SiAW (Stand-in Attack Weapon)

Previously I had heard it reported that the guidance of SiAW would also change from the ARM - is there any indication of what this might be or has that been shelved? For USAF's purposes, it seems like a fast moving weapon with INS/GPS guidance would probably be enough without any other terminal homing. Minimally the passive RF guidance could be omitted. Alternatively some other form of terminal seeker could be fitted instead of the mm wave radar. But 've heard nothing other than fuse and warhead changes, presumably to increase lethality to slightly more resilient targets that radar antenna.
 
Josh_TN said:
Previously I had heard it reported that the guidance of SiAW would also change from the ARM - is there any indication of what this might be or has that been shelved? For USAF's purposes, it seems like a fast moving weapon with INS/GPS guidance would probably be enough without any other terminal homing. Minimally the passive RF guidance could be omitted. Alternatively some other form of terminal seeker could be fitted instead of the mm wave radar. But 've heard nothing other than fuse and warhead changes, presumably to increase lethality to slightly more resilient targets that radar antenna.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that they're talking about the interim capability here, which is a minimum-change AARGM-ER. And AARGM-ER does have an INS/GPS fallback and MMW terminal seeker. Given that the SiAW target set includes a lot of targets where ARM would be a suitable seeker (GPS jammers and IADS, especially) it is probably simpler to keep the ARM seeker in that interim buy.

Long-term, SiAW is still a competitive program, so no telling what the guidance in the final version will be. But buying AARGM-ER as an interim capability does seem to give NG the inside track for the ultimate SiAW award.
 
TomS said:
Keep in mind that they're talking about the interim capability here, which is a minimum-change AARGM-ER. And AARGM-ER does have an INS/GPS fallback and MMW terminal seeker. Given that the SiAW target set includes a lot of targets where ARM would be a suitable seeker (GPS jammers and IADS, especially) it is probably simpler to keep the ARM seeker in that interim buy.

Long-term, SiAW is still a competitive program, so no telling what the guidance in the final version will be. But buying AARGM-ER as an interim capability does seem to give NG the inside track for the ultimate SiAW award.
Click to expand...

I had thought I'd read early in the program that the AAGM-ER rocket was being adopted with guidance and warhead changes, but maybe they dropped the guidance part. The program is a bit confusing since they lump the interim capability with a longer term, bidded project. It's a little surprising they didn't just buy directly from the active line for the interim - as you note, all of the guidance modes they would want are there, with perhaps more redundancy than they need.

Any idea who is bidding on the final version besides NG? I thought I saw some LockMart art that depicted something PrSM like, which would be a natural fit to the mission guidance and propulsion wise and should just fit the F-35 (maybe with some sizing mods).
 
Josh_TN said:
Any idea who is bidding on the final version besides NG? I thought I saw some LockMart art that depicted something PrSM like, which would be a natural fit to the mission guidance and propulsion wise and should just fit the F-35 (maybe with some sizing mods).
Click to expand...

SiAW Phase 1 has NG, LM and L3Harris, with one of those to be knocked out in Phase 2.

breakingdefense.com

Air Force program for new F-35 missile will knock out at least one prime in FY24 - Breaking Defense

Air Force’s Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW) program has funded prototyping work with three short-term contracts first issued last year to Lockheed Martin, L3Harris and Northrop Grumman.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

The Lockheed announcement had this art and a video at the link above. L3Harris has shown nothing I'm aware of about their design.

1687972180336.png
 
TomS said:
Whoops, the video was in another article. Here it is:

View: https://youtu.be/bqGzt64U-i4
Click to expand...

Very PrSM-ism. I believe the PrSM (does it have a number designation yet?) is 18”, which is the same as a Mk82/84. It seems like an ideal drop in for USAF racks/bays. Plus the speed/range would be astounding if the airframe could take it…
 
Also very much like the Israeli Rampage in operating mode, but Rampage is smaller (only 12 inches diameter)
 
I think this is the right thread for the below post.

Defense Updates has put out a new video concerning the SiAW:


The #USAirForce awarded Northrop Grumman a $705 million contract to develop and test a high-speed air-to-ground weapon known as a stand-in attack weapon (SiAW)
Click to expand...
Northrop said that its work on the second phase of the weapon, will take place over the next 36 months in Northridge, California, and the company’s missile integration facility at Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in West Virginia.The company said the work will include further development of the weapon, platform integration, and completing a flight test program so the #SiAW can be rapidly prototyped and quickly sent to the field,
Click to expand...
The first part of this second phase will wrap up with a guided vehicle flight test and the second part will conclude with three more flight tests as well as the delivery of prototype missiles and test assets.In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how #SiAW could enable the US Air Force to knock out Russian and Chinese air defenses ?
Click to expand...

