AARGM / VFDR Missiles

zjz said:
I tried looking for more info on the SACS ( stealthy affordable capsule system), but apparently, not much info or pictures of it ....

Only have vague descriptions of what it looks like or supposed to do .....
Click to expand...

Did anyone get to the bottom of what European system/missile would be using SACS? MICA? IDAS?
 
Curiously the USAF posted an RFI for “another?” SiAW and the Navy had posted an RFI for the AESM (Advanced Emission suppression missile)

It seems AARGM-ER and its SiAW derivative are dead and the Navy / USAF are devaluating their approach.
 
TomS said:
Sounds like MACE (aka Blackbeard) may be the functional replacement. The missile doesn't need a radar homing seeker if it is very fast and the launcher has really good target location data at launch, I guess.

https://defensearchives.com/news/ca...c-missile-selected-for-us-navys-mace-program/
Click to expand...
Now that I read the requirement for Black beard, it seem too good to be true. It basically smaller than AARGM-ER yet can fly at hypersonic speed and reach longer distance. How do they even fit 4 inside F-35?
Blackbeard is stated to fall within current range category currently occupied by the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), with the stealthy air launched anti-ship having a stated range of greater than 200 nautical miles, (with a potential range of up to 500 nautical miles). Despite falling within the same range bracket, Blackbeard offers a fundamentally different capability at a much greater scale, with smaller warhead of 95lbs and a greater emphasis on striking time-sensitive targets.


U.S. Navy fixed winged fighters in the shape of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35C Lightnings will be the primary launch platforms. In regards to the F-35C Lightnings, Blackbeard is small enough to enable carriage of 4 rounds the internal weapons bays, providing the stealth-fighter’s first hypersonic strike capability whilst keeping a reduced radar cross section
Click to expand...
 
Ronny said:
Having an anti radar missile without radar homing seeker is kinda dumb I think
Click to expand...

If the launching platform has precise position information, there is no need to hone in on emissions. Doubly so if your missile has a terminal seeker. The USAF already seemed to be going this route with SiAW, though somehow that seems to have gone wrong.
 
Josh_TN said:
+1, the USAF has pushed SiAW back and is searching for other options. I had thought this was a stand in/both situation, but with the USN decision this seems like a hard No.
Click to expand...
The USAF has included the last of its AARGM-ER buys in FY-27 procurement request, and also the first batch of SiAW production rounds. With FY-27 always slated to be the SiAWs first production year, it seems the USAF's plans have not changed.

The Navy confirmed to TWZ recently that they are committed to the AARGM-ER buy. I think the 1 year pause was just to ensure the missile makes it out of development and testing and they might re--consider it if it achieves intended performance during IOTE. They can always request reprogramming dollars and move money around to overcome any production gap if it gets back on track. None of the alternatives being projected, like Black Beard, have even made it in to development testing let alone integrated an operational, and mature, seeker into a qualified weapon and put it through its paces. Those are all highly complex development and integration projects.

Given how much has been invested in creating the AARGM-ER and SiAW production and supply chain capacity and the fact that the latter is really one of the first true digitally designed tactical strike weapons in the DOD's arsenal (with USAF directorate and leadership backing), I think the services will end up buying thousands of these over time.

timmymagic said:
That's some meaty booster... Are they targeting radars on the moon?
Click to expand...
I think they'll need it it if it needs to get anywhere close to the lower end of its air-launch altitudes in order to get similar range performance.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
I think they'll need it it if it needs to get anywhere close to the lower end of its air-launch altitudes in order to get similar range performance.
Click to expand...

In that case why not use a Mk-72 launch-booster?
 

Navy Already Looking For Alternatives To Its Brand New AARGM-ER Radar Busting Missile (Updated)​

The Navy is pushing to finally field the AGM-88G AARGM-ER after years of delays, but is also now looking at other options.
Click to expand...
https://www.twz.com/air/navy-alread...-its-brand-new-aargm-er-radar-busting-missile
When the Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM) effort first emerged earlier this year, the stated requirements did sound curiously similar to what the service wants from the AGM-88G. There was also mention of an all-new need to be able to engage radio frequency-emitting targets in the air, as well as on the surface, but this is no longer being emphasized, at least publicly.
Click to expand...
Like the AARGM-ER, AESM needs to be suitable for internal and external carriage on at least certain variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets are also listed as threshold launch platforms.
Click to expand...
 
MadRat said:
USN has never liked to take over USAF engineered projects.
Click to expand...

Given that the USAF has been in the past forced by USN projects (The F-4 and A-7 come to mind) perhaps it's time for the USN to get a taste of its' own medicine.
 
MadRat said:
USAF procurement ends next year. USN has never liked to take over USAF engineered projects. Perhaps they can add the functionality to a Standard missile body.
Click to expand...

Except AFAIK AGM-88G was exclusively a USN program. USAF was SiAW, which was related and the same contractor, but a different program.

IMO NG ran into either per unit cost overruns or production bottlenecks, or alternatively Blackbeard just seemed like a cheaper idea.
 
Josh_TN said:
IMO NG ran into either per unit cost overruns or production bottlenecks, or alternatively Blackbeard just seemed like a cheaper idea.
Click to expand...
NG ran into technical difficulties among other things. Well the program did. But its back testing now.

Blackbeard has yet to demonstrate any operaitonal capability - even as a GMLRS class replacement for a ground launched PrSM. To get to its low cost, the system has had to slice out a fair bit of warhead and is basically a staged ER-GMLRS at this point with a warhead what half or less the size? It has not yet demonstrate an end to end operational weapon capability and neither has it succesfully integrated an advanced ARH targeting capability set aside a true multi-mode guidance system with LOS and BLOS communication capability for the weapon. I understand the venture backed hype, but these are not trivial things. And if these things do not matter, then I would like to see who in the Navy's program office was fired on account of stuffing the AARGM and AARGM-ER programs with these requirements.
 
bring_it_on said:
NG ran into technical difficulties among other things. Well the program did. But its back testing now.

Blackbeard has yet to demonstrate any operaitonal capability - even as a GMLRS class replacement for a ground launched PrSM. To get to its low cost, the system has had to slice out a fair bit of warhead and is basically a staged ER-GMLRS at this point with a warhead what half or less the size? It has not yet demonstrate an end to end operational weapon capability and neither has it succesfully integrated an advanced ARH targeting capability set aside a true multi-mode guidance system with LOS and BLOS communication capability for the weapon. I understand the venture backed hype, but these are not trivial things. And if these things do not matter, then I would like to see who in the Navy's program office was fired on account of stuffing the AARGM and AARGM-ER programs with these requirements.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of a BLOS communication system…what does this consist of? I believe there was a system used for BDA in the last seconds but I thought this was line of sight to the launching platform.

Blackbeard seems to have some kind of sensor/antenna on the nose but it is unclear what this is for (I would guess terminal guidance AESA by placement, assuming the missile ejects inverted for cleaner separation of the forward lifting body). But yes it probably operates in a much more simplified mode with fewer options than AARGM-ER.
 
Josh_TN said:
I was unaware of a BLOS communication system…what does this consist of? I believe there was a system used for BDA in the last seconds but I thought this was line of sight to the launching platform.
Click to expand...

The AGM-88E AARGM also has the capability to transmit terminal (end game) data via a Weapon Impact Assessment transmitter to national satellites just before AGM-88E AARGM impacts its target. Additionally, a provision to receive off-board targeting information, via the Integrated Broadcast System, is in development for the weapon system.

The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) developed a new multi-mode seeker (passive anti-radiation homing, active millimeter wave radar and global positioning system/inertial navigation system) for potential upgrade of the Navy and Marine Corps AGM-88 HARM missile inventory. The Quick Bolt ACTD builds on the AARGM capabilities by adding an Embedded National Tactical Receiver to receive off-board targeting and a Weapons Impact Assessment (WIA) transmitter to assist in BDA. The result is a dramatic improvement in the capability to detect, locate and destroy enemy air defenses even in the presence of air defense counter tactics, such as radar shutdown, against anti-radiation missiles.

None of these capabilities resident in the AARGM/AARGM-ER are impossible to get into another weapon. But someone has to do the work of actually developing, and the long road to integration and testing it fully. One of the reasons the Navy cited in its decision to not compete AARGM-ER was OATK / NG's control over the technical baseline and IP over many of its unique systems. While Castellion is funded and working on seeker systems its not entirely replicating this capability. Because the weapon is expected to complement the AARGM / AARGM-ER and SiAW as currently envisioned.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Expected.

Kinda surprised that it hasn't really happened sooner, the fact that you can mission-kill a ship with an ARM has been known since the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...

Vietnam-era USN war-at-sea strikes were planned to start with Shrike or Standard ARM followed by Bullpup once the SAMs were suppressed.

Japan had refrained from buying anti-radiation missiles for the same constitutional reasons that kept them from buying land attack missiles.
 
Let me add a clarification.
What was shunned was the possession of weaponry that could also be used for aggression.
Yes, I understand your point. You mean to say that there is no such thing as a purely defensive weapon—that any weapon can be used for an attack.
However, public opinion is invariably unscientific and illogical. That is why Japan has long avoided acquiring SEAD/DEAD capabilities.
 
So there's no difference between a weapon that does a headshot every time and weapons that hit at random places?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom