• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

AARGM / VFDR Missiles

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
23
Alright, the missile in this picture:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080109-F-0725K-016.jpg

...looks an awful lot like the one in the photo I have attached. Does anyone have any idea what either of them are? My current theory is one of ARC's VFDR demonstrators, or one of the Raytheon HARM replacement projects.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
964
Reaction score
173
A connection to the JDRADM project perhaps?
 

Andreas Parsch

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
245
Reaction score
9
The accompanying USAF story:

http://www.53wg.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123082312&page=2

And a comment by Bill Sweetman:

http://spyplanes.blogspot.com/2008/01/12308.html (Scroll down to "Fast Attack")

Feeding "High Speed Anti-Radiation Demonstration"/HSAD into Google yields a lot of references, but I haven't yet found one which definitely links it to the QF-4 launch.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
148
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
http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=9854&highlight=nolo
the missile is part of the
the program's name is HSAD
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
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.

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

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
And the AGM-88E AARGM upgrade for HARM, meanwhile, has completed operational assessment firings, according to this Alliant Techsystems August press release:

http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=845

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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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
1,780
Reaction score
132
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
This is the configuration that actually flew:

 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
1,024
Raytheon says its a version of HARM, so I guess AARGM-ER.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/harm/
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
233
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
2,132
Reaction score
148
Thats fast AARGM-ER RFI was due by March ;)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi

Interestingly the placement of the intakes isn't much different from the image DARPA used for the T3

 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
1,024
OK, proto AARGM-ER.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,464
Reaction score
282
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,464
Reaction score
282
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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
2,132
Reaction score
148
What's Raytheon's contribution to AARGM?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
148
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?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
1,024
bring_it_on said:
What's Raytheon's contribution to AARGM?
They build the current AGM-88E AARGM.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
148
I thought it was an Orbital-ATK product???

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=AF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49

Orbital ATK is teamed with MBDA to provide this advanced, cost-effective weapon system to U.S. and approved allied customers.



https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/defense-electronic-systems/aargm/
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
233
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
102
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/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,047
Reaction score
1,024

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
148
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

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
233
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
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

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
233
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
2,822
Reaction score
289
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,266
Reaction score
1,292
Yet another AARGM (AARGM-ER). Hopefully it amounts to something.
 

Attachments

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,822
Reaction score
289
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"
 
Top