AIM-152 AAAM Phoenix replacement projects

overscan (PaulMM)

Staff member
27 December 2005
Reaction score
First we have General Dynamics Pomona's design, which seems to have gone through two distinct phases. In the first it has what appear to be folding wings, while in the later revision the wings seem to be gone.

Thanks to Alanqua for the pics...


  • AIM-152 GD-Westinghouse.jpg
    AIM-152 GD-Westinghouse.jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 2,963
  • AIM-152d.jpg
    149.6 KB · Views: 1,010
  • AIM-152cc.jpg
    156.4 KB · Views: 1,081
  • AIM-152c.jpg
    122.5 KB · Views: 2,160
  • AIM-152b.jpg
    231.1 KB · Views: 4,079
  • AIM-152a.jpg
    125.2 KB · Views: 3,195
  • AIM-152.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 3,940
From Interavia, 4/91

(its future was definitely uncertain - cancelled less than a year later)

The future of the next US air-to-air missile program, the Advanced AAM (AAAM), is less clear. AAAM is a Navy program, intended to replace the long-range AIM-54 Phoenix. Unlike Phoenix, however, it was designed to be compatible with the F/A-18 and the defunct A-12, meaning that it would have to be much smaller than its predecessor. This has meant the use of unconventional propulsion and guidance systems.

Two industry teams are part-way through a four-year competitive demonstration/validation program, which started in September 1988. The teams have taken radically different approaches. Hughes and Raytheon (H&R), with McDonnell Douglas as their airframe subcontractor, have selected a liquid-fuel ramjet engine with an integral solid booster as a propulsion system, and a dual-mode guidance system combining active radar and infra-red homing.

The GD/Westinghouse AAAM incorporates a number of novel features. It is an all-rocket, tube-launched two-stage missile with thrust-vector control (TVC) on both stages, a two-pulse second-stage motor, and semi-active continuous-wave guidance with IR terminal homing. The two-stage propulsion system is designed to give the missile the maximum possible energy close to the target over a wide band of launch ranges and target altitudes: against a high-altitude target, for example, when thin air limits the effectiveness of aerodynamic controls, the missile will be programed to save its last motor pulse until it is close to the target, allowing it to use TVC for the final interception.

GD and Westinghouse chose a tube-launched missile to save weight. Inside the tube, the missile is isolated from the aerodynamic and structural loads associated with being carried on the aircraft for many sorties, and it can therefore be lighter. The missile is lighter than an AIM-7 Sparrow.

The guidance system is also novel. Although it is a semi-active missile, the GD-Westinghouse AAAM does not monopolise the radar in the same way as the AIM-7. On current aircraft with conventional mechanically scanned radars, the AAAM system includes a Ku-band, electronically steered illuminator pod, with which can be time-shared among several targets. The missile's seeker also works in X-band, so future aircraft, with active-array radars, will be able to designate part of the radar array to illuminate the target. It should be remembered that active-radar homing is not equivalent to "launch and leave"; the H&R AAAM, like AMRAAM, will be dependent on mid-course guidance from the launch aircraft at anything like its maximum range.

Both teams are progressing towards the launch of autopilot-equipped test vehicles early next year. Other tests will validate the guidance and seeker systems, and the Navy plans to pick a winner and start full-scale development in 1993. Proposed budget figures show roughly constant AAAM funding in FY91 and FY92 and a small increase (to $104 million) in FY93.
Very interesting article. The guidance system for the GD missile would seem more suited to intercepting Tu-22Ms than Su-27s though - timeshared SARH, like Zaslon/R-33, must inevitably be a little less accurate - how quick can the radar beam switch, and how far can the missile travel in between successive radar sweeps?

[Edit - just looked at the picture and recalled it had IR terminal homing. Doh!]
AIM-152 died for a multiple of reasons. The biggest one was the cancellation of the F-14D by the Department of Defense (not the US Navy) in 1990. Although AIM-152 was designed to be capable of being used by the -14, 15 and -18 (not sure about the -16), it really needed the capabilities of the -14D and its APG-71 system to fully exploit all of its power.

The Air Force had maintained the position that it didn't want an AAAM-like missile since it had the F-22 coming, which it said rendered the need for long range missiles superfluous. A contributing factor was that it may not have fit easily into the -22's internal bay (although there is some speculation that it would have in the YF-23's reportedly deeper bay). Who knows, if the missile had entered service maybe USAF would have changed its mind.

After the Super Tomcat's cancellation, the missile program did continue. However, the Super Hornet's radar and fire control could not fully exploit AIM-152's performance. Reportedly, the AIM-152 could fly farther than the Super Hornet could track or see targets. Ironically, one of the arguments that had earlier been raised in defense of the Hornet E/F's limited fighter capabilities relative to other in-service and under development aircraft was that AIM-152 would make up for that. The US Congress asked the question why the Navy was developing a missile that the Air Force said it wouldn't buy and with capabilities its new fighter couldn't exploit. The Navy didn't really have a good answer, so Congress deleted funding.

Although there has been a lot of discussion of the guidance system planned for the missile, there were a couple of other aspects that haven't received much "credit". One was that the CD/Westinghouse design had a restartable solid fuel motor, something that would have been a major breakthrough. Another was that Hughes with its ramjet engine would have allowed its missile to be powered all the way to the target would have been able to apply "bursts" of power at various times. At intermediate ranges and below, both weapons would be powered all the way to the target. This would dramatically increase the size of the "no escape" zone.
Right, F-14D... The key issue was surely radar range. The point was made during the development o the APG-79 AESA for the Rhino that, even with the AIM-120C5, the Rhino with APG-73 could shoot farther than it could see. That's why the APG-79 deployment is coordinated with development and deployment of the AIM-120D.
Looking for something else in my collection I stumbled across this. Don't recall where I found it.


  • 12-12-2003 11_24_52AM.JPG
    12-12-2003 11_24_52AM.JPG
    88.3 KB · Views: 1,256
Cool stuff, the first clear depiction of a combined IR/RF seeker in the same radome that I have seen. Many missiles have been proposed with this type of dual-mode guidance and unless they were physically separated like on ARMiGer I could never quite imagine how it was supposed to work. Going by this it seems tandem arrangements simply relied on a greatly miniaturised IR sensor to minimise interference with the RF antenna.
Regarding folding fins on the GD missile, I believe their missile was tube launched with folding fins. In some of their drawings they left off the fins for clarity in the illustration.

LowObservable: Your point on the APG-73 is, of course, correct. In fact, this was known back at the beginning. However, when pushing for the Super Hornet this could not be acknowledged because by doing so, then the cost and time of the AESA would properly be included in the F/A-18E/F's development costs. Since there was already so much controversy over this plane, they simply didn't want these costs to show up, even to the point of sacrificing AIM-152.
I somehow sent my last post prematurely. what I wanted to include was that the F-14D's radar, even without AESA, could see as far out as AIM-152 could fly. It was also more powerful and capable than the APG-73, although all of that was never fully exploited. Had an AESA front end been mated to the -71 backend (like the -79 is and AESA married to a -73 back end)m the much larger array would have further enhanced this.

Thanks for tying all that together. The point's been made in the past that the Navy performed an extremely deft shuffle by cutting the Super Hornet program in two, funding the very necessary new avionics under the "F-18 Squadrons" line and confining the F/A-18E/F EMD to the airframe and the engine (which itself took the core from the F412 and the scaled F120 augmentor). The result was that the program came out smelling like a rose because it looked so cheap.
Although this might be getting a bit off the purpose of the list, here's some comments on the Super Hornet and AESA. When the F/A-18E/F was imposed on the Navy (the Navy did not initiate the program and attempted to terminate it) after the cancellation of the A-12, it was supposed to be an interim aircraft pending the arrival of AX (later A/FX). One of the rationales used for it was that it was simply an upgrade of the existing Hornet (which wasn't true), so it could be developed quickly and cheaply. Just for the record, using their own figures the E/F would cost at least 22 times what it would have cost to develop F-14D Quickstrike and take at least 50% longer. As an interim aircraft it would be hard to justify developing an AESA for it, since if you're going to do that you'd have to address the rather limited improvements over the C/D the new model offered. In addition Congress imposed an (at least on paper) cost cap because the costs of the Hornet E/F were rising rapidly. This cap, though, was quite "soft" in what was covered.

When A/FX was canceled in favor of the Super Bug, AESA started being talked about as part of the reason why the E/F was really such a good thing after all. There got to be quite a bit of circular logic going on. The E/F would be cheap because it's just an upgrade and wouldn't need AESA, and simultaneously it was said that it make sense to develop an AESA for the E/F since it's a totally new aircraft and needs AESA to fulfill its promise. As you stated, this moved the AESA R&D out form under the cap even though every one knew Super Bug had to have it.

Going back to AIM-152, F-14D would also have been able to launch it in passive mode as well. The Tomcat's IRST had great range, although it couldn't see as far as AIM-152's range. AIM-152 could be launched against an IRST-tracked target, receiving guidance from the Tomcat until it went active on its own and acquired the target itself. This is much like the way an SSN uses a torpedo. Of course, you couldn't engage as many targets as quickly as you could with the APG-71 radiating, but it was still a useful option.

One other note on the AIM-152 proposals. I don't have the details why, but on the F-14 (and -15 and -18) a special guidance pod had to be carried to use the GD version. You can see it in the second picture in overscan's post, on station 8B. The Hughes proposal did not require this. On the other hand, since the GD missile was smaller, it could afford to give up a station. Super Tomcat 21, A/FX NATF (if it had been developed) and ATF (at least the F-23) would not.
The reason for the guidance pod is the choice of semi-active radar homing. In order to engage multiple targets at once, electronic scanning was required. Therefore then-current aircraft needed a phased array supplementary radar in the guidance pod. New aircraft with AESA could use their existing electronic scanning radar for missile guidance, and hence did not need the pod.
Right, the pod is described in the post further up.

However, a couple of other interesting points occur to me...

In the wall-chart reproduced further up, it shows at least one AAAM iteration in which the radar seeker blew off late in the flight to expose an IR terminal seeker. Makes sense - late in the flight, not going as fast (so heating on the dome is less of a limit), and low-drag shape for most of the flight.

A tube-launched weapon (folding fins, not designed to withstand internal carriage) could also be adapted with or without the tube for internal carriage on a stealth aircraft with weapon bays.

And note that the radar seeker was designed either with dual or alternate bands, Ku or X - which would have made the AAAM compatible with the APQ-183 on the A-12.
Exciting GD AAAM ad from 1991. For 16 years I'm trying to understand what national insignia this Flanker has...


  • AWST_1991_NOV_04_AAAMsm.jpg
    239.4 KB · Views: 1,771
For 16 years I'm trying to understand what national insignia this Flanker has...

You should post it to our neighbours at whatifmodelers forum :D

The lanscape seems to represent that deserts from Westerns, so artist intention was to represent enemy forces flying over the USA?
flateric said:
Exciting GD AAAM ad from 1991. For 16 years I'm trying to understand what national insignia this Flanker has...

