Lockheed Martin AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)

So basically exactly what they have been doing for decades with ramjet/scramjet missiles

That is what the US has got to stop, all of this start/stop, start/stop nonsense
I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.
View attachment 696437

That one is the X-51A Waverider which was never intended to be a production programme it just an R&D programme to advance the development of scramjet tech into actual flight-hardware that could be tested in actual flight conditions, the USAF's mistake in that programme was ignoring Boeing's advice that they should build ten test-vehicles not just the four originally commissioned.
 
So basically exactly what they have been doing for decades with ramjet/scramjet missiles

That is what the US has got to stop, all of this start/stop, start/stop nonsense
I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.
View attachment 696437

That one is the X-51A Waverider which was never intended to be a production programme it just an R&D programme to advance the development of scramjet tech into actual flight-hardware that could be tested in actual flight conditions, the USAF's mistake in that programme was ignoring Boeing's advice that they should build ten test-vehicles not just the four originally commissioned.
They never did succeed in reaching it's goals. The only flight that was even moderately "successful" (the last one) almost wasn't even flown because they were terrified of it failing. Furthermore, (and I don't recall if it was this one or one of the others) the DoD literally said, "even if it works we don't know what we would do with it".
 
the DoD literally said, "even if it works we don't know what we would do with it".

IIRC in regards to Boeing's proposal to build ten X-51As instead of the originally four was to not only take into account loss of X-51As before completing their test-flights (The DoD really needs to stop being risk adverse) but any left over after the test objectives were met could be used to fly simulated attack missions to get additional data.
 
This "first" hypersonic missile BS is total false advertising. Skybolt was at least 50% faster, had a much larger payload, and flew 60 years ago. Sure, it was twice as large, but had double the performance.
"hypersonics" should only refer to air-breathing vehicles; that's the way it used to be at least.
Sprint and Spartan were Hypersonic as well....those missiles could MOVE!
 
I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.

I think the USAF is more interested in HACM because it’s much less expensive and more can be carried on a wider variety of platforms. But of course it wouldn’t enter service until 2028ish.
 
I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.
When has that ever stopped them?

View attachment 696433
View attachment 696434
View attachment 696435
View attachment 696436
View attachment 696437
Well true, but everybody's got to learn eventually, right?
I've yet to see any evidence of it.
 
Talking about ABMs I'm a book I bought two-weeks ago called A Technical History of America's Nuclear Weapons - Volume II* by Dr. Peter A. Goetz and right now the section I'm reading concerns the design and development of the US's Safeguard system describing the LIM-49A Spartan (I haven't got to the part yet about the Sprint).

* I highly recommend reading this book.
 
Last edited:
I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.

I think the USAF is more interested in HACM because it’s much less expensive and more can be carried on a wider variety of platforms. But of course it wouldn’t enter service until 2028ish.
Or they will cancel that one as well. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal: Mach 10-12 , 1000-2000 km range, and ability to drop jamming decoys.
 
. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal:

A US version of the AS-24 Killjoy? Well Boeing could dust of the plans for the long ago cancelled XAGM-48A Skybolt and update the design, the last 60 years have seen HUGE technological leaps in a large number of areas of science and engineering.
 
. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal:

A US version of the AS-24 Killjoy? Well Boeing could dust of the plans for the long ago cancelled XAGM-48A Skybolt and update the design, the last 60 years have seen HUGE technological leaps in a large number of areas of science and engineering.
Skybolt is a bit too big I think, probably better to just make air launched SM-6 block IB or air launched PRSM
 
Skybolt is a bit too big I think

Yes, it is large but there's no reason why its' size can't be tailored to a mission, for example a single-stage version instead of a two-stage version. Another that has just occurred to me is that an updated ground-launched two-stage version might used where the first-stage would be the launch-booster and the second-stage the sustainer.
air launched SM-6 block IB

The USAF is IIRC already investigating an air launched version but without the Mk-72 launch-booster attached.
.
 

The USAF is IIRC already investigating an air launched version but without the Mk-72 launch-booster attached.
.
there is 1 image of F-18E/F carrying SM-6 and that it, I dont think they are developing it. And that is block I version I think
 
And that is block I version I think

I looked at the wikipedia article on the SM-6 and there isn't an SM6 Block-IB (I think you might be getting the SM-6 confused with the SM-3 which does have an SM-3 Block-IB). The article refers to two improved versions - Dual I and Dual II.
 
I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.

I think the USAF is more interested in HACM because it’s much less expensive and more can be carried on a wider variety of platforms. But of course it wouldn’t enter service until 2028ish.
Or they will cancel that one as well. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal: Mach 10-12 , 1000-2000 km range, and ability to drop jamming decoys.

HAWC was a very successful program with two different successful demonstrators and it was given an extension. HACM looks to be the focus of future efforts because it’s light enough to carried by tactical aircraft and likely an order of magnitude cheaper to produce; it doesn’t have the extreme thermal stress of gliders and it’s combustor has no moving parts and is 3D printed. USAF thinks it can achieve a scale of production with HACM that is unachievable with ARRW, which was always going to be a niche weapon carried only be B-52s in small numbers.

That said, I hope it still enters production as a bridge to HACM and because it still has range and speed advantages over a scramjet solution.
 
Last edited:

Oh, I see, basically the SM-6s Seeker and warhead repacked to go into the SM-3 Block-IB airframe/rocket-motor.

I think air launched SM-6 is an easy win for the USN and USAF and I can’t imagine why they aren’t doing it (assuming there is no black program). Even SM6 Ia would have a Mach 4-5 range burnout speed (sans mk72 with air launch) and you’d get a weapon with -300km range against surface and large air targets (tanker, AEW,etc). It would be the perfect cross domain weapon for F-18s and B-21s with air, sea, and land capability out of the box.
 
Service admits ARRW test failed, and hints pretty heavily they're about ready to walk away from in in favor of HACM.
 
ARRW is just a solid rocket with a BGV front end correct?

We had a M3 SRAM almost 60 years ago. Yes 60 years ago. Let’s not forget SRAM II/T ASALM & Skybolt.

I’m depressed.
 
Service admits ARRW test failed, and hints pretty heavily they're about ready to walk away from in in favor of HACM.
To be completely honest. at this point, I hope they just cancel ARRW then transfer all the funding to HACM then shorten the timeline for HACM. Of course having ARRW will be very useful, but let be real, with ARRW price tag, and the fact that it failed several times repeatedly. What likely happen is that they will eventually cancel it anyway. It just much better if they don't waste the funding and the time
 
. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal:

A US version of the AS-24 Killjoy? Well Boeing could dust of the plans for the long ago cancelled XAGM-48A Skybolt and update the design, the last 60 years have seen HUGE technological leaps in a large number of areas of science and engineering.

It would likely just be a PrSM that's air launched. Which isn't very useful. Kinzhal would be cutting edge in like 1975 I guess.
 
. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal:

A US version of the AS-24 Killjoy? Well Boeing could dust of the plans for the long ago cancelled XAGM-48A Skybolt and update the design, the last 60 years have seen HUGE technological leaps in a large number of areas of science and engineering.

It would likely just be a PrSM that's air launched. Which isn't very useful. Kinzhal would be cutting edge in like 1975 I guess.
How is it not useful?
Kinzhal range is 1000-2000 km, that mean you can strike extreme deep inside enemy territory without any risk whatsoever.
The speed is Mach 10-12, and since it fly in space, that pretty much the average speed (much faster than even ARRW). Most SAM can't even destroy Mach 10-12 targets.
Then Kinzhal can also drop 10 decoys, each of them decoy also carry a jammer, then because Kinzhal fly in space, those decoys can move at Mach 10 as well.
Tell me 1 system that is not ICBM/SLBM in the Western world has with similar capability to Kinzhal? , there is nothing, not even remotely close.
 
Service admits ARRW test failed, and hints pretty heavily they're about ready to walk away from in in favor of HACM.
Just another example of them quitting as soon as something gets a little difficult. Makes me want to puke.
 
Service admits ARRW test failed, and hints pretty heavily they're about ready to walk away from in in favor of HACM.
To be completely honest. at this point, I hope they just cancel ARRW then transfer all the funding to HACM then shorten the timeline for HACM. Of course having ARRW will be very useful, but let be real, with ARRW price tag, and the fact that it failed several times repeatedly. What likely happen is that they will eventually cancel it anyway. It just much better if they don't waste the funding and the time
Yeah, they almost said that about X-51. They would have denied themselves of the only mostly successful flight. HACM will run into difficulty and they'll quit on that too. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy. China, Russia, and others will succeed where our cowards fear to tread.
 
ARRW is toast, according to Air Force acquisition chief today (29 March 2023).

"After a rocky development and a recent failed test, the Air Force has decided it will not go on to buy the hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the service’s top acquisition official told lawmakers today. "

"The FY24 request will finish out all-up-round tests, two of which remain, “to garner the learning and test data that will help inform future hypersonic programs”

 
ARRW is toast, according to Air Force acquisition chief today (29 March 2023).

"After a rocky development and a recent failed test, the Air Force has decided it will not go on to buy the hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the service’s top acquisition official told lawmakers today. "

This is pathetic, they hit a few snags and decide the programme is too much trouble so they decide to drop it, Lloyd Austin needs to give the USAF chiefs a boot up the arse and tell them "No, you WILL continue this programme, if you don't I'll be asking for your resignations".
 
Last edited:
. At this point, I think USA better make something like kinzhal:

A US version of the AS-24 Killjoy? Well Boeing could dust of the plans for the long ago cancelled XAGM-48A Skybolt and update the design, the last 60 years have seen HUGE technological leaps in a large number of areas of science and engineering.

It would likely just be a PrSM that's air launched. Which isn't very useful. Kinzhal would be cutting edge in like 1975 I guess.
How is it not useful?

Because it requires an aircraft with external carriage.

This is not very useful when air generals think you need F-35A just to bomb a tank in WW3.

Kinzhal range is 1000-2000 km, that mean you can strike extreme deep inside enemy territory without any risk whatsoever.

Maybe at high altitudes. Why do you think Kinzhals and their carrier aircraft are flying so low in Ukraine to be filmed by cell phones, at targets less than 500 kilometers distant from the frontlines?

The speed is Mach 10-12, and since it fly in space, that pretty much the average speed (much faster than even ARRW). Most SAM can't even destroy Mach 10-12 targets.

Patriot would have pretty little to no difficulty destroying an air launched Iskander. Or a MiG-25. The same is true of S-400 and an air-launched PrSM or the F-15E needed to carry it.

By the time something like Kinzhal becomes usable in a A2AD zone, you can quite literally overfly a target with a Paveway and achieve pretty much the same effect, with something like an F-35A or a Su-75, which is why America isn't interested in the idea. It wants things it can fling at Patriots, S-400s, and HQ-9s without having to destroy them first, and maybe TEL bunkers before their road mobile launchers can disperse and nuke too many fighter bases. Which means hypersonic weapons.

The purpose is not to replicate the long range artillery with a fighter jet. The purpose is to hit something very quickly, at extremely long range, with high targeting ambiguity, which requires the ability to actively maneuver across a high cross range. Kinzhal would destroy itself trying to keep up with LRHW much less ARRW or HACM if it had to turn that hard. So would PrSM. Both of those weapons require highly accurate targeting data and have very little ambiguity in the target's location.

Then Kinzhal can also drop 10 decoys, each of them decoy also carry a jammer, then because Kinzhal fly in space, those decoys can move at Mach 10 as well.

Good thing America has a lot of time to tinker with the Q-65s and LTAMDS's software after studying the Iskander's actual radar decoys then? Kinzahl isn't getting newer, more sophisticated radar decoys before America can produce countermeasures for their radars, that's for sure.

Flying in space is less interesting than being able to fly in atmosphere and that is less interesting than maneuvering in atmosphere.

Tell me 1 system that is not ICBM/SLBM in the Western world has with similar capability to Kinzhal? , there is nothing, not even remotely close.

Tell me one reason why the "Western world" needs it when America has aircraft that can just survive in an "A2AD bubble" pretty casually.

The reason America doesn't need, and never will need, a weapon like Kinzhal is because it has the capacity to produce new aircraft. Russia does not. Russia relies on old aircraft that have been factory zeroed, or aircraft built to 1980's standards when they're new, and thus the standoff range becomes their main survivability method.

OTOH a B-21 can probably bomb an S-300 or HQ-9 from a few miles away with glide bombs and they wouldn't know they were under attack until they start exploding.

The most sophisticated air power regimes don't require trying to shoehorn in wacky standoff measures into their bombers. When they do they prefer very slow, stealthy cruise missiles that can't be seen, tracked, and targeted from orbit. Kinzhal, if it isn't being tracked on radar, can just be tracked by SBIRS-LO (or its replacement) and that targeting data fed back to a IBCS LTAMDS which will feed the information to a PAC-3, until the latter gets into range to acquire the target with its onboard mmW seeker, of which it is highly unlikely that the Russians have developed a jammer decoy for. Rest in peace, Russian air launched ballistic missile, you would have been great in 1992 if the USSR hadn't died.
 
