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

AGM-183A ARRW

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Any warhead or kill capability will be based on the ARRWs target set which would have been defined by the USAF quite early on (when they put the T in TBG). That would also impact guidance and other trades.
Then again the size of guidance systems have shunk a lot in the last ten hears.

It is now possible to make a quad mode seeker the size of a cellphone these days, looking at the GDU53s. Hell the Army has a tiny GPS guidance kit in the PGK. And batteries have come an extremely long way too.

Either way, it will not surprise me if the Arrw has a sizeable warhead thanks to the guidance being tiny.
 

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
55
Is there a speculated range and impact velocity for the warhead? My google-fu hasn't really found much. Did see one article speculating on 2,000km range but that seems high to me. I've read Mach 20 as well but I'm not convinced that's it impact velocity.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,984
Is there a speculated range and impact velocity for the warhead? My google-fu hasn't really found much. Did see one article speculating on 2,000km range but that seems high to me. I've read Mach 20 as well but I'm not convinced that's it impact velocity.


Mach 20 has nothing to do with this vehicle, anywhere in it's flight profile, at impact or no.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
404
Is there a speculated range and impact velocity for the warhead? My google-fu hasn't really found much. Did see one article speculating on 2,000km range but that seems high to me. I've read Mach 20 as well but I'm not convinced that's it impact velocity.
Is there a speculated range and impact velocity for the warhead? My google-fu hasn't really found much. Did see one article speculating on 2,000km range but that seems high to me. I've read Mach 20 as well but I'm not convinced that's it impact velocity.


Mach 20 has nothing to do with this vehicle, anywhere in it's flight profile, at impact or no.

A 1,000 km range has been attributed to the ARRW by the defense media and later used in a bunch of CRS reports. Not sure whether any official USAF publication has cited it but that is what we have to go by for now.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
748
Reaction score
375
No stats are published, and since it is a glide weapon 'speed' and 'range' are very relative things...once the glider is released, you trade one for the other.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
404
One would think that the 1,000 km number came to the media via the AF or Lockheed and if so would likely represent some sort of realistic range of the weapon given its intended use case. I think it was first reported by Steve Trimble. Even then, I don't think you'd want to spend a Billion dollars developing the weapon, and then a considerable amount trying to create an industrial base to produce them, just to launch them as if you were launching a ballistic missile. These would be reserved for, at least initially, the harder to reach targets, or those that are extremely time-critical.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
210
Reaction score
325
A B-52H Stratofortress assigned to the 419th Flight Test Squadron takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, Aug. 8. The aircraft conducted a captive-carry flight test of the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon Instrumented Measurement Vehicle 2 hypersonic prototype at the Point Mugu Sea Range off the Southern California coast.


200808-F-HC101-1003.jpg 200806-F-HC101-1002.jpg 200806-F-HC101-1003.jpg 200806-F-HC101-1004.jpg 200808-F-HC101-1001.jpg 200808-F-GX031-1031.jpg
 

dark sidius

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
464
Reaction score
51
Thank you I just say WOAW !! Do you think it will fit inside the B-21 bay ?
 
Last edited:

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
70
ARRW's range: "handfuls of hundreds of miles"?

"...DOD describes its hypersonics programs with terms like “medium” or “long” range. What does that mean?

“We’re very cautious about attaching numbers to exactly what we mean,” Lewis said in an interview. “All these systems wind up flying really long distances.”

For medium range, though, he said, “we’re talking about handfuls of hundreds of miles. Long range, we’re talking … a couple thousand nautical miles. It’s intentionally fuzzy.” The Pentagon, he said, is “still figuring out the concepts. That’s part of what we’re going to be exploring with our upcoming flight tests.”..."


4.png
 
Last edited:

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
424
Reaction score
182
A B-52H Stratofortress assigned to the 419th Flight Test Squadron takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, Aug. 8. The aircraft conducted a captive-carry flight test of the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon Instrumented Measurement Vehicle 2 hypersonic prototype at the Point Mugu Sea Range off the Southern California coast.


View attachment 638973View attachment 638969View attachment 638970View attachment 638971View attachment 638972View attachment 638974
Is it just me or ARRW diameter look very small? barely thicker than JASSM
Capture.PNG
jassm-rakieta.jpg
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
188
Reaction score
151
A B-52H Stratofortress assigned to the 419th Flight Test Squadron takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, Aug. 8. The aircraft conducted a captive-carry flight test of the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon Instrumented Measurement Vehicle 2 hypersonic prototype at the Point Mugu Sea Range off the Southern California coast.


View attachment 638973View attachment 638969View attachment 638970View attachment 638971View attachment 638972View attachment 638974
Is it just me or ARRW diameter look very small? barely thicker than JASSM
View attachment 639064
View attachment 639063
Jassm is 550mm wide, Arrw is 750mm.
The shot makes you see the entire breadth of jassm while arrw full aspect diameter is not visible.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
748
Reaction score
375
The missiles have different paint schemes. Is one instrumented and one just a dummy round?
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
188
Reaction score
151
The missiles have different paint schemes. Is one instrumented and one just a dummy round?
"For the test, the B-52 was loaded with two representative ARRW Instrumented Measurement Vehicles (IMVs) carried in tandem under the port wing pylon. The forward missile of the pair was the principal trials subject, known as IMV-2. After flying a series of orbits to the north of Edwards, the B-52 transited to the Point Mugu Sea Range, south of the Channel Islands off the coast of southern California. From there IMV-2 transmitted positional and telemetry data to the range’s ground stations."
 

jmnpet

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
3
Reaction score
5
The missiles have different paint schemes. Is one instrumented and one just a dummy round?
"For the test, the B-52 was loaded with two representative ARRW Instrumented Measurement Vehicles (IMVs) carried in tandem under the port wing pylon. The forward missile of the pair was the principal trials subject, known as IMV-2. After flying a series of orbits to the north of Edwards, the B-52 transited to the Point Mugu Sea Range, south of the Channel Islands off the coast of southern California. From there IMV-2 transmitted positional and telemetry data to the range’s ground stations."
Yes, IMV-1 was the aft store and was unpowered.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
409
Reaction score
773
EpuAXRUUYAEQHcZ


 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
409
Reaction score
773
The first rocket booster test of the Air Force’s hypersonic AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon failed when the vehicle did not launch during a April 5 flight.

During tests over Point Mugu Sea Range off the coast of California, a B-52 Stratofortress attempted to launch the ARRW booster vehicle. However, “the test missile was not able to complete its launch sequence” and the bomber returned to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., with the test vehicle, the Air Force said in a statement.

The service plans on studying the missile to understand why it didn’t launch, make alterations, and then attempt to fire it in a future test, the service said.

“The ARRW program has been pushing boundaries since its inception and taking calculated risks to move this important capability forward,” said Brig. Gen. Heath Collins, the Air Force’s program executive officer for its armaments directorate. “While not launching was disappointing, the recent test provided invaluable information to learn from and continue ahead. This is why we test.”

Aside from demonstrating the safe separation of the ARRW booster from the B-52 during the April 5 test, the Air Force had intended to evaluate the performance of missile at operational speeds through ignition and boost phase, as well as simulate the separation of the booster from the glide vehicle.


third consecutive failure without actually firestart :mad:


 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
404
This isn't the first time a test was aborted because of some sort of anomaly with the test article or failure to proceed further. This won't be the last time either. Much rather this then some sort of catastrophic failure with a major system. Find the fault, fix and get back on the range. Simple. Additional test vehicles are on order.

Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the next 4-5 years as they go through dozens of tests. I wonder what the headlines will be then.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,984
This isn't the first time a test was aborted because of some sort of anomaly with the test article or failure to proceed further. This won't be the last time either. Much rather this then some sort of catastrophic failure with a major system. Find the fault, fix and get back on the range. Simple. Additional test vehicles are on order.

Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the next 4-5 years as they go through dozens of tests. I wonder what the headlines will be then.
At this point they look almost terrified of trying anything.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
404
This isn't the first time a test was aborted because of some sort of anomaly with the test article or failure to proceed further. This won't be the last time either. Much rather this then some sort of catastrophic failure with a major system. Find the fault, fix and get back on the range. Simple. Additional test vehicles are on order.

Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the next 4-5 years as they go through dozens of tests. I wonder what the headlines will be then.
At this point they look almost terrified of trying anything.

I don't see that at all. The AGM-183A is fully funded through FY-21. They have detailed a fairly aggressive test plan and are working through range infrastructure limitations. A few failures don't seem to have made any significant dent in the plan and non one is asking them to stop or delay things substantially. The next 6-months will be critical to a number of programs and it appears they are poised to significantly ramp up testing.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
661
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the

I would agree with you, if problem arises during hypersonic flight. But booster not even igniting?
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
204
Reaction score
135
This isn't the first time a test was aborted because of some sort of anomaly with the test article or failure to proceed further. This won't be the last time either. Much rather this then some sort of catastrophic failure with a major system. Find the fault, fix and get back on the range. Simple. Additional test vehicles are on order.

Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the next 4-5 years as they go through dozens of tests. I wonder what the headlines will be then.
At this point they look almost terrified of trying anything.
Maybe they should just throw a bucket of money at SpaceX and ask them if they can build the weapon.

We'll have a dozen test flights before the year is done, and an operational weapon in two.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
404
Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the

I would agree with you, if problem arises during hypersonic flight. But booster not even igniting?

Has this occurred previously over decades of weapons/prototype development and testing? Will this occur in this future? Things go wrong in testing. That will always remain true. It could be minor, "dumb mistakes", non-serious issues, or it could be serious design faults that lead to catastrophic failures that put some major strain on the viability of the project. A "No test" is nothing like the latter unless it is due to some major oversight in design (which we don't know about). They went up, things didn't go as planned and they came back without testing. They didn't destroy the vehicle that will make fault finding harder. Now find and fix the errors and get back. There are elements of the AGM-183A like the glide-vehicle, for example, that the USAF has been funding and developing for more than 8 years. Other elements, including the booster and other sub-systems that are part of the rapid prototyping and accelerated development effort that Lockheed secured more recently. You are taking higher risk with trying to get those out faster so things are probably expected to come up that they'll have to sort through.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,984
Pointing this as some sort of major failure ("Broken ARRW" clickbait headlines :rolleyes:) shows a complete lack of seriousness. Those type of failures will come (part and parcel of cutting edge development and testing) over the

I would agree with you, if problem arises during hypersonic flight. But booster not even igniting?

And has this occurred previously over decades of weapons/prototype development and testing? Will this occur in this future? Things go wrong in testing. That will always remain true. It could be minor, "dumb mistakes", non-serious issues, or it could be serious design faults that lead to catastrophic failures that put some major strain on the viability of the project. A "No test" is nothing like the latter unless it is due to some major oversight in design (which we don't know about). The sensationalization in the media is not warranted at all. They went up, things didn't go as planned and they came back without testing. They didn't destroy the vehicle that will make fault finding harder. Now find and fix the errors and get back.
IMO if they can't even get it to come off the rail after MULTIPLE attempts it does not speak very highly of their competence. I guess it's better than doing a HyFly (or was it X-51) in which the thing separated from the pylon and fell into the ocean like an inert bomb.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
404
The first delay seemed to have been on account of human factors, and a subsequent discovery that required a couple of months to rectify. This current discovery could be related to the latter or it could be something new. We just don't know yet. But we have the test vehicle, and it wasn't damaged so finding and fixing the fault will be a lot easier compared to a failed test where they would have launched and the booster failed to ignite or some other catastrophic failure. On Hyfly they had low battery voltage cause at least one of the failures, and on the X-51 they failed a test because one of the fins didn't work. Just goes to show the unpredictable nature of testing especially when we don't test these high end systems at the cadence we ought to so that we have experienced government-industry teams. The hypersonics office at the DOD now is putting some guidance and testing best-practices out for government and industry teams to follow, no doubt as a result of some of these early avoidable human factor errors.

Collins said that “earlier this year … we had a slight bump on the road in test,” but the integrated government-industry team “focused, found the flaw, fixed the flaw, [and] got a corrective action in the air in less than 30 days … That just tells you that the team is really tight.”

Lockheed Martin is “part of that open transparency … But getting the right people at the right time on the program, to solve this failure and not miss a beat as we move forward … is a good example of how to get after” hypersonic development.

Sources reported an ARRW failure in late December, chalking it up to “dumb mistakes;” one reported that a technician failed to follow a checklist and another reported an improperly fastened control surface. Michael White, the principal deputy for hypersonics in the Pentagon’s directorate of research and engineering, seemed to confirm these reports in his panel remarks.

“We need to get it right the first time,” White said. “We have this mindset that we want to fail early and often so we can accelerate learning and actually develop quicker. But that’s only valid if your failures are because you’re learning about [technological] discoveries and the ability to do hypersonic flight. If our failures are that we forgot how to do a checklist, and tighten a pin on a fin, and we lose a flight vehicle because a fin falls off, that’s not acceptable failure.”

 

Similar threads

Top