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

AARGM / VFDR Missiles

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
marauder2048 said:
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"

Sounds like such a good idea I'd wager everything I own that it'll never go beyond that mockup.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
Its a program and the released the RFI for it last year. The Navy has it in its future plans with integration planned for the Growler and the F-35. Its a fairly important program from that stand point -

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

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
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"

Sounds like such a good idea I'd wager everything I own that it'll never go beyond that mockup.

Well AARGM-ER is a program-of-record. HSAD was a congressional markup.
 

Attachments

  • aargm-er-budget-fy17.png
    aargm-er-budget-fy17.png
    107 KB · Views: 30

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
bring_it_on said:
Its a program and the released the RFI for it last year. The Navy has it in its future plans with integration planned for the Growler and the F-35. Its a fairly important program from that stand point -

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

Yeah. What he said!
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
Two years away from PDR? Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. This one was suppose to fly too, yet here we are. If the past is any indication, this latest effort will result in somebody realizing in 2019, "wait, if we used a scramjet we could get 20 more miles. Back to the drawing board." Believe me, I've got fingers and toes crossed, but at this point I'd have to have a large does of hope to even be considered skeptical.
 

Attachments

  • AARGM2_zps2eb414ac.jpg~original.jpg
    AARGM2_zps2eb414ac.jpg~original.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 67

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
I thought it did fly as HSAD?
 

Attachments

  • hsad.png
    hsad.png
    100.5 KB · Views: 402
  • hsad-qf4.jpg
    hsad-qf4.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 410

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
That's a different missile. (The intakes are the biggest difference.)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
Right. This is where I get confused because there were two competing ramjet powered HARM replacements both with ARC propulsion stacks.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
41
Given that the hardest parts of the ATK version are already working (seeker, avionics, warhead, etc from (AARGM Blk1), only the motor, airframe, and physical flight controls need to be done.

It's doable in a short timeframe, especially if the 11.5" motor is from another project.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
952
Reaction score
44
marauder2048 said:
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"

double-range AARGM Extended Range?

I'm guessing that Drew meant "AARGM-ER with double the range of the existing AARGM" - yes? Double the range of the -ER would quite and achievement.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
SpudmanWP said:
Given that the hardest parts of the ATK version are already working (seeker, avionics, warhead, etc from (AARGM Blk1), only the motor, airframe, and physical flight controls need to be done.

It's doable in a short timeframe, especially if the 11.5" motor is from another project.

Maybe Long Range Precision Fires?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
Orbital played it safe with the sort of budget the Navy plans on committing for the upgrade. Higher capability demands higher cost and would have also demanded a longer time-line. It remains to be seen whether Raytheon responded to the RFI and whether they field something in this space. Given their relationship with Aerojet in past programs (such as the T-3) they could look into a VFDR but whatever capability is offered would have to satisfy the Navy's timeline for IOC on the Growler.
 

Attachments

  • AARGM_VFDR.png
    AARGM_VFDR.png
    53.3 KB · Views: 357
  • AARGM_ER.jpg
    AARGM_ER.jpg
    369.8 KB · Views: 386

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
bring_it_on said:
Orbital played it safe with the sort of budget the Navy plans on committing for the upgrade. Higher capability demands higher cost and would have also demanded a longer time-line. It remains to be seen whether Raytheon responded to the RFI and whether they field something in this space. Given their relationship with Aerojet in past programs (such as the T-3) they could look into a VFDR but whatever capability is offered would have to satisfy the Navy's timeline for IOC on the Growler.

Given all the work that's already been done, the fact they couldn't just grab a VFDR off the shelf, and incorporate it, in a reasonable amount of time, is a joke.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
The technical maturity, performance and risk_mitigation performed on the VFDR under the HSAD and T3 programs is still a bit of a gray area in terms of a lack of transparency (for obvious reasons) on how far these programs went and what milestones were met. Meeting classified range requirements while being internal carriage compliant on the F-35C would have been a challenge with a non VFDR, but if Orbital can do it (which they supposedly can) than it actually makes some sense from a risk stand-point.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
bring_it_on said:
The technical maturity, performance and risk_mitigation performed on the VFDR under the HSAD and T3 programs is still a bit of a gray area in terms of a lack of transparency (for obvious reasons) on how far these programs went and what milestones were met. Meeting classified range requirements would have been a challenge with a non VFDR, but if Orbital can do it (which they supposedly can) than it actually makes some sense from a risk stand-point.

Except work on these things goes all the way back to the 60s and includes the produced Coyote. That said, a rocket is more of a known, and you don't need to deal with the volume taken by air intakes (a factor for internal carriage).
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
Orbital ATK Reveals New 'Double-Range' AARGM
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
James Drew


Orbital ATK has lifted the veil on its extended-range variant of the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), which incorporates a redesigned control section and 11.5 in.-dia. rocket motor for twice the range and internal carriage on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

AARGM-ER is a follow-on to AARGM purely focused on the extended-range scenario,” Mike Stuart, Orbital ATK’s director of business development for strike weapons and defense electronics, said in an interview on Sept. 19. “Navy budget documents define what they’re looking for, and our design addresses that. Our design maintains the current seeker on the front end. We repackage the guidance and navigation system to provide more volume [for the 11.5-in. rocket motor]. We’re anticipating over two times the range.”
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Orbital played it safe with the sort of budget the Navy plans on committing for the upgrade. Higher capability demands higher cost and would have also demanded a longer time-line. It remains to be seen whether Raytheon responded to the RFI and whether they field something in this space. Given their relationship with Aerojet in past programs (such as the T-3) they could look into a VFDR but whatever capability is offered would have to satisfy the Navy's timeline for IOC on the Growler.

Given all the work that's already been done, the fact they couldn't just grab a VFDR off the shelf, and incorporate it, in a reasonable amount of time, is a joke.

T-3 did just that; Boeing and Raytheon both used an Aerojet VFDR stack. We haven't seen what those three are proposing.
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
The technical maturity, performance and risk_mitigation performed on the VFDR under the HSAD and T3 programs is still a bit of a gray area in terms of a lack of transparency (for obvious reasons) on how far these programs went and what milestones were met. Meeting classified range requirements would have been a challenge with a non VFDR, but if Orbital can do it (which they supposedly can) than it actually makes some sense from a risk stand-point.

Except work on these things goes all the way back to the 60s and includes the produced Coyote. That said, a rocket is more of a known, and you don't need to deal with the volume taken by air intakes (a factor for internal carriage).

Ducted rocket development goes back that far but I thought VFDRs were more a late 80's thing?

VFDRs do suffer from the counterfactual "what if you gave the SRM the same volume and weight allowances as the VFDR?"
In most cases, you get close in performance with less cost and complexity.

I also supsect that a VFDR may struggle to meet the Navy's IM and low-smoke requirements.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
https://www.scribd.com/document/324634615/US-Navy-Ramjet-Development
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
marauder2048 said:
Ducted rocket development goes back that far but I thought VFDRs were more a late 80's thing?

The question seems to be, "what's the difference between a ramjet, a ducted rocket, and a Variable Flow Ducted Rocket?" As far as I can tell, a "ducted rocket" is just a ramjet that uses a solid fuel gas generator for the fuel instead of liquid fuel. A VFDR would just be the latter but throttleable.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
Ducted rocket development goes back that far but I thought VFDRs were more a late 80's thing?

The question seems to be, "what's the difference between a ramjet, a ducted rocket, and a Variable Flow Ducted Rocket?" As far as I can tell, a "ducted rocket" is just a ramjet that uses a solid fuel gas generator for the fuel instead of liquid fuel. A VFDR would just be the latter but throttleable.

Maybe there is a distinction in terms of how the throttling is done and how much (if any) onboard oxidizer the gas generator contains.
The VFDR gas generators have a fair amount of oxidizer whereas some of the Solid Fuel Ramjets have no onboard oxidizer but rely on
varying the amount of inlet air that comes into contact with the solid fuel for the gas generation before it is combined with the bypassed,
unreacted air in the combustion chamber*.

In other words, both have two stage combustion but VFDRs use onboard oxidizers for the first stage vs. inlet air for Solid Fueled Ramjets.

* Edit: Attached image from patent for (some hoped for) clarity.
 

Attachments

  • sfrj.png
    sfrj.png
    403.8 KB · Views: 235

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
Courtesy Stephen Trimble
 

Attachments

  • AARGMER_Trimble.PNG
    AARGMER_Trimble.PNG
    609.7 KB · Views: 858

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
AARGM-ER Propulsion System (PS) Industry Day Announcement

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVAIR/N00019/N00019-17-NORFP-PMA-242-0083/listing.html/

Interesting Details (SRM only for the moment) and my highlights

Table 1: PS Program Parameters

Threshold (T) Objective (O)
Delivery of PS EDM production representative test articles prior to support DT&E flight tests prior to January 1st, 2020
Delivery of PS EDM production representative live and inert test articles to support D&E flight tests prior to October 1st, 2019
Delivery of fully qualified PS production units beginning prior to January 1st 2022
Delivery of fully qualified PS production units beginning prior to October 1st, 2021

PS APUC of less than $175K PS APUC of less than $150K

Table 2: PS Design Constraints

PS Performance Maximum achievable within the length and Diameter constraints below and
notional Thrust/Time profile provided in classified addendum.*

Total PS Length <94 inches in length (includes provisions for Tail Control Section packaging
around nozzle blast pipe, folding hangers and provisions for mounting 2 strakes).

PS Diameter The Propulsion Section will have a diameter between 11.5 and 13 inches.


Platform compatibility and induced environments • F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G
carriage and ejection launch, stations 3, 4, 8, and 9 **

• F-35C carriage and ejection launch, internal bay stations 4 and 8

• Propulsion Section will have MIL-STD-8591 compliant suspension lugs for missile suspension on the launch platform.
These may need to be folding to reduce missile in-flight drag.

• Propulsion Section will have Cable ways for communication between the Guidance Computer and the Control Actuation System.

• Propulsion Section will accommodate a MIL-STD-1760 Aircraft-to-Store Communications Connection and associated cabling.
Launcher Interface BRU-32 and BRU-68A (or adapters as necessary)

Operational Temperature Range -40 deg F to +160 deg F
PS to Front End Interface Interface Requirements Specification
PS to Tail Control Aft End Interface 10-inch to 15-inch long aft mounted Control Actuation System (CAS)
* Impulse defined for every 0.5 inches of length, within the given range.
** Assume the Navy's Next Generation Jammer is carried on the E/A-18G next to this PS
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
I see this and think, "no wonder China turns out copies of our stuff almost as fast as we do". Whatever happened to the days of keeping details classified at least until they're in testing or something?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
952
Reaction score
44
sferrin said:
I see this and think, "no wonder China turns out copies of our stuff almost as fast as we do". Whatever happened to the days of keeping details classified at least until they're in testing or something?

Brits had the same problem during the Napoleonic wars. Come up with a solution to a problem and broadcast it to the world for the adversaries benefit. We're doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

One example...
http://www.friendsofpurton.org.uk/Docs/Fells_Patent_Knees.pdf
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
464
Drifting off-topic: that is a very interesting document about a French invention from the late 18th century, later adopted by the East India Company and the Royal Navy.
Iron knees appear to have been first introduced in substantial numbers by the French Navy in the mid-18th century. They were a substitute for the usual ‘grown’ wooden crooks which were becoming scarce. They were, for example, found on the wreck of the French warship Invincible built in 1744 and lost off Portsmouth in 1758 (Quinn et al., 1998). Falconer in his Marine Dictionary specifically stated they were a French innovation (Falconer, 1780). Gabriel Snodgrass, surveyor to the East India Company between 1757 and 1794, appears to have been the first British proponent of the use of iron knees. Again, this probably arose from the difficulty in procuring supplies of suitable timber. Iron knees also offered superior strength and compactness. Snodgrass appeared to have strengthened some East Indiamen with iron knees retrospectively. However, on retiring he wrote a report in 1796 to the Company’s directors firmly advocating the use of iron knees and stanchions from new (Fincham, 1851). By 1810 Company ships were being built with iron knees, stanchions, breast hooks and crutches (Steel, 1823).