Never mind that, why does that Flanker in the background have is airbrake out when he's got a missile coming in? ;)
flateric said:
Exciting GD AAAM ad from 1991. For 16 years I'm trying to understand what national insignia this Flanker has...

It looks like the UN symbol to me.
How did the designs compare with each other? At least how did the AIM-152 compare with the AIM-155 (The one in the image under the wing of the F-14)

Kendra Lesnick
regarding the Flanker insignia it looks like the rebel Star wars sign but with the center omitted .Even ı wouldn't give much credit to such things as one missile company was trying to sell to our airforce and to underline the accuracy of their weapon they had a line drawing of it striking the target . Like the one archers use , the problem was it was nearly the THK roundel .

as for the airbrake I think , the Flanker is trying to slow down to do Cobras or similar stunts to break missile lock . While the manouvre will slow it down properly , a lower entry speed might have helped in avoiding G-lock .
KJ_Lesnick said:
How did the designs compare with each other? At least how did the AIM-152 compare with the AIM-155 (The one in the image under the wing of the F-14)

Kendra Lesnick

AIM-152 and -155 designate the same missile, AAAM; there're still arguments about what would have been the proper designation.

Hughes used an integral rocket/ramjet propulsion. The advantages were that it was "powered all the way", allowing for greater range and terminal pursuit capability and it was probably a simpler design. It would "fly" through turns. The downside was that it was a bit larger (although that did allow room for more "stuff"), not as flexible and you couldn't carry as many.

GD/Westinghouse use a restartable solid fuel rocket. With thrust vectoring on both stages, it was noticeably more maneuverable when under power and at launch It offered greater flexibility, and you could carry more per aircraft. The fact that it was tube launched was both an advantage and a disadvantage. In return for its advantages, development probably would have been riskier.

Hughes used an inertial mid-course guidance with command updates and in the terminal phase would use active radar and IR seekers.

GD/Westinghouse inertial navigation system with semi-active radar homing (possibly dual band) for mid-course guidance and would go autonomous with EO homing at the endgame with IR backup. It would have greater off-boresight capability than Hughes, but the price for that is that the launch aircraft would have to carry a targeting pod on one station, although that pod would have fore and aft radar.

The primary a/c the missile was designed for was the F-14D, which was the only aircraft that could use it to its full capabilities, but it was also designed to operate from the F/A-18 and F-15 (although USAF didn't want another Navy missile). It would not fit into the F-22's bay, apparently, although word is it would fit into the F-23's

Although it was thought that the Hughes missile was larger, that was mostly in width. I'll attempt to post a size comparison of the two


  • AAAM.png
    39.4 KB · Views: 942
F-14D said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
How did the designs compare with each other? At least how did the AIM-152 compare with the AIM-155 (The one in the image under the wing of the F-14)

Kendra Lesnick

AIM-152 and -155 designate the same missile, AAAM; there're still arguments about what would have been the proper designation.

No, there are no arguments ::). The one and only designation ever allocated to the AAAM project is AIM-152 (YAIM-152A, to be exact ;) ). -155 is simply a typo. Missile number 155 was used as BQM-155, the original designation of the "Hunter" UAV (later redesignated as RQ-5).

r16 said:
ı was going around in tomcat sunset forums when I came across this page .Just an addition

In addition to the great info there, there was also another reason AAAM was cut by Congress. After Dick Cheney's termination of the F-14D, AAAM work continued. AAAM was also designed to be capable of operation from the F-15 and F/A-18. In fact, during the early controversies regarding the Super Bug, one of the arguments raised in the Hornet E/F's defense of its fighter capabilities was that it wouldn't need more, since it could use AAAM to take out higher performance a/c. Although AAAM could be carried by the aircraft listed, the only one that could use it to its full capability was the F-14 (e.g. Super Hornets as originally sold to Congress [without AESA because they didn't want those costs to show up as part of what it would really cost to develop the E/F] would not be able to "see" as far as AAAM could fly). Congress asked USN the question about why it was going to spend so much to develop a missile that it upcoming new fighter wouldn't be able to fully exploit? Navy had no good answer, and given the fiscal environment, Congress made it clear that they wouldn't approve funding in the upcoming years.
Articles on the AAAM from Aerospace Daily and AvWeek:

Publication Logo
Aviation Week & Space Technology

July 23, 1984

Soviet Threat Spurs Phoenix Follow-On

BYLINE: By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.


LENGTH: 2289 words

DATELINE: Washington

Survival at sea against nuclear-armed cruise missiles launched from Soviet Union Tupolev Backfire and Blackjack bombers is prompting the Navy to undertake a strong air defense development effort that includes a new longrange, air-to-air missile in Fiscal 1986.

The Navy is forming an antiair-warfare working group to pull together the Naval Air and Sea Systems commands with service laboratories to begin development of a new advanced air-to-air missile designed as a replacement or follow-on to the Hughes Aircraft AIM-54C Phoenix missile.

Funding Allotment

The service anticipates allocating $790 million through Fiscal 1993 for research, development, test and evaluation. Procurement of approximately 8,000 missiles would cost $4.7 billion over the same period, and operation and support costs would be about $350 million. This makes the overall missile development a $5.8-billion program.

Size and weight of the new weapon are expected to be in the same class as the Raytheon/General Dynamics AIM-7 Sparrow -- weighing approximately 600 lb. The advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) is expected to have a range of 100 naut. mi., but size and weight will be tradeoffs with range in the development program.

The AAAM has a high Navy priority, and the service wants to issue requests for information and proposals to industry in early 1985.

The service wants the weapon available for a 1991 initial operational capability, but it may not be able to reach that goal until 1993.

Carrier battle group air defense will be the primary mission for the new AAAM. It will be designed to destroy enemy aircraft before they can reach the weapon release point for antiship missiles.

The projected Soviet threat to be countered by the AAAM includes the Backfire, Blackjack and Tupolev Badger operating from sea level to a 40,000-ft. altitude at speeds up to Mach 2. The aircraft would be armed with the AS-6 Kingfish with 150-naut.-mi. range, the AS-4 Kitchen with a 200-naut.-mi. range and new air-to-surface missiles with ranges greater than 200-naut. mi., altitudes up to 100,000 ft. and speeds of Mach 4.

To counter these threats, the AAAM would be carried on the Grumman F-14 air superiority fighter, McDonnell Douglas/Northrop F-18 and the upgraded Grumman A-6.

Tactics by the USSR in attacking the fleet are anticipated to include the use of one or more regimental-size bomber groups utilizing large formations and advanced electronic countermeasures. Longrange fighter escorts armed with new air-to-air missiles would be employed when range permits. Deployment of longrange, air-to-air missiles for bomber selfprotection also is projected.

Among the limitations of the Phoenix AIM-54 that are emphasizing the AAAM development program are firepower because of loading restrictions, missile velocity, launch acceptable regions against maneuvering and cross-range targets, guidance against stealth technology aircraft and electronic countermeasures, and lack of a covert launch capabilty.

The F-14 cannot operate from aircraft carriers with a full complement of six Phoenix missiles and return for recovery without having fired the weapons or, failing that, dropping them in the ocean to lessen the weight that translates to landing speed. Each Phoenix costs approximately $1 million, and the Navy cannot afford to arm the F-14 with more than four missiles to permit carrier recovery.

Development of the new AAAM is based on a weapon with a unit cost of approximately $600,000.

Postulated Threat

In a mission analysis, the Navy has determined that the AAAM capability is required in the fleet prior to the mid1990s to provide the missile firepower and kinematics necessary to counter the postulated threat. A high priority is placed on the need for the new AAAM. It is second only to maintaining fighter and attack squadron operational readiness.

Conceptual design work for the AAAM has evolved from technology development programs that started in the 1970s, influenced by the air-to-air missile air combat evaluation (ACEVAL)/air intercept maneuvering evaluation (AIMVAL) and a draft joint services operational requirement for an advanced intercept missile.

The basic design for the AAAM is to be compatible with the USAF/McDonnelll Douglas F-15 fighter.

Studies by both the Navy and industry indicated that a ramjet-powered missile of approximately Sparrow size with greater than Mach 3 speed would be required with a range of 100 naut. mi.

A number of concepts have been developed that could become competitors in the AAAM program. These include:

* Advanced common intercept missile, a 600-lb. Sparrow-size weapon for a demonstration of the technology.

* Improved AIM-54C Phoenix.

* General Dynamics advanced missile system (AMS) that includes a small podded radar sensor suite and a newly designed missile that weighs approximately 400 lb. and is powered by a solid pulsed rocket motor. The podded radar is a tracking/targeting system that operates in a different frequency band than internal radars now in use in fleet aircraft. The new podded radar could later be integrated into the Navy's new advanced tactical aircraft for the 1990s.

* Extended-range Hughes Aircraft advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM).

The 600-lb. Sparrow-class missile is the recommended baseline technical approach to development of the AAAM, with tradeoffs to determine the terminal guidance frequency band that includes X-band, millimeter wave and infrared technologies, electronic counter-countermeasures and data processing.

Surface-to-Air Missile

The technology from the Navy's advanced surface-to-air missile will be incorporated in the AAAM program for commonality, and the technology for overthe-horizon targeting also is to be included.

Exploitation of demonstrated technology will be a key element in the AAAM program. This includes air breathing propulsion, high-density data processing, multimode guidance and annular blast fragmentation warhead with adaptive burst control fuzing. High-power, small radio frequency transmitters will also be integrated in the design process.

One of the areas of technology pacing missile development is the integral rocket ramjet propulsion system. Another area of development risk is the sequential performance of target identification, acquisition, midcourse correction, terminal guidance and fuzing functions.

Investigations of the available technology for the AAAM by the Navy reveal that the projected risks associated with integration of the required technologies for the new missile are not state-of-the-art problems but engineering in nature. This makes them solvable and manageable within a specified time at a budgeted cost, according to Defense Dept. officials.

The Navy has asked the Defense Dept. for funding in Fiscal 1986 to make the AAAM a new program start. The program is expected to have a tailored source selection process that will provide the prefull-scale engineering development phase with one contractor selected to continue the demonstrated system through fullscale development.

During production and deployment phases, a second source will be developed to take advantage of cost competition and provide for industrial mobilization.

Aviation Week & Space Technology

November 24, 1986

Navy Nears Development Start Of Advanced Air-to-Air Missile

BYLINE: By David M. North


LENGTH: 1236 words

DATELINE: Washington

The U.S. Navy is nearing the start of development of an advanced long-range air-to-air missile (AAAM), which is intended to replace the Hughes Aircraft Co. AIM-54C Phoenix in the mid-1990s.

The new missile will help counter an increased Soviet threat to the service's battle groups.

The Navy is scheduled to hold a presolicitation conference for industry officials Dec. 17-18 to brief the strategy and timetable for the AAAM program. A draft request for proposals for AAAM will be issued at the same time. A final request for proposals is planned for release in March, 1987, followed by a contract award to two industry teams for a technology demonstration and validation phase in the last quarter of 1987.