Or should this be posted in the AARGM-ER thread?
 
Is there any public specifications? About all I can tell is that it is roughly a AGM-88g equivalent, since that is fill in purchase until this program is complete. I would guess that lower costs and increasing production are primary goals, but that is just my WAG.
 
I always have this thought .... I know that "stand-off" means from a far distance away ...

But what does "stand-in" here means in SiAW context?
 
zjz said:
I always have this thought .... I know that "stand-off" means from a far distance away ...

But what does "stand-in" here means in SiAW context?
Click to expand...

The USAF has apparently subdivided its weapons into three range categories: direct attack - more or less no stand off, but perhaps some range from high altitude, stand in - roughly in the 50-150 mile / 100-200 km range, which puts you inside long range SAMs envelope but not in their ideal engagement parameters, and stand off: ~200 mi /300km and pretty firmly out of any possible SAM range.

SDB and SiAW seem to occupy the Stand In range band, with one being a glide weapon that can defeat defenses by being used in mass and the other being a high speed weapon difficult to intercept that can evade defenses via speed and engage high priority/relocatable targets faster. I suspect technically SiAW would be able to reach out to near stand off ranges at subsonic speeds against static targets after a long coast, but I think the intended flight profile is sustainable high speed inside the 50-100 mi range band to evade defenses and hit mobile targets before they can escape weapon envelope.
 
I more on the opinion that STAND-IN refers to being fired from inside enemy IADS, hence from a Stealth aircraft. That encompass constraint in volume, but also launch parameters for the stealth asset to survive the launch.
Surviving the launch means that the missile are released from afar... inside enemy territory. Hence range but also RCS or EMCOM are paramount.
 
Another way of looking at it. I’ve never seen the term explicitly defined so you might be right.
 
SiAW is an Air Force air-to-ground weapon that will provide stand-in platforms the capability to hold at risk surface elements of the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
The USAF has apparently subdivided its weapons into three range categories: direct attack - more or less no stand off, but perhaps some range from high altitude, stand in - roughly in the 50-150 mile / 100-200 km range, which puts you inside long range SAMs envelope but not in their ideal engagement parameters, and stand off: ~200 mi /300km and pretty firmly out of any possible SAM range.

SDB and SiAW seem to occupy the Stand In range band, with one being a glide weapon that can defeat defenses by being used in mass and the other being a high speed weapon difficult to intercept that can evade defenses via speed and engage high priority/relocatable targets faster. I suspect technically SiAW would be able to reach out to near stand off ranges at subsonic speeds against static targets after a long coast, but I think the intended flight profile is sustainable high speed inside the 50-100 mi range band to evade defenses and hit mobile targets before they can escape weapon envelope.
Click to expand...
It's quite possibly about SAM tiers, not sure I agree on those distances though. But ultimatel once higher tier SAMs have been DEAD'd, then you still have threats from more mobile smaller systems but this would keep you out of their range. Equally, it could be about stealth fighters firing from ranges where longer range SAMs can't possibly target them due to their RCS, even though they're inside the theoretical firing range.
 
Forest Green said:
It's quite possibly about SAM tiers, not sure I agree on those distances though. But ultimatel once higher tier SAMs have been DEAD'd, then you still have threats from more mobile smaller systems but this would keep you out of their range. Equally, it could be about stealth fighters firing from ranges where longer range SAMs can't possibly target them due to their RCS, even though they're inside the theoretical firing range.
Click to expand...

I think TomcatViP has the correct definition; the stand-off/stand-in describes the platform carrying the weapon (stealthy or not stealthy) and not the weapon. I had see an article that broke USAF weapons up into direct attack, stand-in, and stand-off based on range, but that was probably the authors opinion and not how USAF uses the terms.
 
To summarise :

Stand-off : if your aircraft is non-stealthy, you need to launch from outside SAM envelope .....

Stand-in : if your aircraft is stealthy, you can afford to get nearer, and within SAM envelope to execute the kill .....
 
This is from last year however Sandboxx had posted this video about the SiAW:


In September, Northrop Grumman announced that it had secured a contract from the Air Force to move forward with a new high-speed air-to-ground missile meant to be carried internally by America’s growing fleets of stealth fighters and bombers.
Click to expand...
This new missile, dubbed the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW), is meant to lead the way in high-end conflicts with modern adversaries like China, rapidly engaging a variety of ground targets deep inside hotly contested airspace from extended ranges.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom