AARGM / VFDR Missiles

Josh_TN said:
NASA said:
Update: apparently the bottom was NG's pitch for Navy's HALO, and it lost.
Click to expand...

Hard to picture how that object could host a scramjet. Perhaps they went with a ramjet solution. Hard to say without knowing the program requirements.
Click to expand...

Tough to imagine that the Raytheon design does not incorporate a Northrop air-breathing motor given their partnership on HAWC, HACM, SciFire, and the next variant of PrSM.
 
bring_it_on said:
Josh_TN said:
NASA said:
Update: apparently the bottom was NG's pitch for Navy's HALO, and it lost.
Click to expand...

Hard to picture how that object could host a scramjet. Perhaps they went with a ramjet solution. Hard to say without knowing the program requirements.
Click to expand...

Tough to imagine that the Raytheon design does not incorporate a Northrop air-breathing motor given their partnership on HAWC, HACM, SciFire, and the next variant of PrSM.
Click to expand...

Why did they compete separately on this contract then? In any case, the limitations of CV operations might have made something that was ramjet vice scramjet seem more appropriate to one or more of the bidders, if that still technically fulfilled the USN requirement. Or possible that mock up did envision using a scramjet; the inlet looks like a modernized ASLAM to me but maybe it has a bunch of tricks under the hood to make it multimode like HyFly.
 
bring_it_on said:
Josh_TN said:
NASA said:
Update: apparently the bottom was NG's pitch for Navy's HALO, and it lost.
Click to expand...

Hard to picture how that object could host a scramjet. Perhaps they went with a ramjet solution. Hard to say without knowing the program requirements.
Click to expand...

Tough to imagine that the Raytheon design does not incorporate a Northrop air-breathing motor given their partnership on HAWC, HACM, SciFire, and the next variant of PrSM.
Click to expand...
One of the HALO competitors is bidding with a Rotating Detonation Engine, I'm not sure which at the moment but Raytheon is working with P&W on an Air Force RDE program
 
Moose said:
One of the HALO competitors is bidding with a Rotating Detonation Engine, I'm not sure which at the moment but Raytheon is working with P&W on an Air Force RDE program
Click to expand...

That's an interesting choice. Do you have a link for that? That does make it sound like the USN laid out a very broad requirement of range and speed and was agnostic to the propulsion method.

EDIT: isn't Raytheon's rotating detonation motor something they are researching for PrSM Incr 4? Perhaps they are bidding an air launched PrSM for the USN requirement? That would certainly have the range (that probably could cross a couple time zones with air launch) and presumably the speed at shorter ranges. Also I think the USN in general prefers ordnance without liquid fuel.
 
Last edited:
Moose said:
bring_it_on said:
Josh_TN said:
NASA said:
Update: apparently the bottom was NG's pitch for Navy's HALO, and it lost.
Click to expand...

Hard to picture how that object could host a scramjet. Perhaps they went with a ramjet solution. Hard to say without knowing the program requirements.
Click to expand...

Tough to imagine that the Raytheon design does not incorporate a Northrop air-breathing motor given their partnership on HAWC, HACM, SciFire, and the next variant of PrSM.
Click to expand...
One of the HALO competitors is bidding with a Rotating Detonation Engine, I'm not sure which at the moment but Raytheon is working with P&W on an Air Force RDE program
Click to expand...

That is indeed interesting, though it would be quite a lift to get that into an operational weapon by 2029 as opposed to HAWC/SciFire derived system which has completed multiple reviews, design evolutions, flight tests and is nearing a CDR for an operational weapon (HACM).
 
Josh_TN said:
Moose said:
One of the HALO competitors is bidding with a Rotating Detonation Engine, I'm not sure which at the moment but Raytheon is working with P&W on an Air Force RDE program
Click to expand...

That's an interesting choice. Do you have a link for that? That does make it sound like the USN laid out a very broad requirement of range and speed and was agnostic to the propulsion method.

EDIT: isn't Raytheon's rotating detonation motor something they are researching for PrSM Incr 4? Perhaps they are bidding an air launched PrSM for the USN requirement? That would certainly have the range (that probably could cross a couple time zones with air launch) and presumably the speed at shorter ranges. Also I think the USN in general prefers ordnance without liquid fuel.
Click to expand...
Solid fuels suitable for ramjet RDEs have been under study by the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics. If they found a formulation that can pyrolyze and detonate as desired while meeting the DoD insensitive munitions requirements...oh boy.
 
The US Navy (USN) and Northrop Grumman are negotiating the third low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract for the air-launched AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER), according to a service official.

The USN awarded contracts to Northrop Grumman for the first two LRIP lots in September 2021 and December 2021, respectively. A total of four LRIP lots are planned. The USN expects to award the first full-rate production contract in fiscal year (FY) 2025.

The AARGM-ER has completed four of its six planned developmental test shots and will undergo the final two “in the next couple months”, said Captain Alex Dutko, navy programme manager for Direct and Time Sensitive Strike. The fifth test, an air-to-ground shot, was supposed to occur in March but was delayed by a rare snowfall in California, Capt Dutko told reporters on 3 April at the Navy League Sea-Air-Space 2023 conference held in National Harbor, Maryland. Operational testing is scheduled to follow developmental testing and wrap up in FY 2024.
Click to expand...

Navy League 2023: US Navy, Northrop Grumman discuss next AARGM-ER contract

The US Navy (USN) and Northrop Grumman are negotiating the third low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract for the air-launched AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided...
www.janes.com
 
Will AGM88G require Blk 4 for F35 integration? Will F-18s require any modifications? My understanding is that this is an E model with a significantly bigger booster, so I’d expect it to slot into existing F-18s with just some captive carry and separation testing.
 
aonestudio said:
news.northropgrumman.com

Northrop Grumman To Provide New Strike Missile Capability for Fifth-Generation Aircraft and Beyond

LOS ANGELES – Sept. 25, 2023 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced today the U.S. Air Force has awarded the company an approximately $705 million contract to deliver the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW), an air-to-ground weapon that...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com
Click to expand...

Shocking that they ran a competition to select the missile that they originally wanted to buy via a sole-source award.
 
TomS said:
Shocking that they ran a competition to select the missile that they originally wanted to buy via a sole-source award.
Click to expand...
Fewer lawsuits when they run a competition, just a GAO protest that has a much shorter turn-around time.

NASA said:
Seems like NG unveiled ground launched AARGM-ER called AReS ( Advanced Reactive Strike). They also seem to indicate that to increase range they can use Mk.135 or Mk.72 boosters from the TLAM/SM families respectively. It might fit into HIMARS and a new launcher, I'm not certain about the utility of this, you can probably do much better with a PrSM.

Northrop Tests First Pieces Of Ground-Launched AARGM-ER | Aviation Week Network

The newly-branded Advanced Reactive Strike (ARES) missile and the Modular Payload System (MPS) launcher could be fielded in 4-7 years, depending on the booster configuration.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
It has an anti-radar seeker, when PrSM doesn't (? last I heard, anyways).

Means Army can throw a volley of ARES into an area they want attack helicopters to work in but that's too well covered by SAMs right now. Though I also suspect that they may be pitching this more at the Marines needs than Army.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It has an anti-radar seeker, when PrSM doesn't (? last I heard, anyways).
Click to expand...
The next PrSM increment will have a seeker designed around moving and emitting targets.

Josh_TN said:
Did USAF release any program requirements? How is SiAW going to differ from just a AAGM ER?
Click to expand...
USAF specific changes to the warhead, probably guidance and a fully digital design allowing much easier upgrades and evolving the missile over time. The exact phase 2 specific changes have not been mentioned other than it will be a fully digital design possibly the first AF munition to meet those criteria unless the AIM-260 was also designed with similar requirements.
 
bring_it_on said:
The next PrSM increment will have a seeker designed around moving and emitting targets.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen the emitting part. They've talked about Inc 2 being intended to hit mobile/relocatable targets (ships, especially). Giving it a specific passive radar homing function would be new, I think.
 
TomS said:
They've talked about Inc 2 being intended to hit mobile/relocatable targets (ships, especially).
Click to expand...

That would mean an active MMW radar seeker and/or IIR seeker (Perhaps something based on the SDB II's seeker?).
 
TomS said:
I hadn't seen the emitting part. They've talked about Inc 2 being intended to hit mobile/relocatable targets (ships, especially). Giving it a specific passive radar homing function would be new, I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is no longer mentioned in its documentation. However, at the start of this effort, Army Future leaders used to quite openly talk about "moving maritime targets" and "emitting land based targets" even at one point comparing the flight profile imposed seeker performance requirements more to AF/Navy ARM's as opposed to Cruise Missiles. I suspect that Lockheed's SiAW proposal may have leveraged this but as you rightly point out, current references are strictly to moving targets.
 
There seems to be less emphasis on ARM specific seekers now that precise geolocation is often available to the launching aircraft. You more often hear about moving target engagements rather than emitting targets.
 
bring_it_on said:
Yeah it is no longer mentioned in its documentation. However, at the start of this effort, Army Future leaders used to quite openly talk about "moving maritime targets" and "emitting land based targets" even at one point comparing the flight profile imposed seeker performance requirements more to AF/Navy ARM's as opposed to Cruise Missiles. I suspect that Lockheed's SiAW proposal may have leveraged this but as you rightly point out, current references are strictly to moving targets.
Click to expand...

Could be they eliminated the emitting target capability or they decided to obfuscate the capability by not talking about it anymore (there's a lot of that happening these days).

I'm sort of thinking that given the time of flight, as long as they can get the emitter location right at launch using networked sensors, they hardly need to track the emitter itself in the terminal phase. A seeker that can identify the vehicle carrying the emitter and home on that signature might be good enough.
 
TomS said:
I'm sort of thinking that given the time of flight, as long as they can get the emitter location right at launch using networked sensors, they hardly need to track the emitter itself in the terminal phase. A seeker that can identify the vehicle carrying the emitter and home on that signature might be good enough.
Click to expand...