Decision Delay

The service had been ready to start the development process for a new missile for the Grumman F-14 in mid-1984, but delayed the decision for two years to study the integration of the air-to-air missile into the overall layered defense called for in the carrier group outer air battle report (AW&ST July 23, 1984, p. 16).

Following an evaluation of that report this summer, Navy Secretary John Lehman decided that an improved General Dynamics Standard Missile Block 4 would serve as the surface-to-air missile in the updated air defense system.

The development of a higher performance air-to-air missile was the other half of the planned air defense capability upgrade. The broad requirements for the new missile and the advanced technology available for AAAM were contained in a report completed by the advanced air-to-air working group. The Navy secretary approved development of the AAAM at the same time he endorsed the updated Standard Missile.

One of the threats the AAAM will be designed to counter is the Soviet Union's expanding Tupolev Backfire and future Blackjack bomber fleets, which are capable of carrying longer-range cruise missiles. A response to the increased Soviet high-flying bomber threat dictates that Navy air defense missiles have the ability to strike prior to the attacker's missile launch. The Navy also needs to counter low-flying cruise missiles.

The Navy is evaluating multimode seeker guidance and a variety of counter-countermeasures for the AAAM to combat the increased sophistication of electronic countermeasures and jamming systems being incorporated into the Soviet cruise missiles and their launching platforms.

While the Navy is not setting specific requirements in its planned request for proposals, it is asking industry to come up with solutions to the service's air-to-air needs. The basic thrust of the Navy's program is to enable its fighter aircraft to carry more missiles with longer range. The service is seeking a missile with less than a 9-in. diameter and a weight no higher than 650 lb., compared with 1,000 lb. for the Phoenix.

The F-14 is capable of carrying six Phoenix missiles, but can land on the carrier with no more than four because of fuel and weight limitations. The service expects the F-14D to take off and land with at least eight AAAMs.

The advanced missile also would be carried in the conformal wells on the F-14, where the Sparrow missile is now stored. The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 would carry at least four AAAMs under Navy plans. The Grumman Aerospace A-6F is a candidate for the AAAM, and the service's advanced tactical aircraft (ATA), under development, is another candidate.

Navy officials said AAAM's planned speed is Mach 3, greater than that of the Phoenix, and that the range improvement would be "significantly greater as a conservative estimate" than that of the AIM-54C. The effectiveness of the AAAM against a crossing or a maneuvering target also is expected to be greater than that of the current Phoenix. In addition, the service has set a high priority on developing a missile that cannot be detected at launch, either by the target or monitoring enemy aircraft.

The service issued a request for information in late 1985 for comments on its outer air battle study. Six contractors were issued concept definition contracts for AAAM, with responses due earlier this year. The six contractors were:

* General Dynamics Ponoma Div.

* Grumman Aerospace/RCA.

* Hughes Aircraft.

* McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.

* Martin Marietta.

* Raytheon Missile System Div.

Existing Missiles Discounted

The companies are in various stages of development to meet the Navy's requirement. Navy officials discount the possibility that a version of an existing missile will fulfill the AAAM's general performance requirements. Service officials believe that the combination of size and weight limitations and the long-range equipment will force new missile development.

The service expects the AAAM to have multimode seekers using a combination of technologies such as electro-optical, infra-red or radio frequency terminal guidance. Ramjet and pulse motor technology are being considered for propulsion.

"We are seeking solutions for the AAAM, and not dictating how contractors reach these goals," Capt. Jesse Stewart, program manager for AAAM at Naval Air Systems Command, said. "The Navy is using a streamlined and simple approach to this program to foster the incorporation of as much advanced technology as possible. At the same time, we are demanding competition at all levels. We are stressing design to cost and proven reliability and maintainability goals during the demonstration and validation phase so there are no surprises during full-scale engineering development."

Selection Criteria

The Navy award to the two winning contractor teams that will enter the demonstration and validation phase will be based on the evaluation of proposals submitted in June, 1987. During that phase, both teams are expected to build an equivalent of 10 missiles for testing. The phase is planned to last through 1991. One criteria in the selection of the AAAM configuration is commonality of design to allow the Navy to incorporate upgraded components without costly changes.

In late 1991 or early 1992, one contractor team will be selected for full-scale engineering development (FSED), based on the configuration chosen by the Navy after the demonstration phase. During FSED, the companies comprising the winning team will adopt leader/follower roles. Both contractors are required to have different subsystem suppliers for such items as seekers and propulsion systems during the FSED period. Up to 100 AAAMs could be built during this period by the partners.

Following completion of full-scale engineering development, planned for 1996, the former partners would then compete for the split procurement of the initial production lot and subsequent annual buys.

The service has established a unit cost range at $ 600,000-750,000. The actual cost will depend on the numbers of missiles built, and Stewart said the final number has not been determined.

Navy officials anticipate that an initial request of $ 5 million in the Fiscal 1987 budget for the missile's research and development will be approved in early December. The planned request for research and development for Fiscal 1988 is close to $ 35 million, jumping up to $ 60 million the following two years. Additional funding could be added in the Fiscal 1989 and 1990 budgets to aid the Navy in entering full-scale engineering development.



TICKER: RTN (NYSE) (91%); GD (NYSE) (55%);







GRAPHIC: Picture, General Dynamics contender for the Navy's advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) program is its former advanced missile system (AMS). The company's AAAM weighs 360 lb., is 144 in. long and uses K-band radio frequency and electro-optical seeker guidance. Subsystem critical testing is being performed on the missile at the Pomona, Calif., division. The Navy's goal is to carry a greater number of longer-range and higher-speed AAAMs on the Grumman F-14 to counter an increased Soviet Backfire and Blackjet bomber and cruise missile threat.

Copyright 1986 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Companies Team For Navy Air-to-Air Missile Competition
383 words
22 December 1986
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 22
Vol. 125, No. 25
Copyright 1986 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Los Angeles -- Companies are starting to form teams to compete for the demonstration/validation phase of the Navy advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM), which is to be a follow-on to the Navy/Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile (AW&ST Nov. 24, p. 22).

General Dynamics Pomona Div. and Westinghouse Defense & Electronics Center announced their teaming arrangement on Dec. 15, and Raytheon Co. has chosen an as-yet unannounced teammate. Hughes Missile Systems Group is expected to be interested as they make the Phoenix, and Martin Marietta has expressed interest if the AAAM uses solid ramjet propulsion, which the company has studied under Air Force contract for several years. McDonnell Douglas Astronautics is exploring teaming, though the company hasn't teamed yet.

A bidders presolicitation conference was held in Washington, Dec. 17-18, and the draft request for proposals for the demonstration/validation phase was handed out. Navy is requiring companies to team through the demonstration/validation and full-scale development (FSD) phases, followed by the team members splitting apart and competing during the production phase. Two teams will be selected for demonstration/validation, but only one for FSD. Demonstration/validation contracts are to be awarded in late 1987, FSD in late 1991 or early 1992, and production in 1996. French Nimrod Decision London--French Defense Ministry still is evaluating the British Nimrod AEW Mk. 3, but is likely to order the Boeing E-3 as its airborne early warning aircraft, British Defense Secretary George Younger said last week. Younger talked with French Defense Minister Andre Giraud after the British decision to procure the E-3 was announced.

The two nations have agreed on a joint test and evaluation program, but have not yet agreed, to a joint purchase (AW&ST Sept. 29, p. 24). Giraud told Younger that he had not yet received the results of the test flights made on Dec. 17, but expected to reach a decision soon after receiving it. Younger said he anticipated that France would select the E-3 and said that Britain was ready to take full advantage of international cooperation. While the two countries would place separate orders, he said, there were possibilities for joint support programs.

Document aw00000020011119dicm0017z

Headline News Navy Awarding $42-Million Contracts For Advanced Missile Demonstration --- BRENDAN M. GREELEY, JR.
831 words
8 February 1988
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 22
Vol. 128, No. 8
Copyright 1988 McGraw Hill, Inc.

WASHINGTON -- The U. S. Navy plans to award two parallel, $42-million contracts in April for its advanced air-to-air missile program.

Teams of General Dynamics/Westinghouse and Hughes/Raytheon are expected to submit final proposal updates by Feb. 29 to the Naval Air Systems Command.

The two teams submitted their original proposals in May, 1987, but the Navy restructured the demonstration/validation effort into two phases and reduced the program's scope as a result of the lowered budget dictated by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law.

The $42-million contracts will cover Phase 1 of the demonstration/validation effort, which is scheduled to last 24-30 months. The contracts are worth $6 million in Fiscal 1988, $12 million in Fiscal 1989 and $24 million in Fiscal 1990.

Phase 2 is scheduled to begin within 12 months of the conclusion of Phase 1 and run 30-36 months. Funding constraints may force the service to award only a single contract for Phase 2, in which case the winning team will receive $54 million in Fiscal 1991. Funding for succeeding years has yet to be determined.

The service wants to carry the two teams through both phases of the demonstration/validation program and then pick the winning team, but this depends on obtaining additional funds, a Defense Dept. official said. If these efforts succeed, the winning team then will proceed through full-scale engineering development.

The Navy is not using the leader-follower concept and the two members of the winning team will compete for annual production shares only after the advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) is approved for production.

''This is a head-to-head competition between the best missile people in the country, using different concepts, and we need to get on with it,'' an industry observer said.

The requirement has existed since 1976 and the AAAM will not be fielded until the late 1990s at the earliest, he said.

The General Dynamics/Westinghouse team is proposing a solid rocket-powered missile with semi-active guidance, while the Hughes/Raytheon team envisions a ramjet-powered missile with active guidance.

The Navy wants the advanced air-to-air missile to replace the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long-range missiles carried by its Grumman F-14 fleet air defense fighters. Developing a missile that is lighter and smaller than the Phoenix, but with better range, is a chief goal. Navy/Grumman F-14As can carry six Phoenix missiles, but can return to ship with only four because of restrictions on the aircraft's maximum landing weight. At approximately $1 million a copy, the missiles are too expensive to jettison and thus F-14s routinely launch with less than full loads.

The Navy wants greater missile capability to counter the increasing numbers of Soviet Backfire and Blackjack bombers, as well as cruise missiles such as the AS-15 Kitchen. Officials seek a Mach 3 missile with a range of more than 100 naut. mi. (AW&ST Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).

The Navy requirement stipulates a minimum of eight missiles for its F-14Ds and the General Dynamics/Westinghouse team believes that its concept will allow the aircraft to carry up to 15 AAAMs.

The maximum AAAM system weight for a fully-loaded F-14D is 5,303 lb., as specified by the Navy. The service arrived at this weight by calculating that an F-14D returning from a combat air patrol (CAP) mission without expending any missiles would weigh 48,697 lb., against a maximum carrier landing weight of 54,000 lb.

