GQM-163A Coyote Target Missile

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
14 December 2009
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
830
Found an obscure Youtube channel with a couple test launches of the Coyote. Unfortunately, no video of the missile under ramjet power at cruise speed. If there is an existing post dedicated to the Coyote please move this. I didn't find anything in the search.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dydkA94nQg0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG4MSx4BVfA

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXFeJIW45qw


There are a couple of BQM target drones as well.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVST9ospado

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFKHAiWfuuE

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoFvEQrWryg
 
This was the only one I'd ever seen:


And I found it ages ago, on some random site.
 
Last edited:
Wily Coyote: Evolving the US Navy's supersonic anti-ship missile surrogate - Jane's IDR November, 2016


High diver


In March 2006 PMA-208 started working in conjunction with Orbital to develop a modification that would enable the GQM-163A to perform a powered dive in order to replicate the high-altitude cruise/near-vertical dive attack profile associated with a specific high-diving missile threat. A single GQM-163A was adapted to support the high-diver modification: this was in large part a software modification, but the extended flight time of the vehicle in high-diver mode also presented a challenge in terms of heat build-up and thermal management, necessitating some minor engineering changes to improve the thermal resistance of the on-board electronics.

A successful operational flight demonstration of the new high-diving mode was completed in July 2010. A number of mission-specific equipment kits were subsequently purchased to support GQM-163A targets configured with the heritage FES; the high-diver capability can be incorporated as a kit in all OFES targets and has been partially integrated into FRP-8 assets and beyond to reduce build time.

"To date, there have been 13 high-diver missions since the demo flight," said Capt Cecil, adding, "Additional modifications to high-diver capabilities continue to be made to meet test requirements. The GQM-163A recently completed high-diver flights at White Sands Missile Range that flew higher and faster than previous operations [52,000 ft and Mach 4]."

A further effort is the development and embodiment of an improved flight termination system kit. The objective here is to enable the Coyote target to fly a closer approach to manned ships conducting weapons system testing.

"Current range safety operating procedures limit the target to get no closer than 2.5 miles from manned ships," said Capt Cecil. "Modifications to the flight termination system are being made, which may allow the target to fly closer to a manned ship."

Work continues on the closer approach effort and associated range-safety approval for the GQM-163A target. In December 2015, NAVAIR notified its intention to award a delivery order to Orbital ATK to procure six OFES closer-approach kits in support of the GQM-163A programme.

Another initiative is the integration of a non-developmental government off-the-shelf Joint Advanced Missile Instrumentation (JAMI) Target Integrated Module (JTIM) into the OFES. NAVAIR in April 2016 notified its intention to contract Orbital ATK for this work, together with the provision of associated launch equipment for use in Quad Launch operations.

"Launch site preparation and required upgrades to the targets [for Quad Launch] are currently in work," Capt Cecil confirmed to IHS Jane's . "These are expected to be complete in 2018."
 
One wonders what advantage this has over the cheaper, faster, higher flying AQM-37C.
 
Ground launch. Cheaper mission cost, if you count in the AQM-37C's non-expendable manned booster system.
 
They are also looking at an AQM-37C/D replacement RFI soon.
 

Attachments

  • Navy_Targets_Page_07.jpg
    Navy_Targets_Page_07.jpg
    156.7 KB · Views: 549
  • Navy_Targets_Page_06.jpg
    Navy_Targets_Page_06.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 512
  • Navy_Targets_Page_08.jpg
    Navy_Targets_Page_08.jpg
    138.5 KB · Views: 489
bring_it_on said:
They are also looking at an AQM-37C/D replacement RFI soon.

The Naval Air Systems Command, PMA-208 (Aerial Target and Decoy Systems), is conducting market research to identify qualified, experienced, and interested potential sources for a supersonic aerial target system capable of high altitude cruise, lower altitude cruise, tactical ballistic and lofted missile profiles. Solutions that can satisfy the capabilities of interest (listed later in document) would be considered for replacement of the air launched AQM-37 as well as other future supersonic target capabilities. The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is for the Government to gain insight into existing products within industry and the ability of industry to modify existing products or to develop new items providing the capabilities of interest discussed below. This RFI also provides industry with a better understanding of the capabilities that PMA-208 is considering for the United States Navy as it establishes its future technologies roadmap. This market research is focused on concepts that currently exist or would be available starting in the Government FY2019 timeframe.


2. Responses to this market research notification are due no later than 60 business days from this notice.


3. This notice is issued solely for information and planning purposes only and shall not be considered as an invitation for bid, request for quotation, Request For Proposal (RFP), or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any products or services. Your response to this notice is strictly voluntary and will be treated as information only. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the Government will arise as a result of contractor submission of responses to this notice or the Government use of such information. Not responding to this Sources Sought Notice does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website (https://www.fbo.gov).


4. Solely at the Government's discretion, vendors responding to this notice may be allowed time to brief their responses to the Government on a case-by-case basis.


5. Desired Capabilities:


a. Speed: Minimum of 2.0M.
b. Altitude: Capable of profiles ranging from sea skimming to 70k ft or greater.
c. Range: 160 nm.
d. Maneuvers: Ability to program unique flight profiles consisting of turns, dives, dive pullout, spiral and/or weave maneuvers in the terminal phase. Precision onboard guidance/navigation/control system required.
e. Dive Angles: Up to 80 degrees.
f. Payloads: Additional space, weight and power capacity to support seeker or emitter simulation payloads. Modular/plug and play interface for payloads.
g. Telemetry: Signal range to 160nm to include Time Space Position Information (TSPI) and vehicle health.
h. Location and Identification: AN/DPN-90 transponder system or other transponder with similar capability.
i. Scoring: Scalar scoring (e.g. AN/DSQ-50A).
j. Flight Termination: Must be capable of achieving RCC-319 compliance. A minimized debris field is desired.


6. Information Sought:


a. Identify available supersonic target solutions that provide all or some of the above capabilities.
b. Launch Method: Air and/or Ground. Air launched vehicles should be compatible with existing RDT&E or operational DoD aircraft (e.g. F-16, FA-18).
c. End Point Accuracy: +/- 100 feet Circular Error Probable (CEP).
d. Identify baseline and augmented Radar Cross Section parameters, if known.
e. Identify artifacts and a rough scope of effort required to generate artifacts to support system, ground and flight safety certifications for the target system, if known.
f. Identify any artifacts available that would assist 3rd party integration of the target into an aircraft platform or ground based launcher.
g. Identify corporate roadmap (to include upgrades, sustainability, etc.) for the target solution.
h. Identify any vendors and relationships involved in the target system and relevant qualifications.
i. Identify software design philosophy/approach/practices, indicating familiarity with developing aviation and safety critical software.
j. Identify preferred procurement method (acquisition & sustainment) and, if applicable, any license quantity pricing and measure (example: 1-10, 11-50, 51-100, etc.)
k. Identify Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost & schedule estimate to include any major activities (i.e. Non-Recurring Engineering, Test, etc.). NOTE: This ROM cost & schedule estimate is NOT binding and will ONLY be used for planning purposes.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=65f7467c6a1469377e1bede00f8ade40&tab=core&_cview=0
 
"Desired Capabilities:


a. Speed: Minimum of 2.0M.
b. Altitude: Capable of profiles ranging from sea skimming to 70k ft or greater.
c. Range: 160 nm."

Yikes. That's a rather HUGE step back in capability compared to the current AQM-37C.

"In 1981, the U.S. Navy modified 10 AQM-37As under the Challenger program with a refined high-g autopilot, and enlarged heat-resistant tail surfaces, to allow for higher speed, altitude and manoeuverability. These features were incorporated into the AQM-37C, which was delivered to the Navy from 1986 onwards. The AQM-37C has a radio command control system, which allows changes in the flight path after launch, including a terminal dive at a controlled dive angle. It also features a digital autopilot, and improved radar augmentation in four different frequency bands. Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) and a range of 425 km (265 miles), with terminal speeds of Mach 5. "

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/AQM-37_Jayhawk_Target.ppt
 
This is an early stage and I guess the Navy would have to balance the cost, with unique capabilities that this target needs to possess in order to fit between the Ballistic Missile targets, and the GQM-163A along with the subsonic cruise missiles. I think this will probably end up being Mach 3-4 class perhaps taking the same propulsion route as the GQM-163A given the advances that Aerojet has been able to make since that target was developed.

Also, the PMO 208 has a hypersonic target S&T interest that it may pursue for the future and this will likely interest other program and services as well given how that threat is likely to shape up over the next decade or so. I guess we need to look at some of the Super Sonic cruise missiles that the Navy may need to defend itself against and see what gaps exist in the current set up assuming that the GQM-163A may eventually be ship launched target as opposed to a purely land launched one.
 
My understanding is that AQM-37 design is not suitable for ground launch which means that you need a launch aircraft for each and every target presentation (driving up costs). Oh, and the Hydrazine/RFNA propellants induce a multitude of issues (including but not limited to handling costs) and are not well liked by ground and aircrew.
 
aim9xray said:
My understanding is that AQM-37 design is not suitable for ground launch which means that you need a launch aircraft for each and every target presentation (driving up costs). Oh, and the Hydrazine/RFNA propellants induce a multitude of issues (including but not limited to handling costs) and are not well liked by ground and aircrew.

True, but all this has been the case for almost 45 years. Why now?
 
Life cycle costs are only getting worse, not better.
 
from fbo:


The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Patuxent River, MD intends to
award a sole source, Delivery Order under Basic Ordering Agreement
(BOA) N00019-16-G-0015 with Orbital Sciences Corporation, 3380 Price
Road, Chandler AZ, for the integration of a Deployable Chaff System to the
GQM-163A target. This system will be used to simulate the radar signature
of a Multi-Stage Supersonic Target (MSST) separation event through the
use of Deployable Chaff and the Orbital-ATK GQM-163A target vehicle
.

my emphasis
 
2/14/18: Orbital ATK, Chandler, Arizona, is being awarded a $79,444,734 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for operation and maintenance services in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division Ground Launch Drone Missile (GQM-163A) target test and evaluation to include developmental testing. This contract also supports foreign military sales testing activities. Contract support will be performed in Point Mugu, California (25 percent); San Nicholas Island, California (25 percent); Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii (25 percent); and Wallops Island, Virginia (25 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2023. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $300,000 will be obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This award was not competitively procured and was solicited with a request for proposal; one offer was received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division China Lake, California, is the contracting activity (N68936-18-D-0015).
 
Orbital Sciences Corp. Chandler, Arizona, is awarded $52,880,606 for modification P-00001 to
a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost contract (N00019-18-C-1047) to
exercise an option for the procurement of 18 Lot 12 full rate production GQM-163A Coyote Supersonic
Sea Skimming Target (SSST) base vehicles and D6AC long lead steel in support of the GQM-163A
SSST for the Navy; and the governments of Japan and Israel.

My emphasis. Wonder what the Israelis are testing...
 
US Navy orders more Coyote supersonic targets from Northrop Grumman

By Defense Brief Editorial - May 14, 2021

The US Navy has ordered another 18 GQM-163A “Coyote” supersonic sea-skimming target vehicles as it prepares to introduce the targets to the international maneuver Formidable Shield for the first time.

Northrop Grumman, the maker of non-recoverable target missiles, said the contract modification represented the first of three options that can be exercised against the full-rate production contract awarded last year.

The $55.4 million award brings the GQM-163A targets ordered to date to 218.

 
It's occurred to me that if GQM-163 was fitted with a Mk-72 booster (Enabling it to be launched from the Mk-41 VLS) along with a warhead and suitable seeker it could be used used as ASM.
 
It's occurred to me that if GQM-163 was fitted with a Mk-72 booster (Enabling it to be launched from the Mk-41 VLS) along with a warhead and suitable seeker it could be used used as ASM.
A really crappy one. It doesn't have much range and would have even less with the weight of a warhead and guidance added. Would a Mk-72 even have the oomph to get it to speed?
 
It's occurred to me that if GQM-163 was fitted with a Mk-72 booster (Enabling it to be launched from the Mk-41 VLS) along with a warhead and suitable seeker it could be used used as ASM.
A really crappy one. It doesn't have much range and would have even less with the weight of a warhead and guidance added. Would a Mk-72 even have the oomph to get it to speed?

Given the size of Mk 72, absolutely. It's a beast, not much smaller than the early Standard ER Mark 12 booster.

I have a vague memory that they did semi-seriously propose an AShM derivative of Coyote. One big problem was the miniscule space/weight available for a warhead. And yeah, range was disappointing.
 
It's occurred to me that if GQM-163 was fitted with a Mk-72 booster (Enabling it to be launched from the Mk-41 VLS) along with a warhead and suitable seeker it could be used used as ASM.
A really crappy one. It doesn't have much range and would have even less with the weight of a warhead and guidance added. Would a Mk-72 even have the oomph to get it to speed?

Given the size of Mk 72, absolutely. It's a beast, not much smaller than the early Standard ER Mark 12 booster.
IIRC the Mk72 has about half the ISP Mk70 booster.
 
Last edited:
USN has only one unmanned Self Defense Test Ship, SDTS, a converted Spruance, towing a barge 150 feet behind in case of damage. Its needed as the safety zone around ships is large (actual the figures in nm ?) so as to make live trials with manned ships meaningless eg Coyote would never be aimed head on at a ship or nearby to fully stress test its ESSM, RAM systems etc to see if effective.

The SDTS has for a considerable time been committed to testing the new Raytheon TSCE CMS with its SPY-3 X-band radar and the special variants of the SM-2 and ESSM required, installed on the three Zumwalts and Ford - Navy have stated that they are planning to scrap the SPY-3 installed on the Zumwalts, no reason given, yet to reveal which radar will replace it.

The DOT&E has for years pressuring the Navy to fully test the Burke Flight III self defense system capabilities with its new SPY-6 radar and its missiles on a dedicated Aegis $350 million SDTS, Congress funded the ship, but the Navy saying its not needed, relying on its modelling and simulation (M&S) suite, which depends on how good is the software!
 
Last edited:
The GQM-163A could be modified to make a lightweight anti-ship missile, land attack missile or anti-radiation missile and if it was fitted with a Mk-72 booster or maybe the booster used for the ASROC-VL it could be launched from a Mk-41 VLS.
 
The GQM-163A could be modified to make a lightweight anti-ship missile, land attack missile or anti-radiation missile and if it was fitted with a Mk-72 booster or maybe the booster used for the ASROC-VL it could be launched from a Mk-41 VLS.

Coyote has a surprisingly small payload and range. It's not a great ASCM candidate.
 
Last edited:
Yup. Its not a highly suitable candidate given its requirements around operating within a particular weapon testing or training range. It is also a bit dated and that capability will have marginal improvement on our current and upcoming ship-killing capability via Blk V TLAM, LRASM, and SM-6 1B. The future HALO is a generational leap over something like a weaponized Coyote.
 

The target drone provides a realistic training environment for both sailors and combat systems, allowing them to hone their abilities to detect, track and engage fast sea-skimming threats in the real world.

Would be surprised if that was true, the safety zone around ship think miles so that if if the AA missiles fail to take out the Coyotes for whatever reason the Coyote missile does not impact the ship with high probability killing sailors when travelling a mach 2+. thought there would be a big difference between head on targeting of Coyote with a low RCS and sideways with high RCS?
 

The target drone provides a realistic training environment for both sailors and combat systems, allowing them to hone their abilities to detect, track and engage fast sea-skimming threats in the real world.

Would be surprised if that was true, the safety zone around ship think miles so that if if the AA missiles fail to take out the Coyotes for whatever reason the Coyote missile does not impact the ship with high probability killing sailors when travelling a mach 2+. thought there would be a big difference between head on targeting of Coyote with a low RCS and sideways with high RCS?

There's a 2.5 km keep-out zone. In general, they aren't simulating the very late-game intercepts here, so the geometry isn't that much different. Would be good to have a proper Self-Defense Test Ship with AEGIS but not happening any time soon due to budget.
 

The target drone provides a realistic training environment for both sailors and combat systems, allowing them to hone their abilities to detect, track and engage fast sea-skimming threats in the real world.

Would be surprised if that was true, the safety zone around ship think miles so that if if the AA missiles fail to take out the Coyotes for whatever reason the Coyote missile does not impact the ship with high probability killing sailors when travelling a mach 2+. thought there would be a big difference between head on targeting of Coyote with a low RCS and sideways with a high RCS?
Hi, author of the article here, as TomS mentioned the keep-out range is for safety and is way too close to the ship to be a limitation for training crews on tracking and engagement scenarios of supersonic sea skimmers, most of the interception happens some distance from the ship anyway. As for head-on or side-view engagements, I'm not sure, but I don't know why USN wouldn't conduct head-on low RCS engagements, AQM-37/BQM-177 also have low RCS and are engaged in some scenarios head-on unless geometry permits side-view engagement. The attached screenshots below, show various engagement scenarios that AEGIS BL9 certification went through.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211206-163749.jpg
    Screenshot_20211206-163749.jpg
    294.9 KB · Views: 17
  • Screenshot_20211206-163739.jpg
    Screenshot_20211206-163739.jpg
    246.8 KB · Views: 20
I wonder there will ever be an air-launched version of the ESSM?

Edit: Those two videos you showed, @sferrin, must be old as they showed MQM-8 Vandal supersonic targets being used.
 
Last edited:
I wonder there will ever be an air-launched version of the ESSM?

Edit: Those two videos you showed, @sferrin, must be old as they showed MQM-8 Vandal supersonic targets being used.

First one is pre-2003, because the SDTS shown is ex-Decatur, not ex-Paul F. Foster.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom