Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
I am sure that, just like a bullet, some degree of fineness ratio and control displacement from mean center of lift will have to be considered to make sure that, whatever the burnout adjusted CG is, the weapon still has the relative control force to pivot about it's best AOA point for PN lead to intercept.
Having said that, what strikes me about this missile is that it conceptually so closely resembles the front end of the AAAM LRAAM interceptor which essentially used the AIM-120/AIM-7M length parametric of around 12ft X7-8 inches to provide a very high impulse booster which took the weapon up to a very high loft and Mach and then dropped away, likely improving missile mass displacement for the _much smaller_ (6-8ft by 5.5 inches) terminal interceptor which then lit off a much different plateau profiled sustainer motor, based on prelaunch input trajectory commands.
The idea being that you could coast and then relight to sustain a decent cruise Mach for max standoff in a frontal engagement situation (where the enemy missile nominally might be very threatening, closer in).
Or burn all at once to overtake targets running away from the NEZ.
You could even do a mixed profile attack where the missile relit for maximum acceleration only at the very end of the intercept, as when engaging low altitude threats where the drag was very high and the target very small (cruise missiles etc.).
CUDA being similar to the front end segment of AAAM.
Unfortunately, CUDA does something I disagree with which is replace the warhead with the ACM package. Which means your total motor length ratio doesn't improve in staying essentially at the mid-wing point.
In this, it's important to note that AIM-120B and C pioneered MMICs which moved away from the hybrid circuits on the AIM-120A and, together with a better warhead, drastically shrank the GCS assembly, leaving a large void-space as growth room in the missile.
AIM-120C5 added a 5" motor extension into this area.
AIM-120C8/D (aka ERAAM) filled the remaining space up completely with a total 11" longer motor (which may also be gel now that I think about it).
AMRAAM motor length thus increased _considerably_ during development.
To me, this weapon looks like something the F-22 could get away with using if it had it's supercruise going (essentially the Raptor is making up for the absent motor length in the CUDA missiles, leaving more space for a sustainer or a variable throttle up peak system).
But for a slow accelerating, largely transonic (M=1.2 best launch point), F-35, firing from much lower altitudes, the stumpier weapon is going to lead to less top end and no sustainer hold on whatever weapon VMax is achieved.
I'm not saying AIM-4 here but you get the idea...
Aug 29, 2013, 7:53:03 PM
Posted to The Mysterious LM 'CUDA' Missile"...