The aircraft weight used includes crew, oil, gun with 676 rounds of ammunition, drop tanks and racks, pylons on stations 1 and 8, and 3,500 lb. of fuel at touchdown.

Eventually, the AAAM will be carried by the advanced tactical aircraft (ATA), the advanced tactical fighter (ATF), the F/A-18C/D, versions of the A-6E, and the F-15C/E.

The statement of work also encourages the contractor teams ''to develop and document AAAM interface requirements for the F-16 ADI air defense interceptor mission,'' but these are not required during the demonstration/validation phase. It states that the AAAM will use existing launchers to the extent possible but dictates that the ATA and ATF will not use externally or conformally mounted weapons.

During the demonstration/validation phase, the teams will be required to integrate their designs on the F-14A. During full-scale engineering development the requirement will shift to the F-14D, the aircraft with which the Navy plans to achieve an initial operational capability for the missile.

Illustration: Artist's concept shows a possible configuration for the Hughes/Raytheon advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM). Length is 12 ft. H & R Co., a Hughes/Raytheon joint venture, and the team of General Dynamics/Westinghouse are expected to submit proposals to develop the AAAM.

Document aw00000020011117dk28000gt

Navy League Exhibition Teams to Demonstrate Navy Advanced Air-to-Air Missile
550 words
4 April 1988
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 18
Vol. 128, No. 14
Copyright 1988 McGraw Hill, Inc.

WASHINGTON -- General Dynamics/Westinghouse and H & R Co., a Hughes/Raytheon joint venture, are expected to begin demonstrating and validating their designs for an advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) for the Navy in early June.

The Navy eventually plans to select one design concept for full-scale development. Mock-ups of the two designs were displayed at the Navy League show here last week.

The Navy plans to award two parallel, $42-million contracts to the teams to begin phase 1 of a demonstration/validation program, which will last 24-30 months (AW&ST Feb. 8, p. 22). Phase 2 is scheduled to last 12 months. Budget constraints, however, may force the service to select only one contractor to continue with phase 2 of the demonstration/validation program and begin full-scale development of the missile.

Thomas F. Faught, Jr., assistant secretary of the Navy for research, engineering and systems, said congressional cuts in the Fiscal 1988 budget and Fiscal 1989 pressures forced the Navy to restructure the program. Congress approved only $16.6 million of the $34.6 million the Navy requested in Fiscal 1988 for AAAM research and development. The service, which originally planned to request $87.6 million for the program in Fiscal 1989, reduced the request to $30.4 million in its amended budget.

AAAM is intended to replace the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long-range missile carried by Navy Grumman F-14 aircraft. The missile, which is planned for deployment in the late 1990s, is intended to counter the growing threat from Soviet Backfire and Blackjack long-range bombers equipped with air-launched cruise missiles. AAAM also will be used on the Navy's advanced tactical aircraft, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18s, Grumman A-6 upgrades, the Air Force's advanced tactical fighter and the McDonnell Douglas F-15.

The two competing teams have offered missile designs that involve substantially different guidance and propulsion schemes. The General Dynamics/Westinghouse design is a rocket-powered missile with semi-active guidance. Equipped with a separable solid-fuel rocket booster, the missile features boost-glide pulsing to conserve fuel and increase range. The 144-in., 5.5-in.-dia. missile weighs 380 lb.

An airborne track illuminator, housed in a 142-in.-long, 16-in.-dia. pod, is used to track and compute the engagement envelope for each target. Once the aircrew selects the target, the missile is directed by inertial midcourse guidance, then shifts to its own semiactive terminal guidance system.

The H & R Co. design features an integrated rocket-ramjet propulsion system with an active guidance system derived from the Hughes advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM). The system is totally autonomous. Unlike the General Dynamics/Westinghouse propulsion system, the missile's ramjet engine provides full thrust all the way to the target. The 9-in.-dia. missile is capable of speeds up to Mach 3 and has a 120-mi. range

Photograph: General Dynamics/Westinghouse team has proposed an AAAM design with semi-active guidance powered by a solid-fuel rocket booster. Photograph: H & R Co. design for the Navy's AAAM features an integral rocket ramjet propulsion system and a fully autonomous active guidance system.

Document aw00000020011117dk44001kp

Fiscal 1989 Defense Authorization USAF, Navy Told to Codevelop Advanced Air-to-Air Missiles
250 words
25 July 1988
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 21
Vol. 129, No. 4
Copyright 1988 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

WASHINGTON -- The Fiscal 1989 National Defense Authorization Act directs the Defense Dept. to establish a joint Navy/Air Force program office to codevelop the advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) and the product-improved advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM).

The Air Force and the Navy participate in a joint AMRAAM program. However, the AAAM has been a Navy program to date, since USAF does not need a long-range air-to-air missile.

The conferees allocated $40.4 million for AAAM development and $20 million for the improvement of AMRAAM. They stipulated that not more than half of the funds will be released until the joint program office is established.

Conferees also approved the Pentagon's $15.9-million request for research and development of stand-off weapons. The Pentagon's joint stand-off weapons program coordinates USAF's modular stand-off weapon program and the Navy's advanced interdiction weapon system program (AW&ST Feb. 1, p. 19).

The Navy Toma hawk and USAF air-launched cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads are considered logical choices for extended penetration weapons, but the Israeli Have Nap missile is being considered for short-range interdiction (AW&ST June 27, p. 24).

The conference members directed that none of the stand-off funds be obligated until ''the Defense Department has reported to Congress on the new plan for short-range stand-off weapons.''

Document aw00000020011117dk7p001mj

202 words
8 August 1988
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 13
Vol. 129, No. 6
Copyright 1988 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

THE AIR FORCE, which has no operational requirement for the Navy's advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM), may be forced to reconsider its position in light of the AAAM's projected capabilities against emerging Soviet stealth technology. The Air Force's only current air-to-air missile program is AMRAAM which does not have the counter-stealth capabilities of the AAAM. The operational Navy wants to end Phoenix procurement in 1991 or 1993 and use the money for AAAM, but Everett Pyatt, assistant secretary for shipbuilding and logistics, is resisting and wants to continue dual-source production levels through the mid-1990s. THE STATE DEPT. IS PLAYING THE ISSUE OF COMPENSATION strictly by the book for victims of Iran Air Flight 655, shot down July 3 by the USS Vincennes. In this case, the book is international precedence established in cases stretching back to World War 2 when unarmed transports were shot down by military forces.

Indemnification is not required for injuries or damages incidental to the lawful use of armed force, State Dept. legal adviser Abraham D. Sofaer said last week. Iran said that they may block payments unless the U. S. admits culpability.

Document aw00000020011117dk88001xq

News Briefs THE U. S. NAVY
65 words
10 October 1988
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 34
Vol. 129, No. 14
Copyright 1988 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

THE U. S. NAVY last week awarded demonstration/validation contracts for the advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) to the teams of General Dynamics/Westinghouse and Hughes/Raytheon. The awards--$6 million to General Dynamics/Westinghouse and $5.1 million to Hughes/Raytheon--represent the Fiscal 1988 funding of a four-year effort that will run through September, 1992.
More articles:

Industry Observer MISSILE DEBATE
89 words
23 January 1989
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 11
Vol. 130, No. 4
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

THE NAVY'S long-range, advanced air-to-air missile (AAAM) could face funding problems if the Air Force does not support the weapon's ongoing research and development program. Congress wants both services to buy the same air-to-air missile, but the Air Force is reluctant to participate. The Navy wants the AAAM for air battles over open oceans. The Air Force believes, however, the missile is unsuited for the crowded central European battlefront, where long-range missile engagements are unlikely to occur.

Document aw00000020011116dl1n0009n

110 words
11 April 1989
Aerospace Daily
Vol. 150, No. 7
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Joint ventures of Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon, and General Dynamics and Westinghouse received $5.8 million funding increments last Thursday to continue demonstration/validation of the Navy's Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM).

The contracts fund design and documentation of a baseline system, trade studies and digital simulations, free-flight testing of prototype control test vehicles, hardware-in-the-loop testing of guidance subsystems, captive-carry testing and comparative testing of prototype systems.

The teams received $6 million start-up contracts last September (DAILY, Sept. 30, 1988). AAAM, managed by Naval Air Systems Command, will replace the AIM-54C Phoenix.

Document asd0000020011116dl4b0016o

334 words
5 June 1989
Aerospace Daily
Vol. 150, No. 45
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The diameter of the Navy's Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM), now in a four-year demonstration/validation phase, may have to be increased to accommodate the demands of lower-frequency operations, Pentagon and industry sources said Friday.

Designers of the AAAM, being competitively developed by teams of Hughes Aircraft-Raytheon and General Dynamics-Westinghouse, are considering enlarging the 230 mm airframe to better accommodate K-band radar and still minimize sidelobes, sources said.

The two teams are operating under $6 million demonstration/ validation contracts awarded last year (DAILY, Sept. 30, 1988), which conclude in the fall of 1992.

"It's the laws of physics...(that) anyone who lowers the operating frequency has to increase the diameter" to accommodate a larger nose radar array, an industry source said. He noted that the Navy has "historically used X-band for fire control," and it's "a challenge" to get a K-band into the specified airframe. "It's not the avionics packaging. That's pretty easy, in fact," he said.

A Pentagon source said no action is being considered to change the specifications for the missile, which is to succeed the AIM-54C Phoenix. "It's in the (contractor's) hands. We watch and see what they say. If it can't be done, that would certainly be cause to reevaluate," he said.

An industry source said it might be easier for Hughes-Raytheon to "grow" their AAAM version, since its tail is already 1.25 times the diameter of the nose section.

"The nature of the beast in dem/val is to look at tradeoffs," an industry source said. "We look at all kinds of things. We may or may not increase the diameter of the missile. We're not committed either way."

The GD-Westinghouse AAAM concept calls for a two-stage boosted missile with RF and infrared terminal homing while Hughes-Raytheon offers a rocket/ramjet concept with RF and imaging terminal homing.

Document asd0000020011116dl65001s2

598 words
3 August 1989
Aerospace Daily
Vol. 151, No. 22
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The House Appropriations Committee, reporting on fiscal 1990 defense bill, added funds to the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) program to accelerate development, but restricted spending of half those funds until a single concept has been picked.

HAC added $47.4 million to the Navy's AAAM request of $72.7 million because it considered the program "inadequately funded, needlessly large in scope and too long in schedule." The committee stipulated that half the money can't be spent until a single missile concept has been picked, and ordered acceleration of the program so that full-scale development can be completed by FY '95.

The committee also deleted funding to put the air-to-air Stinger missile on the AH-64 Apache, restricted competition on the TOW 2 missile, encouraged competition on the SADARM anti-tank weapon, deleted funding for C-27 aircraft and halved funding for the Tanker-Transport-Trainer System (TTTS). It also directed that any sale of fighter aircraft to South Korea be made "off the shelf."

The Navy's 10-year, $2 billion development schedule for AAAM is "simply unacceptable" since the service recommended ending the Phoenix missile production line in 1991, creating a "nine year gap in production of long-range missiles," HAC said. The Navy's proposed AAAM demonstration program would cost $240 million and doesn't include free-flight missiles, "which is highly unusual in a new missile program."

The committee denied the Army's request to equip AH-64s with Stingers, cutting $17.1 million of the $38 million requested for this and other changes to the aircraft. Developmental testing of air-to-air Stinger "has indicated some technical problems," and procurement of the mod should be deferred, the HAC said.

A second production source for the Army's TOW 2 missile "does not seem reasonable," HAC said, since buys for 1988 and 1989 are "barely above the minimum sustaining rate for the current prime producer," which it said is 12,000 missiles, "and the 1990 rate is 3000" below that. The committee estimated it would take until 1998 to recover the cost of setting up a second source. It barred a second source unless Army and Marine Corps buys total at least 12,000 missiles.

Because of the increasing "operational priority" for the Army's Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM) weapon, HAC directed the service to establish two sources for the weapon "through development and into production." The two existing SADARM competitors "can best meet" the requirement because of their experience in operational and developmental tests. HAC said the Army can either pick one of the two designs and establish a leader-follower arrangement, or put both designs into production "provided that the designs of both FSD contractors meet all price requirements and are price competitive."

The provided no funding for the C-27 tactical airlifter because "there is not a U.S.-built aircraft which meets the program's specifications and it is unlikely there will be one by year's end when the AF hopes to request proposals." The plane is a "relatively low priority...within the Air Force," it said.

The committee didn't say why it cut seven aircraft and $74 million from the AF's TTTS request of 14 planes and $147.4 million.

It moved to block fighter technology transfer to South Korea. If that country wants to buy a U.S. aircraft, "partially based on our balance of trade with South Korea...the committee directs the totally off-the- shelf."

Document asd0000020011116dl83002b8

435 words
15 August 1989
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 281
Vol. 151, No. 30
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The House Appropriations Committee, in two related missile development decisions, decided to increase funding for the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) and zero money for the product improved Advanced Medium Range Air-to- Air Missile (AMRAAM).

A defense subcommittee source said the decision to deny the Air Force's $189 million product improved AMRAAM request probably reflected annoyance with the missile's "many problems" over the years. Most recently, none of four baseline AMRAAMs fired in a "World War III" test scenario Aug. 2 hit targets, a failure likely to trigger congressionally mandated delays in production (DAILY, Aug. 11).

The Defense Department is scheduled to review AMRAAM next month to determine readiness to enter full rate production. The House Armed Services Committee restricted spending for full rate production until all required tests have been conducted, the AMRAAM has met performance requirements and a stable missile production design has been established.

In a terse, one-sentence comment in its fiscal 1990 report, the Appropriations Committee recommended denial of the product improved AMRAAM request since the Air Force "declined the committee's request in the RDT&E hearing to identify the specific cost estimate for each of the preplanned product improvement tasks involved in the $189,000,000 new start initiative."

At the same time, the committee added $47.3 million to the request for the Navy's AAAM to raise the total to $120 million for continued development and directed the Navy to speed up the development program.

Industry sources said the AAAM, now in the demonstration/ validation phase, is further along than product improved AMRAAM.

Ironically, the committee's two missile development decisions on the one hand squeeze Hughes and Raytheon as the AMRAAM contractors while helping these two contractors as one competing team in the AAAM program. General Dynamics/Westinghouse is the other team.

One of the Appropriations Committee's AAAM criticisms was that the current program retains four major contractors working on two separate designs, leading to a 10-year development schedule costing over $2 billion.

Industry sources said the AAAM, looked on as the replacement for the AIM-54C Phoenix missile, which Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney wants to terminate after the fiscal 1990 purchase, is actually about the same size as the AIM-7 Sparrow missile. The AAAM, sources said, offers independent targeting with mid-course and terminal guidance.

Industry sources said the product improved AMRAAM offers increased range over AMRAAM, multi-sensor capability, terminal infra-red guidance and is optimized for the Advanced Tactical Fighter, which the Appropriations Committee also zeroed.

Document asd0000020011116dl8f002f6

694 words
1 November 1989
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 175
Vol. 152, No. 22
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The Navy may arm its A-12 ground attack aircraft with long-range air- to-air missiles for fleet defense, turning it into a multirole platform, industry and Pentagon sources said yesterday.

Navy planners are examining the concept of equipping the General Dynamics-McDonnell Douglas A-12 with the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM), which will succeed the AIM-54C Phoenix in the mid-1990s, sources said. Making the two compatible would have significant impact on design of the aircraft's radar, being developed by Westinghouse, and would alter the stated mission of the A-12, which is to succeed the A-6 carrier-based bomber, they said.

The contractor teams of Hughes-Raytheon and GD-Westinghouse are competing to design the AAAM (DAILY, Oct. 30). Westinghouse took over the A-12 radar element when GD dropped United Technologies' Norden Systems as the radar subcontractor (DAILY, April 18).

The A-12/AAAM concept calls for the aircraft to be launched in anticipation of a raid on the carrier battle group, then to fire volleys of the missiles at incoming attacking planes and cruise missiles, sources reported. The A-12 would not engage surviving planes in a dogfight, but would "augment the F-14s or NATFs (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighters) in that initial, pre-emptive defensive situation," a Pentagon source said. Ground attack would remain its primary mission.

One source said that the Navy has been planning the A-12/AAAM combination "since before the contract (for A-12 full-scale development) was awarded," and that it is addressed in the contract. Navy spokesmen and involved contractors are forbidden to discuss the classified A-12 program. Multirole Capability

The Navy's long-range aviation plans call for "every combat plane to have multirole capability, more or less," a Navy source said. He noted that the NATF, though designed as a fighter-interceptor, will fulfill a ground- attack mission as well (DAILY, April 25), and that use of the A-12 for air- to-air work "is consistent with that thinking."

He also said that Hughes-Raytheon and GD-Westinghouse are studying ways to equip the F/A-18 and possibly other aircraft with the AAAM, but that "their approaches are different" to doing this.

While the application of a long-range missile to an aircraft set to replace the A-6 "is suprising on the face of it," technology has progressed to the point where "you can have a good air-to-ground radar that also works well in the air-to-air regime," an industry source said. "The F-15E is where you should start when you try to imagine what the A-12 will be like, not the A-6. Think of a stealthy F-15E, and it's not so surprising anymore."

Hughes makes the F-15E's APG-70 radar/fire-control system, which includes a synthetic aperture radar for ground mapping.

One factor that would motivate the Navy to put AAAM on the A-12, a congressional source said, is concern not only about bombers attacking a battle group, but increasingly capable fighters that might accompany them."That might change the way you fight the outer air battle," he said. "One thing you might want to have is a stealthy plane out there so that the fighters don't even know where to go to shoot down the guy that might be shooting at the bombers."

He said, "conceptually, it's a return to the old missileer concept" in which a relatively slow aircraft carries a missile load out to meet the enemy. "It doesn't have to be a fast dogfighter."

Also, he said, "if we are going to have a fighter shortfall, and if the F/A-18 has short legs and the A-12 doesn't, then this is a way of helping to make up the difference in the outer air battle."

In addition, it would boost "people who are thinking about necking down the number of aircraft types....It's a wild card in the air wing planning process for the future.

Document asd0000020011116dlb1002y1

635 words
14 November 1989
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 247
Vol. 152, No. 30
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The technology to make the Navy's Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) a true "fire and forget" type hasn't matured yet, leaving competitors with widely divergent approaches to what will--to some degree-- be an aircraft-guided weapon, Pentagon and industry sources said.

Despite the Navy's desire to make the AAAM independent of its host aircraft after launch, "missile size still limits what the (on-board) radar can do. You will still need initial target information and post-launch updates from the launching aircraft" whether the missile is active or semi- active, an industry source said.

Teams of Hughes-Raytheon and General Dynamics-Westinghouse are offering the Navy active and semi-active versions, respectively, of the AAAM, which is to replace the AIM-54C Phoenix.

Expected advances in Soviet low-observables technology will require the AAAM to find targets at twice current engagement ranges and with more sensor power, industry sources said. The extra range is needed to stop the Soviet planes before they launch their cruise missiles, about 1000 miles from the carrier battle group. Stealthiness of the planes and missiles will require the AAAM to "use--not necessarily have" more illuminating power and infrared detection ability, one said.

Infrared will be the chief sensor in the terminal phase, "because we expect a stronger signal in that spectrum" due to stealthiness, a Pentagon source said.

Radar Homing Capability

Besides offering seekers that utilize radar and IR, both teams' missiles will also be able to home on an emitting aircraft radar. But the GD-Westinghouse missile will be updated more rapidly through its flight, relying chiefly on the launch aircraft's radar and a fire-control pod mounted externally. The Hughes-Raytheon offering relies on the missile's own radar for much of the flight, after being fired into an "acquisition basket" from which it can track and reach its target.

The range requirements make the semi-active approach preferable among the Pentagon "missile community," since the AAAM will encounter "an incredibly dense ECM (electronic countermeasures) environment," an industry source said. "In the terminal phase, you can provide more data" from the host aircraft to the missile, improving its chances of getting past the ECM and getting an IR lock-on, he said.

Active missiles, which are limited in how they search for their target, "are easily jammed," a Pentagon source said. Problems with the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) "are mostly ECM-related," he said.

A General Dynamics official said his team's AAAM will use a pulsed radar that will cue the missile and tell it when the next pulse and data burst will be. The information is coded, and will be pulsed at many times per second in the terminal phase, on a different frequency each pulse to survive ECM. The missile is updated through the targeting pod, which can talk to the missile and track targets from the front or back, making it a "launch and maneuver" weapon, the company official said. In terminal phase, the radar radome is jettisoned to expose a hemispherical IR seeker.

Hughes-Raytheon officials wouldn't officially comment on their AAAM offering.

Both missiles could be back-fitted to existing platforms such as the F-14 and F/A-18. The Hughes-Raytheon missile can be substituted directly for AMRAAM or Sparrow, since it is active. The GD-Westinghouse AAAM can be used by the other aircraft if the pod is also carried.

At terminal phase, AAAM is required to have three times the maneuvering ability of the Phoenix. Its range will be at least twice that of Phoenix.

The Hughes-Raytheon missile is ramjet-powered, while the GD- Westinghouse version will be a two-pulse solid rocket type with thrust vectoring and fins.

Document asd0000020011116dlbe0036x

578 words
1 December 1989
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 347
Vol. 152, No. 41
Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The Navy is expected to respond soon to a congressional directive to accellerate development of the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) or extend production of the Phoenix missile, or both, according to industry observers.

The service's plan has been to terminate Phoenix, which has been in production since the early 1970s, with the fiscal year 1990 buy and to begin production of the follow-on AAAM in fiscal 1998.

Congress has expressed concern about the eight-year hiatus in production of a long-range U.S. air-to-air missile that would result from such a plan and has asked the Navy to take another look.