Plus radar homing installations on missiles are incredibly expensive. If you can keep that onboard an asset and re-use its a big win....with relocatable SAM systems or even radars working on the move the MMW/IIR seeker is required whatever you do, particularly in the DEAD mission. I suspect the direction of travel in the future will be limited emitter locating via AESA antennas on missiles just to get you close enough, before the active antenna takes over with MMW/IIR providing the fine detail.
 
48 Missile Launches Prevented by Neutralizing 1 Adversary Fire Control Radar
Click to expand...
Combat employment.
 

Attachments

  • AARGM-By-the_Numbers-Infographic.png
    AARGM-By-the_Numbers-Infographic.png
    3.4 MB · Views: 32
  • AARGM-By-the-Numbers-Infographic.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 13
Last edited:
I wonder if we'll see the AARGM turn up in Ukraine and if the war drags on long enough the AARGM-ER?
 
I have a strong suspicion that once those F-16s Ukraine will be getting next month or in January 2024 are operational they're go to go through HARM inventory like hotcakes.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if we'll see the AARGM turn up in Ukraine and if the war drags on long enough the AARGM-ER?
Click to expand...

I think the current donations are so old they are AGM-88Bs. It seems unlikely Ukraine even ever gets to AARGM.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the current donations are so old they are AGM-88Bs.
Click to expand...

Those will run out and then they'll get onto the AGM-88Cs and AGM-88Ds. Once the Ukrainians get their F-16s into service I can see a massive increase in the use of HARMs as they'll be able to take full advantage of all of the HARMs operating modes.

Josh_TN said:
It seems unlikely Ukraine even ever gets to AARGM.
Click to expand...

Given the increasingly protracted nature of the war I think it will be otherwise.
 
It seems unlikely to me that Ukraine’s sortie rate is ever high enough to expend the volume of old HARMs available, but we’ll see.
 
NMaude said:
Given the increasingly protracted nature of the war I think it will be otherwise.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. It was deemed unlikely that Ukraine would ever get ATACMS, Storm Shadow or F-16s, yet here we are. As the war drags on, the unlikely becomes the inevitable.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems unlikely to me that Ukraine’s sortie rate is ever high enough to expend the volume of old HARMs available, but we’ll see.
Click to expand...

I think that will change when Ukraine's donated F-16s go into service, aside from being able to fully utilise the HARM's various operational modes the F-16 carries a large variety of ordinance and will be very useful for air-support of ground troops (Air-support has been sorely lacking for the Ukrainian troops).
 
NMaude said:
I think that will change when Ukraine's donated F-16s go into service, aside from being able to fully utilise the HARM's various operational modes the F-16 carries a large variety of ordinance and will be very useful for air-support of ground troops (Air-support has been sorely lacking for the Ukrainian troops).
Click to expand...

Without the HARM Targeting System pods from the F-16CJ, they probably still can't fully exploit HARM. Without HTS, you are still dependant on the HARM seeker or aircraft RWS to pick out targets. With HTS, you can be much more selective.
 
NMaude said:
The question then is will the Ukrainian airforce be given some of these targeting pods?
Click to expand...

I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves. Just how many F-16s of what vintage do we think Ukraine is going to get? What training are those pilots going to be given? How many hundreds or thousands of old B/C missiles are in storage just waiting to be de milled*? Would HTS be compatible with anything that wasn't an F-16CJ? AFAIK it was uniquely used with that type.

Also it seems likely to me that the F-16s are still going to be limited to skimming the ground and pulling up just short of the FLOT to launch weapons anyway; chances are HARMs are used in the same manner they are now - fired at pre identified targets or blind fired.


* "By early 1998, more than 25,000 HARM missiles of modifications A, B and C were produced."

HARM AGM-88 antiradar missile | Missilery.info

In 1983, a new HARM ASM-88 (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) missile was adopted for service with the U.S. Air Force and Navy. Unlike "Shrike" and "Standard-ARM" missiles, except for ground and
en.missilery.info en.missilery.info
 
Josh_TN said:
Just how many F-16s of what vintage do we think Ukraine is going to get?
Click to expand...

I do believe this has been discussed in the F-16 thread and that while these are older block F-16C/Ds they have been continuously upgraded over the years so they will be a great deal more capable than the late Soviet-era MiG-29s and Su-27s the Ukrainian airforce has been relying on.

Josh_TN said:
What training are those pilots going to be given?
Click to expand...

As I understand fairly extensive training plus those pilots being trained aren't rookies they're the most experienced pilots the Ukrainian airforce has IIRC.

Josh_TN said:
How many hundreds or thousands of old B/C missiles are in storage just waiting to be de milled*?
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain that large numbers have already been sent to Ukraine, now while over 25,000 of them were made how many have already been expended by the USAF, USN, USMC and other airforces in that time period? Once the F-16s are flying in Ukraine I suspect the usage of the donated HARMs is going to greatly increase.

Josh_TN said:
Also it seems likely to me that the F-16s are still going to be limited to skimming the ground and pulling up just short of the FLOT to launch weapons anyway; chances are HARMs are used in the same manner they are now - fired at pre identified targets or blind fired.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, don't forget those donated F-16s ECM suites will be a great deal more sophisticated than what the MiG-29s and Su-27s have been equipped with.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom