AARGM / VFDR Missiles

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,224
Reaction score
102

Attachments

  • ARC VFDR.JPG
    ARC VFDR.JPG
    59.2 KB · Views: 1,276
Last edited by a moderator:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
Here is another shot of that one and also the ramjet AARGM (notice it also has the ARC logo on the board) to eliminate confusion. I think the one launched from the Phantom is larger than the one on the F-16, at least in diameter.

edit: Just hazarding a guess but "ARC VFDR" could stand for "Atlantic Research Corp. Variable Flow Ducted Rocket" a program mentioned in "FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID PROPELLANT TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS AT ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION", an AIAA paper. They apparently did two static firings with both of them successful.

From another site:

"The company is the US leader in air- breathing rocket technology following the successful completion of a I0-year, $50m variable flow-ducted rocket (VFDR) programme. This proven technology best meets the requirements of the advanced strike weapon and the beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM). ARC has extensive in-house facilities for ramjet testing. "

And another:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13495

It's also mentioned in this AIAA paper (with picture)

"The evolution of ramjet missile propulsion in the U.S. and where we are headed" The picture in that paper is a dead ringer for the one on the F-16.
 

Attachments

  • DUCTROCK.gif
    DUCTROCK.gif
    60 KB · Views: 1,045
  • AARGM2.jpg
    AARGM2.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 1,033
  • together.jpg
    together.jpg
    114.3 KB · Views: 1,003
  • today 2.jpg
    today 2.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 962

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,394
Reaction score
429
The AARGM2 picture shows a different missile from either the QF-4 shots or the F-16 ones. The inlets are side mounted versus the "4 o'clock and 7 o'clock" ones of the other pics.
The diameter of the missile on the F-4 looks very close to the HARM. In fact i bet it's the same body/seeker bolted on a different rear propulsive end.
I can't quite figure out if the missile on the F-16 is the same as on the F-4. The configuration is definitely the same, but I can't tell if it's the same body diameter/overall size. ???

what do you guys think?

according to this
the missile is part of the
the program's name is HSAD
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
The one with the side ducts was the configuration that was originally going to be used for AARGM and then AARGM became simply a front end replacement for the HARM. Since then I've heard nothing of it. If it were me I'd go with the airframe on the F-4 as it is both the most recent (ASALM is long dead and I believe the AARGM config. is as well) and probably the most likely to be used in a future ARM.
 

CammNut

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
297
Reaction score
19
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.


HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.

Aerojet's variable-flow ducted rocket (VFDR), aka integrated rocket ramjet (IRR), already powers the Navy's Orbital Sciences GQM-163 Coyote supersonic sea-skimming target.

And here's the Navy's picture of the HSAD launch:
 

CammNut

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
297
Reaction score
19
sorry, forgot to add the picture:
 

Attachments

  • hsad1.jpg
    hsad1.jpg
    9.7 KB · Views: 151

CammNut

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
297
Reaction score
19
And the AGM-88E AARGM upgrade for HARM, meanwhile, has completed operational assessment firings, according to this Alliant Techsystems August press release:


A production decision is scheduled for later this year. As pointed out previously, AARGM is a guidance system upgrade for HARM (and only Navy HARMs), while HSAD (which uses AARGM's guidance section) would be a propulsion upgrade.

The problem appears to be a disagreement between the Air Force and Navy over what the next anti-radar missile should be. The Air Force wants JDRADM to replace both AMRAAM and HARM, but the Navy has no formal interest.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
CammNut said:
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=3977&site_id=16

HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.

Which strikes me as odd. Do they think HARM will last forever? Not sure I'd want to be the guy in an F-16 trying to launch a HARM at an S-400 site. :eek:
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
449
sferrin said:
CammNut said:
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=3977&site_id=16

HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.

Which strikes me as odd. Do they think HARM will last forever? Not sure I'd want to be the guy in an F-16 trying to launch a HARM at an S-400 site. :eek:


Possibly they're thinking that with a propulsion upgrade to HARM, they can get the desired standoff range with lower risk and cost, sort of like what happened with JASSM and SLAM-ER (based on Harpoon). Specifically, JASSM has 50nm more range, and is stealthy, but has had a protracted and troubled development and entry into service. SLAM-ER goes far enough to meet the Navy's needs, had an easy introduction and was available years before JASSM. Maybe USN thinks a propulsion upgrade to HARM would do the same thing.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
CammNut said:
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=3977&site_id=16

HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.

Which strikes me as odd. Do they think HARM will last forever? Not sure I'd want to be the guy in an F-16 trying to launch a HARM at an S-400 site. :eek:


Possibly they're thinking that with a propulsion upgrade to HARM, they

"there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile" when they say that they're referring to the HARM propulsion upgrade.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
This is a pic i have of the weapon..
 