"The Navy's position probably will be that it already has the right plan" in light of budget problems and other priorities, one observer said.

Still, he said, it should respond quickly because congressional language allows the service to obligate no more than 66% of funding for AAAM until it comes up with a plan that is acceptable to Congress. AAAM will be impacted unless the issue is resolved in the next two or three months, observers said. One said the Navy would probably respond this month.

The award for the final Phoenix production buy, meanwhile, has been planned by the service for sometime before Christmas. Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon have both been producing the missile, but the work probably wouldn't be split between the two, observers said.

Single Production Award

"We believe that the award will be to just one producer because Congress has directed the Navy to procure as many missiles as possible" with the FY '90 funding, an observer said. One would be chosen instead of two because keeping two production lines going is more expensive than maintaining a single line, he explained. "It's that simple."

Hughes, the developer and original producer of Phoenix, which has been operational with the Navy since 1974, is just winding up production of the fiscal '88 buy. If it wins the FY '90 contract, it would continue to produce the missiles until sometime in fiscal 1992. If it doesn't, work would end in 1991.

Raytheon, as the relatively new second sourcer producer of Phoenix, has so far built about 25 from kits. Its first built-from-the-ground-up Phoenix would be turned out early next year.

AAAM, under competitive development by teams of General Dynamics- Westinghouse and Hughes-Raytheon, would have the same mission as Phoenix-- destruction of bombers before they could release cruise missiles to attack the fleet. If AAAM becomes a budget issue and is cancelled, the effect on the industry teams would be minimal because few resources have been committed so far, observers said.

But, they added, without a long-range missile to replace the aging Phoenix, the fleet would be vulnerable to attacks in the 1990s and beyond.

"It's a microcosm of the problem the services are facing" in this tight budget environment, an industry official said. "What happens two to three years from now, when the real budget crunch hits and you decide you can't proceed with AAAM but you've already disbanded the Phoenix production capability" and a new threat emerges?

One alternative is an upgraded version of the Phoenix, flight tests of which are to begin next year. It could take up the slack between the end of production of the current Phoenix and the start of AAAM production.
Last batch:

efense Contracts: Selected contracts awarded by the Army, Navy and Air Force during the week of April 9-13 are listed here. Contracts already reported by The DAILY and those not related to aerospace are omitted, as are some others, in the interest o NAVY
203 words
18 April 1990
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 106
Vol. 154, No. 13
Copyright 1990 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

March 9, 1990 General Dynamics/Westinghouse AAAM Joint Venture, Pomona, Calif., is being awarded a $9,900,000 increment of funds to a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract -- for the Demonstration and Validation (DEMVAL) phase of the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) Program. This phase of advanced development will include: design and documentation of a baseline system; trade studies and digital simulations; free-flight testing of prototype control test vehicles; hardware-in-the-loop testing of guidance subsystems; captive-carry testing of prototype guidance systems; and comparative testing of prototype guidance systems. Work will be performed in Pomona, Calif. (70%), and Baltimore, Md. (30%), and is expected to be completed in December 1992. Contract funds would not have expired at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured by a Request for Proposal. Two proposals were received.

The Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00019-88-C-0151).

Document asd0000020011114dm4i001mb

524 words
4 June 1990
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 371
Vol. 154, No. 45
Copyright 1990 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The in-development Advanced Air-to-Air Missile's performance is expected to be good enough that it could replace some portion of the Navy's AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missile inventory, and the concept is being unofficially explored, sources said last week.

If it works as planned, AAAM--slated to replace the AIM-54C Phoenix late this decade--could be more agile than the Advanced Medium-Range Air- to-Air Missile in the latter's envelope, and faster. It would also be "cost-competitive" with AMRAAM, making it an attractive option to replace some Sparrows, one source said. AMRAAM is to replace Sparrow in Air Force and Navy inventories.

The Navy is quietly studying whether to stop buying AMRAAM after the first few hundred are put into fleet service, and applying remaining AMRAAM funds to AAAM. The Navy's requirement for AMRAAM is about 3,500 missiles, which sources said will be reduced in the coming months.

The Navy has no plans "at the present time" to substitute AAAM for any AMRAAMs, a service spokesman said. If the technical promises bear out, the Navy could load AAAM for either medium or long-range missions, with the "necking-down" support savings such a move would entail.

Ongoing studies of post-2000 aircraft carrier employment indicate the Navy will need to intercept aircraft and cruise missiles at greater ranges from a battle group, reducing emphasis on shorter-range weapons. The flexibility of AAAM for medium or long-range missions "fits nicely with what we're finding" about future carrier requirements, a Pentagon official said.

Navy officials are also concerned about continuing quality problems with AMRAAM, full-rate production of which has twice been put off by the Pentagon. One said AAAM's medium-range abilities are "nice to have since we can't be sure what will happen" to AMRAAM.

The fact that AAAM wouldn't enter the inventory until the late 1990s has kept the Navy from bailing out of AMRAAM so far, sources said. "We are already betting that AAAM will come in on time because we are taking a chance on extending Phoenix," funding of which has ended, a Pentagon official said. Relying on AAAM to replace Phoenix and AMRAAM "is just too risky," he said. Sparrow is "not able to deal with the threat as we enter the mid-90s," he reported.

"We need both missiles," a senior Navy official said.

One official noted that "necking-down" savings from buying more AAAMs at the expense of AMRAAM would be negligible since AMRAAM would already be in fleet service and require continuing support.

Two teams are vying to build AAAM: General Dynamics/Westinghouse and Hughes/Raytheon. The GD/Westinghouse AAAM proposal would have a dual-mode RF/infrared seeker, giving it capability as "a beyond-visual-range Sidewinder," one source said. Both versions are to be about the same size as Sparrow, so there would be no load penalty in carrying AAAM instead of AMRAAM.

Congress is favorably impressed with AAAM and has urged the Navy to accelerate the program (DAILY, Aug. 31, 1989).

Document asd0000020011114dm64001l1

319 words
24 July 1990
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 128
Vol. 155, No. 16
Copyright 1990 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The Senate Armed Services Committee authorized funding to upgrade a portion of the fiscal year 1991 Phoenix missile buy to the AIM-54C++ configuration, to keep the missile capable until its successor, the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile, is available, Senate staffers reported.

The improvements will be worked on about 108 missiles to demonstrate the upgrade package, one staffer said. Future improvements are also being considered, he said. Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney has programmed an end to the Phoenix line in September 1992.

The upgrade package would involve improved electronic counter- countermeasures, a high-power transmitter borrowed from the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and a reprogrammable memory, the staffers said. The improvements would give the missile better acquisition range and angle, improved maneuverability at long ranges and a "three-fold increase in the 'no-escape zone,'" one reported.

The "plus-plus" version would also improve the missile's ability to survive anti-radiation missiles and "next-generation threats," he said.

"It will be 10 years at least before we get AAAM," the staffer said. "The NATF (Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter) has also been slipped," and the Navy will face "tougher targets" in the near future. During that time, the Soviet Union is expected to field at least two large-deck aircraft carriers equipped with Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum aircraft, so "we can't stand still," he said.

"We have to upgrade the Phoenix because it has...lost a lot of its edge," he said. The current model of the Phoenix, the AIM-54C+, has been in production since 1986.

The SASC is also eyeing an upgrade of "the rest of the (Phoenix) inventory" starting with the FY '92 budget, one staffer reported. It hasn't been resolved yet from what block number the retrofits would be made, he said.

Document asd0000020011114dm7o002gq

128 words
9 October 1990
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 36
Vol. 156, No. 5
Copyright 1990 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The two industry teams working on the Navy's Advanced Air-to-Air Missile received Naval Air Systems Command contracts Friday for the next phase of demonstration/validation.

General Dynamics/Westinghouse received $11.6 million and Hughes/Raytheon received $12.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts that add on to four-year, $110 million dem/val contracts awarded in October 1988.

The next phase of dem/val calls for design and documentation of the baseline AAAM system, trade studies and digital simulations, free-flight testing of prototype control test vehicles, hardware-in-the-loop testing of guidance subsystems, and captive-carry testing and comparative testing of prototype guidance systems. The work is to be finished by December 1992.

Document asd0000020011114dma9002kw

248 words
24 October 1990
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 151
Vol. 156, No. 17
Copyright 1990 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group, Baltimore, Md., has demonstrated an Autopilot/Executive (Apex) computer for use on the Navy's Advanced Air-to- Air Missile (AAAM). Apex will execute control and guidance software for the missile airframe.

Westinghouse and General Dynamics, its joint venture partner for AAAM, will integrate the computer, autopilot/guidance software and the prototype missile airframes for the flight test program in 1991. Competing with the GD-Westinghouse team is a team of Hughes and Raytheon. The AAAM is intended to replace the Phoenix missile in the late 1990s.

The demonstration, carried out during a quarterly review of the program by the Navy last May at Westinghouse facilities in Baltimore, was the culmination of a nine-month effort to design, fabricate and test a state-of-the-art Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) which provides 20 VAX Units of Performance (VUPs) in the volume constraint of 60 cubic inches.

Westinghouse said that to meet the constraint, it used a solderless high density packaging approach that allows a two-to-one increase in density through ceramic integrated circuit packages.

In a separate development, Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group received a $40 million contract from Unisys Corp. for production of 180 transmitters for the Next Generation Weather Radar (Nexrad). The transmitters are derived from transmitters used in the Westinghouse ASR-9 airport surveillance radar. Nexrads will be deployed across the U.S. to provide data for early severe storm warning and improved forecasting.

Document asd0000020011114dmao002y2

760 words
1 April 1991
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 4
Vol. 158, No. 1
Copyright 1991 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

General Dynamics' Advanced Air-to-Air Missile could be a competitor to the Air Force's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile late in the decade, sources reported.

The GD AAAM, one of two candidates to replace the Phoenix missile beginning around 1998, will likely be cheaper, lighter, faster and more agile than the pre-planned product improvement (P3I) version of AMRAAM, in addition to having far longer range, a source familiar with the program said.

The new missile will enter production around 1998, about the time the P3I AMRAAM will start coming off the line, sources said. Though P3I AMRAAM's production and initial operating capability dates are classified, the service is taking an event-driven, rather than calendar-driven approach to developing it, an AF official said. "It will be produced when it's ready," he said.

Hughes recently received first funding to start the P3I AMRAAM development process. A contractor will be selected to begin a four-year full-scale development program for AAAM in early 1993.

The GD AAAM will have a speed of about Mach 5, more than twice that of AMRAAM. The missile will weigh about 410 pounds, compared to AMRAAM's 500 pounds, though the AAAM requires a launch tube which weighs 80-100 pounds. The AAAM is to have a range "two to three times" that required of the Phoenix, putting it well over 150 miles, while AMRAAM is intended for targets at 50 miles or less.

In addition, the GD AAAM has a dual-mode seeker, using radar in mid- course and infrared in terminal homing, making it difficult to spoof. AMRAAM has only a radar seeker. AAAM will also have capability in both the X- and K-radar bandwidths.

The Navy has "not set any cost bogeys in the AAAM program," preferring to let industry seek its own solutions to the requirements, "at whatever it costs to do that," an industry source said. But as budgets are constrained, "cost will become a very important discriminator," he added, and "the Navy is going to have to get more serious about it."

The Navy's F-14 will be able to carry seven GD AAAMs, as well as a radar pod that would be mounted on a weapons station. The pod provides K- band coverage for simultaneous launches, tracking and detonation of a classified number of missiles. The F-14's APG-71 radar alone will not be able to use K-band, but the bandwidth is a requirement in the program. The competing Hughes-Raytheon AAAM carries its own active radar with K-band capability, so no pod is required.

The F/A-18 upgrade now being planned will have an electronically- steered radar with K-band, so no pod would be needed for that plane, which will be available at the same time as AAAM (DAILY, March 24).

AMRAAM and the Hughes-Raytheon AAAM are "billed as fire-and-forget, but you have to update any missile going after a target more than five miles from the plane," a source familiar with the program said. GD's AAAM "overlaps AMRAAM coverage, and even some of Sidewinder," at lower cost and faster time-to-target, he said.

The infrared terminal seeker "is like putting a Sidewinder, with all its inherent IR advantages, way out there," he added.

The GD AAAM is lighter than AMRAAM and the Hughes-Raytheon AAAM because "all the hardpoints for carriage are in the launch tube, so whatever is on the missile is there for propulsion or maneuverability," the source said. Other "hardening" features necessary so earlier missiles can survive the rough-and-tumble of carrier flight decks are also in the tube, not the missile. The tube can be retained by the aircraft after missile launch, at the pilot's discretion.

The GD AAAM uses a thrust-vectoring booster mounted on a finned, thrust-vectoring airframe. Depending on distance to target, the missile computes the fastest and most effective course to it, either a straight line or an arcing parabola that can carry the missile to 100,000 feet.

The computer in the AAAM "is larger than the one used to design it," the source said.

The GD demonstration/validation version of the AAAM will have a diameter of 5 1/2 inches, but the production version would be 6 1/2 inches to accommodate the K-band radar and dual-mode terminal seeker. The larger diameter also allows increased fuel carriage, the source reported.

Document asd0000020011109dn41001n3

249 words
18 June 1991
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 465A
Vol. 158, No. 56
Copyright 1991 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The Navy Advanced Air-to-Air Missile program is unnecessary and should be scrapped in favor of the AMRAAM, for a savings of $10 billion, the House Appropriations Committee said in its report on the FY '92 defense money bill.

The committee, noting that AAAM was initiated "at the height of the defense buildup and prior to the diminution of the Soviet threat," said the missile was only necessary to replace the Phoenix missile in the "now deemphasized Outer Air Battle," and the Navy can get along instead with the Air Force-developed AMRAAM.

Though the committee "recognizes that AAAM might offer improved capabilities for some shorter-range tactical missions," it considers these advantages "marginal since the AF has no requirement" for it. The Navy is also "moving toward F-18 aircraft whose radars are smaller than F-14 radars and therefore have less range, and the Defense Department has no credible identification friend or foe program underway."

Touting the recent Persian Gulf war as evidence that "joint military operations work" the committee said that it "will not fund a Navy-unique air-to-air missile" and that "$10 billion could be saved" by canceling AAAM.

The committee recommended the $89.3 million requested for AAAM be denied, and "directs the Navy to use....AMRAAM instead." To "facilitate this transition," it added $10 million to the Navy AMRAAM development line item (DAILY, June 10) "for unique integration costs."

Document asd0000020011110dn6i000fy

529 words
21 November 1991
DEFENSE DAILY Phillips Publishing, Inc.
Vol. 173, No. 36 ISSN: 0889-0404

Naval weapons programs escaped virtually untouched from the appropriations conference on Monday as all but $164 million of the Administration's request of $4.7 billion was approved, including an additional $130 million to produce Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAM) and reinstatement of $210 million for the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), which was zeroed in the Senate version of the defense appropriations bill.

Conferees upheld the Administration's request of $89.3 million for development of the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM), which sources view as significant because of its ties to development of the F/A-18E/F aircraft. The House zeroed funding for the follow-on program to the Phoenix missile in its mark of the FY '92 Defense Appropriations report. Navy officials have touted the AAAM as key to making the F/A-18 an air superiority fighter, capable of firing at standoff ranges up to four times greater than other current systems.

Appropriators directed the Navy to incorporate a block upgrade to the AIM-5C Phoenix missile as part of a missile retrofit program, to maintain and support "an adequate Phoenix missile capability until the AAAM is fielded in sufficient numbers," according to their report. Lawmakers charge that DoD has not obligated the $60 million authorized and appropriated for Phoenix in FY '91. The House approved the conference report yesterday.

Funds to develop the Advanced Bomb Family (ABF) were reduced $9 million from the FY '92 request of $24.5 million. The conference provided $27.5 million for target systems development, but specifically denied funds be spent on continued development of the Supersonic Low Altitude Target (SLAT). Conferees also upheld the Administration's request of $53.7 million for the Advanced Interdiction Weapon System (AIWS).

Funds For Navy Presence In ATF

In other areas, conferees agreed to provide $2 million to maintain Navy presence in the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, a figure far below the $50 million inserted by House appropriators to resurrect the naval version of the ATF. The Navy did not request funds for the NATF, citing affordability reasons as the number one factor in dropping the next generation air superiority fighter, which would be a follow- on program to the F-14 aircraft. The conferees said the fighter is an item of special interest to Congress.

House Appropriators, weary of Navy statements that it can ill afford to replace the F-14, fought to keep language in the FY '92 Defense Appropriations Bill directing the Navy to develope a naval version of the ATF when such a requirement emerges in the future in order to yield large cost savings. "The Navy should not be allowed to pursue development of a new air superiority fighter, but rather should be postured to use a derivative of the Air Force's ATF," conferees said in their report.

They also added that the $2 million should be used for Navy studies focusing on three primary efforts: developing the ATF avionics suite; developing an ATF engine for future Navy use; and incorporating Navy requirements in the characterization and development of ATF materials.

Document defd000020011109dnbl0001z

69 words
19 December 1991
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 447
Vol. 160, No. 54
Copyright 1991 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The Navy yesterday gave the two Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) joint ventures--Hughes-Raytheon and General Dynamics-Westinghouse-- additional funding increments for the demonstration/validation phase of $33.9 million and $44.3 million, respectively. The funding is for additional baseline design and test work, and is to be completed in February 1993. Naval Air Systems Command awarded the contracts.

Document asd0000020011109dncj001yh

664 words
7 January 1992
Aerospace Daily
Pg. 25
Vol. 161, No. 4
Copyright 1992 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

The Navy will trade away funding of its AIM-9R Sidewinder missile effort in order to hang onto the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) in the fiscal year 1993 budget revision, Pentagon officials reported yesterday.

Faced with what one Navy official called "an absolute need" for the AAAM versus expected congressional opposition and basic unaffordability of the AIM-9R, the Navy "took a decision to stop" the latter program, and use the funds to continue work on the AAAM, the official said.

A cheaper AIM-9M upgrade "will still keep us...marginally ahead" of comparable short-range air-to-air missiles in other countries, he asserted. The AAAM, meanwhile, "is what makes it possible" to rely on the improved, stretched F/A-18E/F Hornet, he said. The AAAM is intended to give the improved Hornet the long-range anti-air capability now embodied in the F-14 and its Phoenix missile, now both terminated. "Without AAAM, the 'E/F' doesn't work, period," the official asserted.

The move also suggests the Navy is continuing to count on the E/F upgrade, which has been discussed as a possible "no-start" or less ambitious effort, in order to make funds available for other naval aviation programs.

Congress mandated creation of a Joint Short-Range Missile Office last year to get the Air Force and Navy to merge their diverging Sidewinder programs. The AF was pursuing an updated AIM-9M, which is a heat-seeker, while the Navy went after the AIM-9R, which has an imaging infrared seeker.

Seeker Head Cost

The AIM-9R is being developed by Loral's Aeronutronic Div., formerly a unit of Ford Aerospace.

After evaluating a producibility study on the AIM-9R seeker head last summer (DAILY, July 23, 1991), the AF decided not to buy it for a Sidewinder upgrade, based on high cost (DAILY, Aug. 19, 1991). That left the Navy in the lurch, without a broad-enough numerical base for affordable seeker head production. The Navy would have upgraded 6,000 AIM-9s to "R" configuration, while the AF had twice as many requiring upgrade.

"Without the Air Force, we had a real cost problem," a Navy official said.

Congress likely would have denied funding to go forward with the "R" anyway, because of the lack of a unified Sidewinder program with the AF, the official said. The two services are jointly looking at a mid-term series of updates to the AIM-9M and a longer-term, more ambitious AIM-9X effort for a new short-range missile. Industry has already begun work on several alternative designs (DAILY, Sept. 23, 1991).

"So, coming into (budget negotiations) we knew (AIM-9R) was a goner," a Navy official said. "But we wanted to make sure we were satisfied with the alternatives before we let it go." The decision to terminate wasn't made until late December, he said.

The AAAM itself is no favorite of Congress, which has upbraided the Navy for undertaking a program seemingly duplicative of the AF's Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), already in low-rate production.

Proponents in the Navy argue that AAAM is a more sophisticated missile with more than twice the range and speed of AMRAAM, intended for the carrier outer air battle role. One Navy official admitted that "the outer air battle has undergone some changes over the last eight months," but contended that the requirement for AAAM "has by no means gone away."

"We can get away with the E/F if we have AAAM. Without it, we have to rethink the E/F," he added. He said senior officials are "upbeat" about being able to convince Congress of the AAAM's necessity.

Two teams--General Dynamics/Westinghouse and Hughes/Raytheon--are participating in the AAAM demonstration/validation phase, with one team expected to be picked for full-scale development next year.

Document asd0000020011108do170007n

Fiscal 1993 U.S. Federal Budgets Naval Aviation Spared Big Cuts, But AX Program Funding Halved --- JOHN D. MORROCCO
1150 words
3 February 1992
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 21
Vol. 136, No. 5
Copyright 1992 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

WASHINGTON -- Naval aviation escaped serious reductions in the Pentagon's Fiscal 1993 budget proposal, with the brunt of the service's cuts coming in antisubmarine warfare programs, reflecting a response to a declining Soviet strategic submarine threat.

But funding for the AX medium attack aircraft during the next five years has been halved, indicating a much slower pace for the A-6 replacement program than originally planned.

The total Fiscal 1993 funding request for the Navy and Marine Corps is $84.6 billion, $7.9 billion less than proposed in the Bush Administration's Fiscal 1992-93 budget last year. The single largest proposed cancellation is of the Navy's SSN-21 Seawolf attack submarine program, which would save $2.5 billion in Fiscal 1993 and a total of $17.5 billion through Fiscal 1997.