Plans of the East Indiaman Farquharson of 1820 in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, show she was fitted with iron hanging knees and horizontal ‘staple’ knees, which were fixed between two deck beams. Their use must have spread to other builders in this decade because the Shipowners’ Lloyd’s Register first included them in 1814 and their underwriting rivals did the same in the 1818 edition of their Register. The Royal Navy adopted the practice of retrospectively fitting iron knees to vessels strained by long periods enforcing the Blockade during the Napoleonic War. The systematic installation of ironwork into new ships began under the auspices of Sir Robert Seppings, the Navy’s chief surveyor from 1813 to 1832.
Not the Brits suffering from adversaries using a British invention, but the other way around.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
sferrin said:
I see this and think, "no wonder China turns out copies of our stuff almost as fast as we do". Whatever happened to the days of keeping details classified at least until they're in testing or something?

Meh. It was going to be around JSOW size in any event to fit in the F-35 A/C bays
and biased towards SRMs given the Navy's investment in highly loaded grain designs.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
U.S. Navy Supporting Double-Range Orbital ATK AARGM


The U.S. Navy has begun meeting with rocket manufacturers to support Orbital ATK’s development of an extended-range Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM-ER) as it targets service entry by 2023.
The weapon, adapted from the legacy Raytheon High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), is designed to suppress or destroy enemy air defenses by homing in on radio frequency emitters, such as radar sites and control hubs. By adding an improved propulsion system with more space for fuel, the service will approximately double AARGM’s range from about 60 nm to more than 120 nm. That will keep its Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft farther from threatening weapons systems, such as the Russian S-400 and Chinese HQ-9, among others.

An added benefit will be internal carriage on the Lockheed MartinF-35C, thanks to smaller control surfaces. But the service confirms that the anticipated design being explored by Orbital ATK is still too large for the Marine Corps F-35B internal weapons bay. Instead, it can be carried externally on the short takeoff and vertical landing variant.

The plan being formulated by the Navy’s direct and time-sensitive strike weapons program office in partnership with Orbital ATK is based on a capability development document signed last June, Naval Air Systems Command tells Aviation Week....


Despite Raytheon’s heritage with the original HARM weapon and continued modernization of the Air Force’s AGM-88-series weapons, Orbital ATK has primacy with development of the front-end AARGM guidance section and modified control section that will be carried forward onto the extended-range version.

As such, the Navy has awarded a sole-source contract to Orbital ATK to figure out how to repackage the front end of the missile to make room for the larger, double-range rocket motor. The large control surfaces common with the HARM weapon that prevent internal carriage on the F-35 will be trimmed and moved aft of the weapon.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
bring_it_on said:
U.S. Navy Supporting Double-Range Orbital ATK AARGM


The U.S. Navy has begun meeting with rocket manufacturers to support Orbital ATK’s development of an extended-range Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM-ER) as it targets service entry by 2023.
The weapon, adapted from the legacy Raytheon High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), is designed to suppress or destroy enemy air defenses by homing in on radio frequency emitters, such as radar sites and control hubs. By adding an improved propulsion system with more space for fuel, the service will approximately double AARGM’s range from about 60 nm to more than 120 nm. That will keep its Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft farther from threatening weapons systems, such as the Russian S-400 and Chinese HQ-9, among others.

An added benefit will be internal carriage on the Lockheed MartinF-35C, thanks to smaller control surfaces. But the service confirms that the anticipated design being explored by Orbital ATK is still too large for the Marine Corps F-35B internal weapons bay. Instead, it can be carried externally on the short takeoff and vertical landing variant.

The plan being formulated by the Navy’s direct and time-sensitive strike weapons program office in partnership with Orbital ATK is based on a capability development document signed last June, Naval Air Systems Command tells Aviation Week....


Despite Raytheon’s heritage with the original HARM weapon and continued modernization of the Air Force’s AGM-88-series weapons, Orbital ATK has primacy with development of the front-end AARGM guidance section and modified control section that will be carried forward onto the extended-range version.

As such, the Navy has awarded a sole-source contract to Orbital ATK to figure out how to repackage the front end of the missile to make room for the larger, double-range rocket motor. The large control surfaces common with the HARM weapon that prevent internal carriage on the F-35 will be trimmed and moved aft of the weapon.

I hope they don't cripple it by trying to shoehorn the thing into an F-35B.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
It isn't required to fit the F-35 B weapons bay. The best route there would probably be to develop a highly efficient low power Anti Radiation type seeker for an SDB II type munition. Could be very useful on the other two variants and the F-22 as well.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
303
bring_it_on said:
It isn't required to fit the F-35 B weapons bay. The best route there would probably be to develop a highly efficient low power Anti Radiation type seeker for an SDB II type munition. Could be very useful on the other two variants and the F-22 as well.

Quite right bring_it_on, I could see that happening. Also how about putting a GBU-15 style rocket pod onto the SDB 2 to further increase range?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
They are looking at that in the GBU-X series of weapons.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
356
sferrin said:
I hope they don't cripple it by trying to shoehorn the thing into an F-35B.

An AARGM-ER All-Up-Round would also chew up a large amount of weapons magazine volume on an LHA.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
Courtesy Navy recognition
 

Attachments

  • AARGM-ER.png
    AARGM-ER.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 186

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
303
bring_it_on said:
Courtesy Navy recognition

Oh boy! that is one mean looking missile. Any word on what the range of the missile would be compared with the standard AARGM?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
In its current configuration (11.5 inch diameter motor) configuration Orbital claims more than double the range.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,356
bring_it_on said:
In its current configuration (11.5 inch diameter motor) configuration Orbital claims more than double the range.

Which means it probably won't get past the model stage unfortunately. It's how we roll. :'(
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
It is a Navy program of record at the moment and the motor section will be competitively sourced therefore it is entirely possible that the Orbital proposal does not make the cut although they stand with a very good chance given their involvement with the rest of the missile section and as the incumbent.

https://youtu.be/cqQiyiior40?t=495
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
151
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) Propulsion System Industry Day Announcement


This Industry Day is intended to identify and solicit information from sources that have the ability to partner with the Government and the AARGM-ER Prime Contractor (Orbital ATK Defense Electronic Systems (OA DES)) in conducting risk identification and reduction activities for PS development, and to develop the subsequent PS. Outputs from the PS risk identification/reduction activities will feed an Engineering Manufacturing & Design (EMD) phase in which the PS firm will either subcontract to OA DES, or execute PS development under direct contract to the Government. Selected offers for one-on-one sessions will be limited to PS design and manufacturing firms, or system design firms that may be teaming with PS design and manufacturing firms.


Industry Day Goals:
• Communicate AARGM-ER PS draft requirements status and schedule
• Solicit industry feedback on acquisition strategies that reduce total PS development time
• Gather information to support near term collaborative engagement with industry to identify/reduce risk to PS development
• Gain a better understanding from industry on state of the art solid rocket motor concepts that support AARGM-ER requirements


II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

AARGM-ER is intended to be future capability Anti-Radiation Missile that leverages existing AGM-88E AARGM components. Any PS development effort for AARGM-ER is expected to compliment modifications to existing AGM-88E front end components (to include a modified interface with a repackaged control section and transition of the Control Actuation System (CAS)/control surfaces to the aft end of the PS).


The Government desires an AARGM-ER Acquisition Strategy that employs innovative approaches to initiate early PS development, reduces overall PS development timelines, and implements open standards for modularity and interface control at reasonable cost.


To support this desire, the Government requests Industry provide a draft informational paper or slide presentation for review five business days prior to the industry day. The government requests industry come to the industry prepared to discuss their informational paper or slide presentation. Details of the industry day schedule are provided in Section III and specific requests for informational paper/slide presentation content are provided in Section IV.


III. INDUSTRY DAY/ONE-ON-ONE AGENDA

DAY 1: 02 February 2017
Location: NAWS Conference Center, NAWCWD China Lake, Ridgecrest, CA


- 0800-0830 Arrival, Check-in at NAWS Conference Center
- 0830-0845 Ground rules/Agenda Review
- 0845-1000 AARGM-ER Acquisition Strategy Brief & PS Design Constraints
- 1000-1030 Break
- 1030-1200 One-on-one Session #1
- 1200-1300 Lunch
- 1300-1430 One-on-one Session #2
- 1430-1500 Break
- 1500-1630 One-on-one Session #3


DAY 2: 03 February 2017
Location: NAWS Conference Center, NAWCWD China Lake, Ridgecrest, CA
- Scheduled if necessary
 

Similar threads

Top