeframe? The last time I saw that expectation was around 2011, nothing giving it since then.

 

Give me a moment and I will find it.

AboveAlpha

 

While I am trying to open the website that details what you ask...it is not opening...but I will get it to open....check this out for the time being till I can.

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

AboveAlpha

 

This is the link to the official Lockheed Martin Website that when I first went to it detailed when the Cuda would begin to be installed in USAF CTOL F-35's.

LINK....http://www.lockheedmartin.com/

Now that I go to this website at first I could not even get it to open and now that I have opened it EVERYTHING about the CUDA has been SCRUBBED.

It just talks about Lockheed aquiring Sikorski Aircraft and when I do a Search on the Lockheed Martin Website for the CUDA....it just directs me to something else.

It is OBVIOUS they have declared the CUDA Classified and your right....every article after 2012 to 2013 has been scrubbed.

They would not have done this unless they plan to deploy it very soon.

AboveAlpha

 

The CUDA warhead is probably constructed like a small grenade on the inside with a simple tripwire connected to the body of the missile so that when either the warhead gets dislodged from the body of the missile or a fin on the missile gets ripped off after impact the grenade goes off inside the body of the aircraft.

As for the F-35 taking on 10 USAF F-15Cs, the F-15Cs in this senario are also armed with CUDA missiles, & have as force multipliers stealth drones equiped with the latest asea radars flying in advance as scouts. Before the F-35 can lock onto an F-15C the stealth drones have already relayed the position of the F-35 to the 10 F-15Cs & the F-35 has 10 CUDA missiles incomming from different directions & there is no escape.

Freddy.

 

Actually, from all the information I have seen, it is in a semi-permanent hold status, and is not expected to be deployed at all in the immediate future. Because if it was close to being deployed, we would be hearing about the series of tests that prove the concept and system as functional.

And do not give me nonsense about secrets, look into the progress of MEADS and THAAD, every test announced, and the results, and the next expected test.

No, what this really means is that the project is probably almost dead, and going nowhere. And is in the same place in 2015 that it was in 2011, no new progress to announce, deployment still expected in another "4-8 years".

Most of the time I find you a pretty reliable poster... but in areas like this you almost come off as a conspiracy theorist... grasping at any straw to claim it supports your claim. Assuming no information means it is a cover-up and is being deloyed imminantly...

I read that and see simply no progress at all, because that is the case 98.44% of the time in these cases.

In fact, the very fact it was "scrubbed" may be because the program was suspended or cancelled. It is not like the DoD is swimming in cash at the moment, large R&D programs have been suspended as each branch struggles to hold onto what it has.

 

Well it definitely was scrubbed and this was done over a period of just a week or so from the time I first read about it.

I asked a friend who works for Lockheed and he basically told me not to ask so I have no idea if this means they are developing something different or if it has been cancelled.

One thing in favor of some type of small length and diameter Hypersonic Missile being developed is the revolving wheel design carrier of the CUDA is still being made.

The F-22 was supposed to be getting the Cuda so I have one other person I can ask who will give me very direct and specific answers that will allow me to know for certain whether it has been cancelled or whether it's a GO.

I will keep you in the loop.

AboveAlpha

 

Naw....the CUDA....if the damn thing get's built because everything about it on the Lockheed Martin Website has been scrubbed....is designed to use both IR-Light Tracking and Radar Guidance.

Basically the CUDA has no explosive warhead but because it is traveling at hypersonic velocities and because it has the tracking and guidance ability to impact an enemy aircraft at hypersonic velocities in the exact spot that would case the most damage to the aircraft....it doesn't need an explosive warhead.

It basically would be using the same kind of guidance method of an SM-3 AMB/ASAT.

But it would not have anywhere near the same range as the SM-3's which are carried by all U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class Cruisers are a 3 stage Anti-Aircraft...Anti-Ballistic Missile and Anti-Satellite Weapon....as an SM-3 is capable of and this is something that we have demonstrated in Operation Burnt Frost....and you can Google Operation Burnt Frost Video and there is a youtube video of an SM-3 being launched from the USS. Lake Erie which tracks and directly impacts and detonates a Hydrazine Booster Fuel Tank on a failing Satellite.

So the CUDA...or whatever will be installed into the F-35's and F-22's as BOTH are having their internal weapons bays fit for the wheel air to air missile launch holders....as this wheel system will drop out of an F-35 or F-22 Internal Weapons Bay as the F-22 has 4 and the F-35 has 3....thus each wheel can hold either 3 to 4 CUDAS and inside an F-35 there would be between 12 to 16 CUDA's depending upon which air to air missile carrying wheel they will use.

Whether it is the CUDA or some other Hypersonic Missile since this Missile Carrying Wheel Launch System is still being made in large numbers....and the wheels are designed to hold small missiles like the CUDA....it is obvious that the USAF and U.S. Military believes that something like the CUDA is the way to go as this would allow the F-22 to carry two 1000 lbs JDAMS and a new SMALL DIAMETER 2000 LBS JDAM is being developed for the F-22 as this will allow the F-22 and the F-35 to BOTH carry 2000 lbs JDAM's.

The F-35 will also be capable of carrying up to 12 to 16 CUDA or CUDA like IR-Light Tracking and Radar Guided Air to Air Missiles INTERNALLY.

An F-35 can also carry a large load of EXTERNAL MISSILES AND BOMBS attacked to 6 pylons as well as what an F-35 carries internally.

So the F-35 is essentially a BOMB TRUCK....but that doesn't mean the F-35 is not a highly capable Fighter Aircraft and despite what is being discussed between Mushroom and myself....if any pilot in the WORLD was given a choice of one and only one Fighter Aircraft to fly up against 10 Gen 4 Aircraft such as the Typhoon Eurofighter, The Su-35....or 10 Improved Eagle F-15C's with their new avionics and fire control system.....every single time a pilot will chose the F-22 Raptor.

If the F-22 Raptor is not made avilable as a choice then every time a pilot would chose an F-35 Lightning II.

This part of my posting has not changed.

AboveAlpha

 

It is indeed in development. And it is based upon the PAC-3, a missile I know very well since I worked with them for years.

But it is in development, as I have been telling you for a while now. You know the saying, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched"? Well, this is the case here. The earliest estimations for deployment were overoptimistic at best, nobody other then you really expected to see this for at least a decade. Almost no brand new weapon development programs are done in just a couple of years, even AEGIS Ashore has been in the works for a decade now, and that is simply taking a ship based weapon and converting to shore use, nowhere near as much work as making an entirely new weapon, and then getting the avionics on an as of that time unfinished aircraft to work with it.

You keep going "scrubbed", as if it has fallen into some top secret black hole in a conspiracy themed thought process, that they are hiding it's existance. It is nothing like that. The simple fact is that it is behind schedule (as the norm for weapon development), and they do not know when it will be completed and deployed. The pushing of the date from 2013 to 2014, 2015, 2016, and no date given shows that they know they are well behind schedule, and are no longer giving completion dates.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

But please, when you want to discuss things based upon facts and not conjecture, speculation and conspiracies, let me know.

And BTW, most of us here know you are going more off of speculation and CT thoughts the more you CAPITOLIZE YOUR WORDS. The more of that you throw in, the more we tend to be sure you are just making things up.

 

That gang of small guidance rockets at the front of the CUDA just behind the guidence sensors still has to counteract the forward momentum of the missile for it to make a change in direction = time delay. Because of a time delay between the start of a manuever by the target aircraft and the ability of the missile to acheive a change in direction the CUDA will not be able to reliablely hit an exact point on an uncooperative fighter in a real war.

Take for example a warhead in the form of two metal plates the diameter of which just small enough for the base of the CUDA's radome to cover and sandwich between them a flat explosive disk an inch smaller in diameter and half an inch thick and form a ring around the explosive disk with half inch metal cubes that are also sandwiched between the metal plates. The guidence sensors would be mounted onto the front metal plate of the warhead & the back metal plate onto the housing for the guidence rockets.

Once the CUDA's warhead penatrates the skin of the fighter it is set off and shrapnel fans out inside the body of the aircraft and acts as a backup in the event a direct hit on the tagetted component of the fighter is not acheived. It might mean a small amount of extra weight but all forms of insurance have a cost.

Freddy.

 

There are many problems with your analysis of this warhead, but this alone is the single biggest one.

CUDA uses the same basic technology as the PAC-3 missile. And that is the fact that it is a kinetic kill vehicle, there is no warhead. Therefore no explosion, no shrapnel. This lack of an explosive warhead makes them both smaller and faster, as well as more maneuverable. The only explosive in these warheads is a small charge that sends out metal rods to expand the area damaged, known as the "Lethality Enhancer". But once again, the damage is not caused by the explosives, but by the rods expanded from the projectile by the explosive.

The "shrapnel effect" is caused by the puncture of the skin of the target, and the effect of parts of it's own body and internal components then moving around inside. Not by shrapnel per se from the missile itself.

 

HEY!!!

If I use CAP'S it's just for emphasis.

And if anything I post can be proved incorrect I am more than happy to admit it.

As far as the CUDA....I did have a talk with a second frind of mine that has told me the ONLY issue they currently have with the CUDA is the BURN RATE of the very compacted Solid Fuel.

They do not have an issue with tracking or guidence as they will be using both IR-LIGHT and RADAR tracking.

At first the CUDA was only to have used IR-Light tracking but this has changed.

The SM-3 currently being used is much better than the original version which was to possibly be land based in Poland with a Radar site set up in the Czech Republic.

Russia had issues with this which is kind of funny considering a few SM-3's that were to be land based are nothing compared to the thousands of Nuclear Missiles Russia has....and Russia was even invited to participate in the program but Putin said no....and we had a breakthrough in tracking and guidence as well as a breakthough in Solid Fuel.

But as Lockheed has scrubbed their website of information about the CUDA this is most likely about INVESTORS as MONEY rules the show.

You could very well be right....and the CUDA could be YEARS from deployment.

But then again I as well could be right...and this Solid Fuel Burn Rate issue in the small diameter and length CUDA Hypersonic Air to Air Missile could be resolved overnight for all you and I know.

When that SM-3 in Operation Burnt Frost had it's Explosive Warhead removed and was fired from the U.S. Navy Aegis Cruiser USS. Lake Erie back in what....2008?.....well just 6 months or a year before that targeting of JUST the Hydrazine Booster Tank and the SM-3 directly hitting and exploding JUST the Hydrazine Booster Tank of the failing Satellite could not have been achieved.

What a difference a year or less makes.

With the CUDA....the Tracking and Guidence has already been perfected as if we can target and destroy with a direct hit JUST a PART of a satellite with an SM-3 back in 2008....thus we directly hit a small target that was just part of a satellite traveling at around 14,500 mph at ORBITAL DISTANCE....with a 3 stage AA/ABM/ASAT that is the SM-3.........then the only issue with the CUDA right now is the BURN RATE of the Solid Rocket Fuel that is very densly packed into this small diameter and short length Hypersonic Missile.

Although this would seem to be an easy problem to work out it is not as there is just so much Solid Rocket Fuel they can pack into a small CUDA missile and as this Solid Rocket Fuel provides incredible thrust for a CUDA missile when fired.....unlike the 3 stage and much larger SM-3 the greater density of the fuel is an issue as far as being able to control the burn rate.

Personally....I had an idea of using a number of HONEYCOLB plates inside the missile that heald the fuel and by arranging these Honeycolb plates in a specific geometric state to each other plate above the first at the bottom of the missiles solid fuel....I think it to be possible to control the burn rate.

AboveAlpha

 

I have been told the CUDA will not have Tungsten Steel metal rods or any rod's in it's warhead cone.

From what I have been told the CUDA's cone once it impacts a target will flatten out or split open like a blooming flower thus giving the missile a greater diameter of impact.

Since the CUDA will be using the same guidance system as the SM-3 but supposedly it will have BOTH IR-Light and Radar Tracking and Guidance....along with massive computational power just like an SM-3 the CUDA will be capable of impacting EXACTLY where we want it to directly strike an Aircraft.

Depending upon angle of an incomming CUDA fired by either the F-35 or F-22....the CUDA could literally fly right up a enemy fighters engine....impacting it at Hypersonic Velocities....and then with the Kinetic Energy that has been built up at such velocities the CUDA even when it's cone opens or flatens out to a larger diameter....could continue to smash through an enemy fighters engine...through and past the engine and continue to cause massive damage through much of the enemy fighter and literally rip the fighter apart.

The addition of Tungsten Steel Rod's as a "Lethality Enhancer" makes no sense as they would just add weight to a missile that is already made as light and small as possible in order to increase the numbers of Air to Air Missiles carried by the F-35, F-22....and the soon to be flying B-1MC....a B-1B Bomber that has been fitted to be able to carry HUNDREDS of CUDA's as the F-35's Fire Control System has been designed to be able to launch air to air missiles from another Missile Carrying Aircraft....as the USAF intends to use B-1B's as Missile Carriers and the CUDA was SPECIFICALLY in mind when such a design was hashed out.

These ROD'S would only decrease the velocity of the CUDA and as Force=Mass x Acceleration....the difference between an missile impacting an aircraft at Mach 6 will make a HELL of a lot more damage than a missile that is heavier by 20% flying at Mach 4.

There is a calculation that is simple.

We will assign the number 10 as the mass of a CUDA with stell rods.

We will assign a number that is a CUDA that has 20% LESS MASS....thus 8.

We multiply Mass x Acceleration...thus....10 x 4....for the heavier CUDA with ROD'S=40 FORCE.

We multiply Mass x Acceleration...thus ....8 x 6....for the lighter CUDA without ROD'S=48 FORCE.

Now if it is possible to use a number of ROD'S that are light enough to not drop the CUDA's velocity below Mach 5 then things change as 10 x 5 = 50 FORCE.

As this would allow the CUDA to be both Hypersonic and with a "Lethality Enhancer" but things get TRICKY when you start adding weight as just a small amount of extra mass can mean the difference of hundred's or even perhaps a thousand miles per hour.

AboveAlpha

 

I was suggesting a hybrid version of the Cuda missile would be useful.

If the Cuda missile were to hit a target aircraft in the side square on traveling at mac 6 and only passing through a mostly empty void would the missile parts have time to do anything other than pass straight out the other side of the aircraft leaving a hole say twice as big as the one on the side where it entered?

 

How long does it take the Cuda missile to accelerate to mac 6? Is that length of time short enough for the Cuda missile to be dependable in a knife fight as a kinetic kill weapon only?

 

That is where the Lethalaty Enhancer comes in.

It is easy to pass through empty space if your projectile has the radius of say a tennis ball.

With the Lethality Enhancer, at the moment of impact the radius jumps up to that of say 3 basketballs. An object that big simply can't pass through an aircraft without striking something soid and of importance. And each thing it strikes also becomes more moving objects and debris. And the projectiles emitted from the LE are not following the trail of the missile, but are going a completely different direction at an angle, expanding the area of damage even more.

Think of it as a kinetic kill projectile, that upon impact ejects other kinetic kill projectiles in a ring all around the side. Because that is literaly what the PAC-3 is. And if CUDA is based off of PAC-3, it is going to do the same thing.

Sure it is. In the last 2 decades, kinetic kill has become a proven battlefield weapon, and is often times much more effective then the explosive weapons that came before. In most ways where a projectile needs to pierce the skin of a small vehicle, kinetic kill is the wave of the future. About the only place I can think of where they would not be effective is in large vehicles, like ships.

Aircraft, trucks, tanks, helicopters, missiles, even bunkers, these are all highly vulnerable to this kind of projectile weapon.