Only one SSN-21, already under contract, will be built. Instead, the Navy will move ahead with a lower-cost submarine design--the Centurion--and continue to develop other new antisubmarine warfare (ASW) systems. The Navy also plans to cancel the SQY-1 ASW Combat System program, which was to be used on the SSN-21 for a saving of $893 million during the next five years.

Other proposed reductions in the ASW arena include:

--Curtailing the SH-2 ASW helicopter service life extension program.

--Terminating the Mk. 50 vertical launch antisubmarine rocket program.

Despite Pentagon consideration of further reductions in the number of Navy aircraft carriers, the service will continue to maintain 12 deployable carriers and 13 active air wings. The Fiscal 1993 budget contains $890 million for long-lead items to begin contruction of the new CVN-76 carrier in 1995.

The decision against any further carrier force cuts reflects the Pentagon's increased emphasis on countering regional threats now that there is no longer a Soviet Union to pose a serious threat. Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney said carriers provide the U. S. with the ability to react to crises around the globe, something ''we won't be willing to give up.''

Filling those carrier decks with aircraft will continue to pose a difficult problem for the Navy, however. The Fiscal 1993 budget includes $6.7 billion to procure 127 Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. Navy planners maintain, however, that 210 new aircraft must be procured each year to meet service requirements.

Already, the Navy is slowing down its AX program, seeking only $165.6 million for research and development. That represents slightly more than half of the $313 million the service budgeted in its revised Fiscal 1992-93 budget submission last April. A Pentagon official said funding for the AX would build up to about $800 million by Fiscal 1997, again far less than the $1.68 billion set in the revised Fiscal 1992-93 budget.

The change could be due largely to the Pentagon's new policy of allowing more time to develop and evaluate new weapons systems before moving into production. Deputy Defense Secretary Donald Atwood said the AX would fall into this category. One Navy official said this approach, involving extensive prototyping, would delay introduction of the aircraft until the year 2010. But the funding change also reflects divisions within the Navy about whether the service can afford to proceed with both the AX program and develop an upgraded version of the F/A-18. F/A-18E/F FULLY FUNDED Unlike the AX program, the F/A-18E/F is fully funded in the budget, with only minor adjustments. The Navy is asking for $1.13 billion in research and development funding for Fiscal 1993; the service originally had planned for $1 billion. The total development cost is expected to be $4.8-5 billion, and procurement still is scheduled to begin in 1996. At the same time, the Navy is asking for $1.8 billion in Fiscal 1993 to continue F/A-18C/D production at a rate of 48 aircraft. The Navy's decision to cancel the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) program raises questions about the viability of the F/A-18E/F strike/fighter in the air-to-air role. In deciding against further F-14 fighter production, Navy officials looked to the AAAM to cover the air defense battle space that would be forfeited at the outer edges due to the F/A-18E/F's shorter range (AW&ST May 6, 1991, p. 25).

A Navy official said it was ''tough to justify the requirement'' for a missile with that range, given the changed world situation. Instead, the Navy will rely on the Advanced Medium Range Air-to Air Missile (AMRAAM) now entering the Air Force inventory. The Navy has requested $137.5 million to procure 140 AMRAAMs in Fiscal 1993.

The Navy had budgeted $1.1 billion through Fiscal 1997 for the AAAM program. The service actually will save only $600 million during that period, however, as $500 million is to be added for an air-to-air missile seeker technology demonstration program and propulsion research. Further production of the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile also would be abandoned in Fiscal 1993.

Plans to procure six E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning system aircraft in Fiscal 1993 have been canceled. Production will end with the last six authorized in Fiscal 1992 for a total of 139 aircraft. A Pentagon official said it was determined this level would be adequate to meet Navy needs.

A senior Navy official said recently, however, that a replacement for the E2-C is one of the service's most pressing requirements. The budget also contains no funding for a replacement for the S-3 ASW aircraft. The Navy has funded the P-3 Update 4 program but there are no funds for a P-3 follow-on aircraft. OSPREY IS CAPTIVE The Navy has set aside $10 million in Fiscal 1993 and $50 million in Fiscal 1994 for a medium lift replacement for the Marine Corps. But the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor continues to be a captive of the impasse between Congress and the Pentagon. Cheney said it was questionable whether it was possible to meet a congressional mandate to build five production prototypes of the tilt-rotor, given the current budget climate.

The Marines have submitted a plan that Donald Yockey, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, is reviewing. But Atwood said he did not think the V-22 was ready for the production prototype phase.

A request for $136.2 million for eight HH-60H search and rescue helicopters represents one of the few new starts in the Fiscal 1993 budget.

Photograph: U. S. Navy will continue to maintain 12 deployable aircraft carriers and 13 active air wings. The total number of ships will decline to 461 from 464 in Fiscal 1993.

Document aw00000020011108do23000go

Headline News Navy Seeks Funding to Upgrade AMRAAM, Incorporate AAAM-Derived Technologies --- JOHN D. MORROCCO
888 words
27 April 1992
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Pg. 23
Vol. 136, No. 17
Copyright 1992 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

WASHINGTON -- The Navy is seeking funding in the Fiscal 1994 budget to begin work on an upgraded version of the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) that will incorporate technologies from its now canceled advanced air-to-air missile program (AAAM).

Under the plan, AAAM-derived technologies would be incorporated as pre-planned product improvements to the existing AMRAAM airframe or into a separate new B-model. The upgraded missile would be ready to enter the inventory after the turn of the century.

The Navy has begun working with the Air Force to develop the requirement for the improved AMRAAM, which would offer increased range although not the 100-plus naut. mi. advertised for the AAAM. ''It will be more than AMRAAM, but less than AAAM,'' a Navy official said. He noted that the Air Force has considered improved propulsion performance as part of the evolutionary growth of AMRAAM. ''Now it's a question of how much is enough.''

AAAM was to replace the Navy's AIM-54 Phoenix missile. It was originally intended to counter large numbers of long-range bombers armed with cruise missiles that posed a threat to aircraft carrier battle groups. That threat diminished significantly with the demise of the former-Soviet military, leading to the decision to terminate the program at the end of Fiscal 1992 (AW&ST Feb. 3, p. 22).

The Navy, which will now have to rely on AMRAAM to arm its F-14s and F/A-18s, has begun negotiations with the Air Force to improve the missile. Despite cancellation of AAAM, the Navy still has a requirement for a high-energy missile with a multimode or multispectral seeker, a service official said. Separately, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is sponsoring an air-to-air missile seeker and propulsion technology demonstration effort to continue and expand on work already invested in the AAAM program. Those technologies that demonstrate the greatest potential payoff would eventually be employed in the improved AMRAAM.

The Pentagon hopes to renegotiate contracts with the two teams competing on the AAAM program--Hughes/Raytheon and General Dynamics/Westinghouse--to continue the technology demonstration program in Fiscal 1993. The teams are still working under existing AAAM contracts, which expire Sept. 30. The program has been restructured to focus largely on seeker technology. It is not clear, however, whether the teams will remain intact or companies would bid on the technology demonstration effort individually. McDonnell Douglas, which developed the liquid rocket ramjet for the Hughes/Raytheon design, also may be a player.

In addition to ramjet technology, other candidate propulsion technologies to be examined include a multipulse rocket and a variable flow ducted rocket that the Air Force has been working on. Another option is simply to add a booster pack to the AMRAAM as the Soviets have done with the AA-10.

The technologies would be incorporated as a Phase 3 preplanned product improvement to AMRAAM, following two other phased upgrades already planned by the Air Force. These involve some seeker upgrades but are largely geared toward improvements against electronic countermeasures.

The Phase 3 AMRAAM's configuration will be dependent on the requirements agreed to by the Navy and Air Force and the results of the technology demonstration program. The size of the missile is also constrained by the internal weapons bays on the Air Force's F-22. If it is to be compatible with the F-22, the missile will have to be smaller than the Hughes/ Raytheon design, but not necessarily smaller than the General Dynamics/Westinghouse design, a Navy official said.

He noted that the idea of a larger missile has not been excluded. If the Air Force were to relax its AMRAAM load requirement for the F-22, the missile could be slightly larger. Another possibility is moving to a much larger ''B-type'' missile, the official said.

''The baseline AMRAAM would be carried in the F-22 and for external carriage on the F-22, or all other aircraft, we could have a bigger missile,'' he said. ''So you could maybe have the missile break into a family of two or just increase the size of the missile.''

The Navy will address these questions this summer as it develops the requirement for the Phase 3 upgrade. The desired range of the missile will be ironed out sometime following discussions with Navy ''Top Gun'' and Air Force fighter weapons school officials in late May. ''It's not only range-driven,'' another Navy official said. ''It's a range/speed combination that we are really trying to define.''

In the past, range was the major driver in considering requirements for a missile geared to the outer-air battle. That has now changed with the demise of the Soviet threat. Whereas range was not limited by external factors in open ocean engagements against a head-on threat, the Navy now faces regional scenarios where its options will be constrained.

Based on the experience of the Persian Gulf war, where there were large numbers of engagements with retreating and crossing Iraqi aircraft, the Navy is looking for a missile that can strike these retreating targets with ''a great deal of endgame energy,'' the official said.


  • ACIMD China.JPG
    ACIMD China.JPG
    103.6 KB · Views: 1,212


  • 4cc75d082653132ll6.jpg
    150.4 KB · Views: 1,332
It seems like the GD/Westinghouse AAAM submission has similar cardinal dimensions as the AIM-120, so could this missile have been carried in the F-22's internal bay?
I'd have thought "long legs, short sight" would be an advantage in some respects - your missile is powered through more of the flight envelope. Yes, the full performance is wasted if the primary carrier is cancelled, but it allows for growth in the capabilities of the in-fighter radar system on the remaining compatible platforms.
The GD AAAM project had SO many possibilities
1. Each of the F-22’s AMRAAM bays could hold at least 6-8 of them (12-16 total full-size missiles).
2. Each of the F-35’s bays would hold 3-4 on each of the internal A2G stations (not counting the door station) for a total of 8-10 internal full-size missiles.
2. With a shorter booster, the F-22’s Sidewinder bays could hold 2 each
3. It would make a perfect VL SHORAD/MRAD solution for both naval and ground forces
4. Use the 5” AAM front ends as last ditch AAM defense for bombers, ISR, tanker, AWACS etc defense. They can be ejected like sonobuoys.
5. Hybrid missiles like a PAC-2 Patriot body and 3-5 AAAM front ends (the 5”section). The Pac-3 could hold 2-3 AAM 5” front ends.
6. Mate multiple AAAM front ends to cruise missiles like JSM, JASSM, etc to create our own ISR/tanker, AWACS killer missile.


  • $(KGrHqN,!qMFGBSkEpSDBRpC3WMJZ!~~60_57.JPG
    235.8 KB · Views: 769

Similar threads

Top Bottom