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

New Darpa Program - T3 Triple Target Terminator ?

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,801
Reaction score
250
DrRansom said:
What is the source for those images?
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-3603
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
561
Reaction score
16
DSI intake on a very supersonic ramjet? How do you get good performance from that?
 

zaphd

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Some money ($1m) in the fy18 Air Force next generation air dominance budget item for A2A weapon development. Based on the low amounts allocated, it will probably be many years before they get past studying concepts.
Title: AS2030 Weapons
Description: The 2030+ Air Dominance Weapon Systems candidate concepts will develop, refine and integrate technologies
into evolving threat scenarios and environments. Funding supports studies that refine system concepts and operational/system
architectures to include family of systems and system of systems are required in support of the strategic choices and technical risk
reduction activities that include but not limited to experimentation, integration and building demonstrative prototypes.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
A million isn't even enough for the challenge coins. ::)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
I read this as an extension of the study that basically fed into the Penetrating Counter Air program but it is quite likely that there is advanced missile work happening elsewhere and this one is simply a study looking into which technologies to formally pursue further towards a 2030 weapon.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
bring_it_on said:
I read this as an extension of the study that basically fed into the Penetrating Counter Air program but it is quite likely that there is advanced missile work happening elsewhere and this one is simply a study looking into which technologies to formally pursue further towards a 2030 weapon.
I'd like to believe that but given the way we're asleep at the wheel in virtually every other area I don't have high hopes.
 

zaphd

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
bring_it_on said:
I read this as an extension of the study that basically fed into the Penetrating Counter Air program but it is quite likely that there is advanced missile work happening elsewhere and this one is simply a study looking into which technologies to formally pursue further towards a 2030 weapon.
I agree. I worded that poorly, didn't mean to imply that was all the next gen a2a missile money.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Apologies for quoting an old filing but I did not see this exact report posted here:

We maintain key positions on ground-breaking government hypersonic propulsion demonstration programs such as the Triple Target Terminator ("T3") program, which successfully demonstrated our variable flow ducted rocket propulsion system in flight through three different missions at the beginning of fiscal 2014.

Interestingly, they do not state whether they supplied propulsion to Raytheon's T3 design.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40888/000004088815000004/gencorp201410-k.htm
 

Attachments

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
bring_it_on said:
Interestingly, they do not state whether they supplied propulsion to Raytheon's T3 design.
In their 2012 SEC filing, they list both Boeing and Raytheon as their T3 primary customers. It appears that Raytheon's design for the T3 did not advance through flight testing and hence its omission as a primary customer in subsequent filings.

Also, Solicitation on the flight test and integration work :-

The Air Armament Center, Advanced Programs Division, Advanced Projects Branch, Eglin AFB, FL 32542, intends to award a sole source contract to Boeing Inc. for aircraft/interface data in support of the Triple Target Terminator (T3) demonstration. This effort will provide potential T3 contractors: Boeing Defense, Space and Security Weapons; and Raytheon Missile Systems with aircraft integration expertise and data which will facilitate design, development, test, qualification, and safety certification for a flight test demonstration on the F-15C or F-15E aircraft. Information gathered by T3 contractors will be used to develop and evaluate missile configurations that could provide required system performance and satisfy compatibility with the F-15 C F-15E weapons stations.

This effort will be conducted in three phases. For Phase I, Boeing, Inc. will conduct a feasibility study which examines options, analyzes iterative airframe configurations, performs high level impact assessments and defines and/or estimates tasks for Phase II. Under Phase II, Boeing, Inc. will perform detailed Air System impact assessments, identify risks, recommend mitigations, and develop initial planning and estimates for Phase III. Phase III will require Boeing, Inc to implement full-scale integration and certification of the T3 for launch from the F-15C or F-15E aircraft. https://govtribe.com/project/t3-aircraft-integration-data
 

Attachments

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
The Triple Target Terminator (T3) program incorporates an air-breathing ram-jet engine into a rocket boosted missile. This hybrid mode propulsion system multiplies the effective range and lethality of this conventional missile against three types of targets. Though the technology involved isn’t as high risk as that of HTV-2, the DARPA-hard problem lies in making it fit into an existing missile form factor. To ensure that this technology was relevant to the warfighter and would see the field before it was obsolete, a key design trait was chosen to make it fit on all existing fighter aircraft with no modifications. This practical design trait ensures proliferation, decreases time-to-field, and enables a seamless transition to procurement. Such practical design traits are as essential to system effectiveness as the technological traits.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a571843.pdf
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
AN INVESTIGATION OF STARTING TECHNIQUES FOR INWARD TURNING INLETS AT FLIGHT SPEEDS BELOW THE ON-DESIGN MACH NUMBER


The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), in conjunction with the Raytheon, Aerojet and Pyrodyne corporations, has attempted to fulfill an RFP from the Variable Flow Ducted Rocket Flight Vehicle Concepts (VFDR FVC) program. In response to the given guidelines, the group constructed the Mustang II inlet presented in Figure 1; a streamline traced, inward-turning, mixed compression inlet.

Initial CFD analysis of the inlet, by AFRL, at cruise conditions revealed that the inlet held promise in meeting the given RFP. Also, it performed better than the previously designed external compression inlet (9). The CFD analysis, however, was performed on a pre-started inlet operating at cruise conditions. Initial experimental testing, on the other hand, showed that the inlet failed to start under any Mach number and back pressure combination. This initial failure, a common problem for every inlet that relies upon internal compression (or mixed compression inlets that have the majority of the compression done internally), was handled with the current method known to date; bleed holes were drilled at the throat and slightly upstream of the throat and can be seen in Figure 2. The bleed holes were angled toward the free stream and were drilled around the inlet perimeter at both locations.

Unfortunately, this method failed to rectify the starting problem for the Mustang II inlet (9).
AFRL is now in search of starting techniques to assist the Mustang II inlet project. Overall, a generic, simple, and effective starting technique is needed to provide a baseline start-able inlet for any streamline traced, inward-turning inlet (9).

Variable Flow Ducted Rocket Missiles

In the late 1990s, the European Union began looking for a new medium range air- to-air missile to outfit their new Euro-fighter. While many thought they would simply use the American made AMRAAM missile, the European Union decided, in 1995, to fund the BVRAAM project instead (5). The new project called for longer ranges, linear velocity profiles and better guidance systems (5). Traditional missiles, using existing solid rocket technology, could not accomplish the requirements of the European Union’s proposal; therefore, in order to accomplish the design goals, the competing companies turned to VFDR Missiles. In 2000, the European Union awarded their BVRAAM contract to a European contractor and the Meteor Missile, Figure 3, has hence been in development (5)......


The magnitude and complexity of these issues is only increased as the Air Force, Aerojet, and Raytheon (one of the BVRAAM competitors) are now trying to change their design to fit the needs of the United States military; namely the new F/A-22 Raptor (9). Reasons for the increased complexity are found in the unique design characteristic of the F/A-22; a low observable (LO), high speed super cruise fighter aircraft with internal weapon carryout. As can be seen in Figure 3, the external inlet design of the meteor missile is a large bulky rectangular design that affects the placement of the aft control fins. Similarly, the baseline VFDR missile follows the same design mentality (9).


These large rectangular inlets, plus the displacement of the control fins cause the overall wingspan of the missile to increase from 12.5 inches (19) to more than 20 inches (9). This increase then limits the missiles usefulness as the internal weapons bay of the F/A-22 can not accommodate these weapons in their current configuration. The F/A-22 can accommodate six standard compact AMRAAM missiles, but would only be able to carry, at most, four VFDR missiles (9). The guidelines given by the VFDR FVC specifically call for an inlet design that would not increase the frontal area of the VFDR missile and hence make it an acceptable replacement for the current compact AMRAAM Missile.....
https://www.scribd.com/document/349586983/Ada-438398
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
FY-18 budget seeks Next-Generation Strike Weapon for planned sixth-gen fighter

The Air Force has unveiled the outlines of a plan to develop a next-generation armament for its Penetrating Counterair capability -- a strike package for a yet-to-be-determined sixth-generation fighter -- with a budget line in fiscal year 2018 to competitively assess novel prototype weapons as part of a new project to ensure U.S. air dominance in the 2030s.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
This is for the strike weapon. The Air to Air program study that they are funding is referenced on the previous page.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
bring_it_on said:
This is for the strike weapon. The Air to Air program study that they are funding is referenced on the previous page.
to competitively assess novel prototype weapons as part of a new project to ensure U.S. air dominance in the 2030s.


Saw this line and figured it also referred to A2A weapons.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Just a confusing characterization. They have covered the air to air missile program but this article is about a new strike weapon. From the article -

The budget request appears to be seed money designed to support early work on the project; the effort does not forecast a funding tail in the Air Force's outyear spending plan.

In January, the Air Force solicited industry for ideas on a Next-Generation Strike Weapon conveying details of what it is seeking in a classified request for proposals.

"The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Systems Development Division is conducting market research for a Next-Generation Strike Weapon analysis of alternatives," the FY-18 budget request states. The service "seeks to better characterize the technological, manufacturing, and business capabilities of the industrial base to develop and produce a materiel solution to address this operational objective."
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
27
So is this program quietly terminated now that they pursuit AIM-260 and LREW?
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
87
Is it me or does it seem like the US AAM effort is all over the place?
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
27
Is it me or does it seem like the US AAM effort is all over the place?
not just you, I think they have revolutionary ideas but always cancel or terminate their research after awhile the come back to do the same thing when they fall behind
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
So is this program quietly terminated now that they pursuit AIM-260 and LREW?
It was a DARPA run S&T/R&D program that as this thread (and elsewhere on the forum) shows performed what was expected of it (design, development and flight testing of multi-mission missiles) and transitioned the results and any offshoots to the service. As we now know, the USAF awarded a Long Range AAM contract to Lockheed Martin (after competing the proposal) just a couple of years after this program's flight demonstration phase concluded. If the confusion is that the T-3 was quitely terminated because nothing came out if then that is not the problem of the program but one of your understanding of what these programs are set up to achieve. The T3 was not a weapons development program which would result in the fielding of a particular weapon system for either of the services.

As posts from the previous page indicate, they wrapped up testing and concluded the program -

Conducted boost tests of flight test articles.
- Conducted airborne launch demonstrations of test articles against three target types.
- Completed and delivered final test report.
So in the 2010-2017 time-frame, DARPA and the USAF performed a bunch of analysis, conducted a bunch of R&D and ran a demonstration program that looked at a menu of possible technologies that could be useful for a next generation air-dominance weapon. During the same time-frame, the USAF and USN also declared IOC on its latest AMRAAM derivitive (D). Soon thereafter they awarded Lockheed Martin the JATM contract which ensures that within a course of about 7-8 years (2015-2022) the USAF would induct not one but two highly capable Air to Air missiles.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
DARPA programs aren't intended as direct weapons projects. I think the reason that people get that impression is because recently the rapid capabilities office has been plundering DARPA projects and trying to introduce them as programs of record in almost an 'off the shelf' manner - LRASM is the best example; it basically is unchanged from its DARPA incarnation. ARRW is apparently more or less Tactical Boost Glide launched from an aircraft. But this is not the normal progression of DARPA projects; they are generally technology demonstrators.
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
Regarding the use of AAMs as ground attack weapons - wouldn't GPS guidance alone pretty much allow for this? An AIM-120D doesn't have an air to ground mode, but it has a two way datalink and GPS guidance - shouldn't that be enough to get it to within 10 meters of a target? A warhead that size is only going to be useful against a soft target, but air defense installations, at least mobile ones, would be soft targets and that seemed to be the target set of the T3 program. Outside of perhaps altering the fusing so you had an airburst option rather than shoving most of your fragments into the ground, is there reason you couldn't easily modify an AAM with GPS to hit a soft target? A terminal seeker would be preferable, but if you have several aircraft able to perform differential time of arrival on a radiation source and share that info among themselves over a LPI datalink (I'm thinking F-35 here), wouldn't geolocation with GPS be enough to get it done?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
The US Air Force and Navy are dedicating resources to acquiring two separate weapons for that capability in the AARGM/SIAW and JATM. Could a future iteration of either become a multi-mission /multi-dommain weapon? Sure..But for now they are pursuing two different acquisition programs. Perhaps this was based on data provided by the T-3? Tough to tell.
 
Top