Attachments

  • HARM_VFDR.jpg
    HARM_VFDR.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 141

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
 

Attachments

  • Q4:HSAD1.jpg
    Q4:HSAD1.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 128
  • Q4:HSAD.jpg
    Q4:HSAD.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 97

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
From "uclass" at F-16.net:
 

Attachments

  • rtn_141803.jpg
    rtn_141803.jpg
    404.6 KB · Views: 383

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,992
Reaction score
2,587
Raytheon says its a version of HARM, so I guess AARGM-ER.

 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
Propulsion section from T3 and the AARGM guidance section. T3 program objectives included internal carriage for L-O platforms...
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
Thats fast AARGM-ER RFI was due by March ;)


Interestingly the placement of the intakes isn't much different from the image DARPA used for the T3
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
932
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?

Maybe you're looking too close. Other than pointy front ends and fire at the back they have nothing in common. However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread, and look real close, you may start to think Meteor looks just like a configuration the USAF has been playing with for decades. ;)
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
932
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?

Maybe you're looking too close. Other than pointy front ends and fire at the back they have nothing in common. However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread, and look real close, you may start to think Meteor looks just like a configuration the USAF has been playing with for decades. ;)

Any pictures of this missile?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?

Maybe you're looking too close. Other than pointy front ends and fire at the back they have nothing in common. However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread, and look real close, you may start to think Meteor looks just like a configuration the USAF has been playing with for decades. ;)

Any pictures of this missile?

"However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread"
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?

It looks nothing like that other than the fact that its a missile and looks like one, is a VFDR missile so will have intakes etc. US Ramjet Air missiles have been tried and tested for years going into decades. One such concept was even offered to the UK's FRAAM requirements which essentially was an AMRAAM with a ramjet.

Does the Meteor look like the Ramjet AMRAAM? :) or another missile that even pre-dates that proposal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
The HARM was built most recently by Raytheon, later Orbital ATK won the contract to produce the AARGM upgrade. Whoever wins AARGM-ER will produce it.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,232
Reaction score
270
Interesting. The back end looks like a mockup, with no visible segment joins or control surface gaps - the front end could be a ground-training round or other hardware. It's probably not T3 because AFAIK T3 was intended to be AMRAAM-sized and HARM is >2x larger than AMRAAM.,,


And here it is:


 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,992
Reaction score
2,587

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
1,028
LowObservable said:
Interesting. The back end looks like a mockup, with no visible segment joins or control surface gaps - the front end could be a ground-training round or other hardware. It's probably not T3 because AFAIK T3 was intended to be AMRAAM-sized and HARM is >2x larger than AMRAAM.,,


And here it is:


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-lifts-veil-on-ramjet-powered-harm-223342/

This missile was reported on by Janes as well around the same time...
 

Attachments

  • HARM_VFDR.jpg
    HARM_VFDR.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 440

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
sferrin said:
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
Depends on your definition of alive. I believe the Navy is leaning toward if not decided upon a dual-pulse solid motor for AARGM-ER, but Raytheon and Aerojet are still actively promoting a VFDR solution either as a long-term upgrade or for other customers. So the weapon depicted in that mockup is not an active DoD program at this moment, but neither is it sitting forgotten in a warehouse.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
Moose said:
sferrin said:
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
Depends on your definition of alive. I believe the Navy is leaning toward if not decided upon a dual-pulse solid motor for AARGM-ER, but Raytheon and Aerojet are still actively promoting a VFDR solution either as a long-term upgrade or for other customers. So the weapon depicted in that mockup is not an active DoD program at this moment, but neither is it sitting forgotten in a warehouse.

But did Raytheon ever actually fly that configuration? Here's another one (though what program is anybody's guess)
 

Attachments

  • jrakzrakraketahn3.jpg
    jrakzrakraketahn3.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 410
  • raytheon dradm.jpg
    raytheon dradm.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 412

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
sferrin said:
But did Raytheon ever actually fly that configuration? Here's another one (though what program is anybody's guess)
Such testing may not have been disclosed publicly, depending on what the circumstances. That mockup is the Raytheon competitor for DRADM, with a 7" diameter VFDR. Circa 2011.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
Possibly related (from Raytheon's 2nd quarter 2015 earnings report)

"MS [Missile Systems] also booked $99 million on a classified program"

It's the first classified program booking for Raytheon MS in some time.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,754
Reaction score
3,733
Yet another AARGM (AARGM-ER). Hopefully it amounts to something.
 

Attachments

  • AARGM_ER.png
    AARGM_ER.png
    731.5 KB · Views: 232

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
Reminds me of Boeing's JABMR.
 

Attachments

  • JABMR1.jpg
    JABMR1.jpg
    117.5 KB · Views: 209

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
James Drew (AvWeek) says the Orbital ATK mockup is a " double-range AARGM Extended Range with 11.5" rocket motor. Internal carriage on F-35"
 

Similar threads

Top