Last edited:
ARRW is toast, according to Air Force acquisition chief today (29 March 2023).

"After a rocky development and a recent failed test, the Air Force has decided it will not go on to buy the hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the service’s top acquisition official told lawmakers today. "

This is pathetic, they hit a few snags and decide the programme is too much trouble so they decide to drop, Lloyd Austin needs to give the USAF chiefs a boot up the arse and tell them "No, you WILL continue this programme, if you don't I'll be asking for resignations".
Totally predictably. Useless sacks in charge. Spineless, the lot of them.
 
ARRW is toast, according to Air Force acquisition chief today (29 March 2023).

"After a rocky development and a recent failed test, the Air Force has decided it will not go on to buy the hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the service’s top acquisition official told lawmakers today. "

"The FY24 request will finish out all-up-round tests, two of which remain, “to garner the learning and test data that will help inform future hypersonic programs”

The question now is: can they transfer the remaining fund from ARRW program to HACM program to accelerate the timeline?. Or will they eventually cancel HACM as well to buy some LRASM
 

Because it requires an aircraft with external carriage.

This is not very useful when air generals think you need F-35A just to bomb a tank in WW3.
External carriage doesn't matter when you can attack target from 2000 km away

Maybe at high altitudes. Why do you think Kinzhals and their carrier aircraft are flying so low in Ukraine to be filmed by cell phones, at targets less than 500 kilometers distant from the frontlines?
Su-30, Su-34, and Su-25 was flying low because they need to drop bombs, Mig-31K wasn't, it doesn't even need to enter Ukraine airspace


Patriot would have pretty little to no difficulty destroying an air launched Iskander. Or a MiG-25. The same is true of S-400 and an air-launched PrSM or the F-15E needed to carry it.
By the time something like Kinzhal becomes usable in a A2AD zone, you can quite literally overfly a target with a Paveway and achieve pretty much the same effect, with something like an F-35A or a Su-75, which is why America isn't interested in the idea. It wants things it can fling at Patriots, S-400s, and HQ-9s without having to destroy them first, and maybe TEL bunkers before their road mobile launchers can disperse and nuke too many fighter bases. Which means hypersonic weapons.
The purpose is not to replicate the long range artillery with a fighter jet. The purpose is to hit something very quickly, at extremely long range, with high targeting ambiguity, which requires the ability to actively maneuver across a high cross range. Kinzhal would destroy itself trying to keep up with LRHW much less ARRW or HACM if it had to turn that hard. So would PrSM. Both of those weapons require highly accurate targeting data and have very little ambiguity in the target's location.
Patriot was struggling against the several decade old Scud, I highly doubt that it can intercept something that capable of moving at Mach 12. When was the last time PAC-2 or PAC-3 intercept anything moving at Mach 10-12? Never happened, even in test.
And Patriot will have exactly zero chance of destroying Mig-31K with Kinzhal, for the exact same reason that S-400 will have exactly zero chance of destroying F-15 with PrSM or B-52 with AGM-86. Why?. Because their range is like 10-12 times greater than Patriot engagement range. It like trying to kill a guy with sniper but you only have a sword
LRHW is ground launched and not in production yet, we don't even know if it will get cancelled
ARRW already cancelled yesterday, no need for Kinzhal to keep up with something that doesn't exist
HACM is promising but the first production version is in 2029

Good thing America has a lot of time to tinker with the Q-65s and LTAMDS's software after studying the Iskander's actual radar decoys then? Kinzahl isn't getting newer, more sophisticated radar decoys before America can produce countermeasures for their radars, that's for sure.
Flying in space is less interesting than being able to fly in atmosphere and that is less interesting than maneuvering in atmosphere.
Highly doubt that, Russian is not the only one with air launched ballistic missile either

Tell me one reason why the "Western world" needs it when America has aircraft that can just survive in an "A2AD bubble" pretty casually.
The reason America doesn't need, and never will need, a weapon like Kinzhal is because it has the capacity to produce new aircraft. Russia does not. Russia relies on old aircraft that have been factory zeroed, or aircraft built to 1980's standards when they're new, and thus the standoff range becomes their main survivability method.

OTOH a B-21 can probably bomb an S-300 or HQ-9 from a few miles away with glide bombs and they wouldn't know they were under attack until they start exploding.
I don't think Western world and American has aircraft that can casually survive A2AD bubble, even the most stealthy aircraft is not stealthy from all direction, and they for sure are not stealthy against OTH-B radars. If your B-21 (or whatever aircraft ) try to get within a few miles of S-300 or HQ-9, they will vector Flanker with IRST to intercept you

The most sophisticated air power regimes don't require trying to shoehorn in wacky standoff measures into their bombers. When they do they prefer very slow, stealthy cruise missiles that can't be seen, tracked, and targeted from orbit. Kinzhal, if it isn't being tracked on radar, can just be tracked by SBIRS-LO (or its replacement) and that targeting data fed back to a IBCS LTAMDS which will feed the information to a PAC-3, until the latter gets into range to acquire the target with its onboard mmW seeker, of which it is highly unlikely that the Russians have developed a jammer decoy for. Rest in peace, Russian air launched ballistic missile, you would have been great in 1992 if the USSR hadn't died.
preference imply that they can do both options, they have yet to demonstrate that capability
 

Broken ARRW: Air Force to ditch troubled hypersonic missile

The service “does not currently intend to pursue follow-on procurement of the ARRW once the prototyping program concludes,” Air Force acquisition chief Andrew Hunter said in a written statement to the House Armed Service’s tactical air and land forces subcommitte
 
Totally predictably. Useless sacks in charge. Spineless, the lot of them.

Then Lloyd Austin needs to dismiss them.
Wouldn't change anything. The system is broken. Whoever got fired would just be replaced with equally useless people who now have to worry about getting fired for failure. It's ridiculous. The world is laughing at our incompetence and cowardice.
 
ARRW is toast, according to Air Force acquisition chief today (29 March 2023).

"After a rocky development and a recent failed test, the Air Force has decided it will not go on to buy the hypersonic Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), the service’s top acquisition official told lawmakers today. "

"The FY24 request will finish out all-up-round tests, two of which remain, “to garner the learning and test data that will help inform future hypersonic programs”

The question now is: can they transfer the remaining fund from ARRW program to HACM program to accelerate the timeline?. Or will they eventually cancel HACM as well to buy some LRASM

HACM is hardly under funded. I think ARRW's demise is explicitly tied to the HAWC's success - I think the USAF is betting the farm on fixed inlet/combustor scramjets and that is why boost glide options are out of favor. It seems likely HAWC and HACM like systems can be built for an order of magnitude less cost and in much greater numbers while being carried by a larger number of aircraft in greater numbers. ARRW was always going to be a very expensive system that cost more than most of its target set, produced in limited numbers with one launch platform and a small number of missile per plane.

Although I disagree with ending the program before building a small experimental capability with it, I can't really blame the USAF for dropping it - small numbers of $30 million hypersonics deployed by bombers that will already have their hands full delivering massed cruise missile attacks aren't really war winners, where as being able to throw a couple hypersonics on almost any tactical fighter for the cost of say a LRASM or SM-6 would be a sea change in offensive firepower. The problem is of course, what if there is a war before HACM hits IOC.
 
The U.S. Navy has awarded separate contracts to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to design and build competing prototypes to meet its requirement for an air-launched, air-breathing hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile.


I'd love to know what direction the contractors are going with in this case. IMO the main limitation of HALO vs HACM is that it is length limited to ~15', the length of a USN CVN weapons elevator. It seems very likely that a HAWC stack was longer. The X-51 stack was ~15' of cruiser, 4' of flow through interstage, and 4-5' of booster (whatever ATACMs booster length is). So were a cruiser mounted directly to a booster with minimal interstage, it seem likely a 20-21' stack could be produced (roughly AGM-86 in size). Total weight of X-51 was 4000lbs empty, plus 270lbs fuel. An optimized booster, no interstage, and 1/2 weight combustor (per Raytheon) could probably shrink that whole stack down to the ~3500lb range, possibly less. But the limiting factor for the USN would still be length, and the geometry of the waverider type cruiser combustion changers would I think preclude an integral booster in the thrust chamber. So HALO might have to use a completely different design principle than HACM, or else it might have to be dramatically scaled down.
 
Whoever got fired would just be replaced with equally useless people who now have to worry about getting fired for failure. It's ridiculous.

Not for failure for giving up at the sign of a serious problem instead of trying to solve it, make it clear to the replacement what is expected of them which is to persevere NOT quit at the sign of the first problem.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom