Tacit Rainbow: Northrop AGM/BGM-136 Anti-Radar Drone

[Scott Kenny]

Was cancelling Tacit Raibow a mistake? As it seems like it had a lot of promise.

Purely on promise, I'd say yes it was a mistake.

I'm not sure about the problems it had.

 

[BillRo]

I don't know if Paul will approve of these images going here, but they are too much fun to toss. My wife was going through a box of old pix and pulled these out; she was Admin Assistant to Fred Corey, Northrop Ventura's VP and Program Manager for Tacit Rainbow. He was obviously sent these by the SPO after the program was cancelled and are dated June of '91. They depict the funeral of TR held outside the SPO office in Dayton. I am sure these days this would be frowned upon but I believe the statute of limitations has run out! I do not know the names of any of these Air Force folks.

The epitaph reads:
1981-1991
In Remembrance of
The Tacit Rainbow Missile

Here it lies all broken and shattered
Tried to fly but just got battered

Hit it's target but too late
SAF/AQ had already decided its fate

Laid to rest without a user
Scorned and shamed like some kind of loser

So now we say goodbye with heavy heart
A lump in our throat and the urge to depart.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That's a unique bit of program history, absolutely fine here.

I had to look up St Jude (written on the missile) - the patron saint of lost causes, apparently.

 

[publiusr]

I identify with that and Dunsany’s hearth god Jabim…the god of lost and broken things…

 

[Hicks]

Just in case, the somewhat stealth looking thing in "TR Funeral2.jpg" is a "Shadow Bat" from Coleco'Starcom toy line (distributed by Mattel in Europe).



https://www.parrygamepreserve.com/toys/starcom/shadowbat.php

 

[seruriermarshal]

I don't know if Paul will approve of these images going here, but they are too much fun to toss. My wife was going through a box of old pix and pulled these out; she was Admin Assistant to Fred Corey, Northrop Ventura's VP and Program Manager for Tacit Rainbow. He was obviously sent these by the SPO after the program was cancelled and are dated June of '91. They depict the funeral of TR held outside the SPO office in Dayton. I am sure these days this would be frowned upon but I believe the statute of limitations has run out! I do not know the names of any of these Air Force folks.

The epitaph reads:
1981-1991
In Remembrance of
The Tacit Rainbow Missile

Here it lies all broken and shattered
Tried to fly but just got battered

Hit it's target but too late
SAF/AQ had already decided its fate

Laid to rest without a user
Scorned and shamed like some kind of loser

So now we say goodbye with heavy heart
A lump in our throat and the urge to depart.

Any information about SAF/AQ ?

 

[TomS]

Any information about SAF/AQ ?

It just stands for the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics).

 

[LEG]

Ground-launched TSSAM was in the first round of development flight tests. The final test of this round was due to go the day after the US Army cancelled it's participation in the program. This test would've tested a number of fixes from problems we'd found in the previous tests. Believe me, the test footage of the launch was always quite impressive; the footage of the last actual test flight was rather less so due to problems that were found and subsequently corrected. The test previous to that one was nearly picture perfect. I know, I was on that program with special responsibilities for the Army variant. If the Army hadn't pulled out, there was also an extended-range variant under preliminary design that traded a modest drop in payload for significantly more range.

Now, yes, I know the differences between the air-launched and ground-launched versions, but I'm not at all sure if I'm yet allowed to get too detailed here.

Oh, there was also a very preliminary study on combining aspects of the ground-launched and air-launched vehicles to produce a ship-launched one.

My understanding is that TSSAM was the aerodynamic bus vehicle for War Breaker and the flattened box design of the available drawings was to accommodate both very large fuel tanks and the payload bays for the TGSM like mini-missile Kill Effectors which the missile's complex, costly and autonomous (AI like or maybe early Satcomms?) MMW/LiDAR system assigned targets to over the course of a 15-18hr missile endurance.

When Saber/Spider went away with START/INF, the missile became redundant.

I've also heard that LLAD/LOCPOD was testing the _upwards_ ejection system for TSSAM, as early as 1980-83. If so, doesn't this strongly imply a VLO theater delivery system using Have Slick conformal carriage because TSSAM is a really awkward shape for CSRL or Clipping and HSAB would be limited to 4 Stations.

True/False?

TSSAM
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/213/213133-c779be6c533fdfa71b8402ea4a7078c1.jpg
War Breaker
https://www.researchgate.net/profil.../DARPA-Smart-Weapons-Program-Concept_Q320.jpg

 

[zjz]

Missile Forecast, archived report ......

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1063

 

[Ninja]

Tacit Rainbow patch.

 

[iwantmoresources]

My understanding is that TSSAM was the aerodynamic bus vehicle for War Breaker and the flattened box design of the available drawings was to accommodate both very large fuel tanks and the payload bays for the TGSM like mini-missile Kill Effectors which the missile's complex, costly and autonomous (AI like or maybe early Satcomms?) MMW/LiDAR system assigned targets to over the course of a 15-18hr missile endurance.

When Saber/Spider went away with START/INF, the missile became redundant.

I've also heard that LLAD/LOCPOD was testing the _upwards_ ejection system for TSSAM, as early as 1980-83. If so, doesn't this strongly imply a VLO theater delivery system using Have Slick conformal carriage because TSSAM is a really awkward shape for CSRL or Clipping and HSAB would be limited to 4 Stations.

True/False?

TSSAM
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/213/213133-c779be6c533fdfa71b8402ea4a7078c1.jpg
War Breaker
https://www.researchgate.net/profil.../DARPA-Smart-Weapons-Program-Concept_Q320.jpg

It was part of Assault Breaker since the 80s and was, as far is i know, supposed to deploy the Brilliant Anti Tank. It used inertial navigation with GPS updates. It used an IIR seeker with pattern recognition algorithms, no MMW/LiDAR.

As for the implied theater VLO delivery system, it seems unlikely that a new airplane would have been developed. If anything, the Air Force would have just haphazardly bolted a TSSAM to the belly of an F-117. As for its shape, Northrop had Tacit Blue, which, when flipped upside down, looks remarkably like a TSSAM. Of course, Northrop had the even stealthier B-2 going at the time, but trying to make a cruise missile as a flying wing presents two problems.

One is control. The B-2 was only made possible because of the advances in fly-by-wire technology. Unless you are ready to waste potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of a missiles price on its autopilot, a flying wing does not offer much of an advantage over other stealthy shapes.

The second is packaging. One thing that is immediately noticeable when looking at any air-launched guided munition is that they are longer than they are wide because it is easier to fit them in parallel, especially when carried internally. The wider your munition is, the less of them you can carry because of space limitations.

What i am trying to say here is that the TSSAM was the shape it was because it was the most practical shape Northrop had at the time, not because of a conformal carriage VLO delivery platform.

 

[Big_Zukini]

So is Tacit Rainbow being dusted off and updated for the 21st century?

There is a 21st century equivalent I'm aware of: IAI Harpy/Harop.

https://www.iai.co.il/sites/default/files/2023-06/HARPY Brochure.pdf


As far as I'm aware, it's still in service with the IDF. In contrast with the more popular IAI Harop, the Harpy is first and foremost an ARM.

Tactically, I think it's relegated to increasingly niche missions.
On one hand, drones are much easier to shoot down today than 20-30 years ago, and also far easier to detect. On the other hand, they're still about as slow, unless you turn them into a proper missile and then that kinda loses the point.
Deploying them at anything that isn't across the border, will give an enemy lots of prep time. Specifically in the Israel-Iran exchanges, the IAF shifted to using ALBMs for both strike and DEAD.

For someone like the US, I'm guessing they'll require something that has very high terminal speed, and a more novel way of allowing the missile to loiter without burning all its fuel.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was part of Assault Breaker since the 80s and was, as far is i know, supposed to deploy the Brilliant Anti Tank. It used inertial navigation with GPS updates. It used an IIR seeker with pattern recognition algorithms, no MMW/LiDAR.

As for the implied theater VLO delivery system, it seems unlikely that a new airplane would have been developed. If anything, the Air Force would have just haphazardly bolted a TSSAM to the belly of an F-117. As for its shape, Northrop had Tacit Blue, which, when flipped upside down, looks remarkably like a TSSAM. Of course, Northrop had the even stealthier B-2 going at the time, but trying to make a cruise missile as a flying wing presents two problems.

One is control. The B-2 was only made possible because of the advances in fly-by-wire technology. Unless you are ready to waste potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of a missiles price on its autopilot, a flying wing does not offer much of an advantage over other stealthy shapes.

The second is packaging. One thing that is immediately noticeable when looking at any air-launched guided munition is that they are longer than they are wide because it is easier to fit them in parallel, especially when carried internally. The wider your munition is, the less of them you can carry because of space limitations.

What i am trying to say here is that the TSSAM was the shape it was because it was the most practical shape Northrop had at the time, not because of a conformal carriage VLO delivery platform.

As an addendum, TACIT BLUE would have been what was providing targeting to whatever was carrying TSSAMs etc.

 

[quellish]

As an addendum, TACIT BLUE would have been what was providing targeting to whatever was carrying TSSAMs etc.

TACIT BLUE was a demonstrator and was never intended to be operational. Northrop and Hughes proposed an operational derivative but DoD was not interested.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TACIT BLUE was a demonstrator and was never intended to be operational. Northrop and Hughes proposed an operational derivative but DoD was not interested.

Okay, granted.

But if I call something TACIT BLUE everyone hears "stealthy radar ISR plane" and it makes a really convenient shorthand.

 

[quellish]

Okay, granted.

But if I call something TACIT BLUE everyone hears "stealthy radar ISR plane" and it makes a really convenient shorthand.

No, it only adds to the confusion of people who do not know better.

 

[yeetmahboi]

But if I call something TACIT BLUE everyone hears "stealthy radar ISR plane" and it makes a really convenient shorthand.

Not many people knows of the connection between TACIT BLUE and BSAX, lemme tell you, even on some of the places where special access projects are routinely discussed.

 

[quellish]

My understanding is that TSSAM was the aerodynamic bus vehicle for War Breaker

AGM-129 was the vehicle for WAR BREAKER and THIRSTY SABER.

 

[NMaude]

AGM-129 was the vehicle for WAR BREAKER and THIRSTY SABER.

What WAR BREAKER and THIRSTY SABER as this is the first time I've heard of them?

 

[quellish]

What WAR BREAKER and THIRSTY SABER as this is the first time I've heard of them?

If someone were to compose a Google query for, say, “thirsty saber” among the search results they might see documents like “DARPA's Role in Fostering an Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs” which are full of fascinating information.

…. Or someone could ask a stranger to do that for them and summarize it, missing out on all that fascinating information.

 

[Ninja]

Or someone could ask a stranger to do that for them and summarize it, missing out on all that fascinating information.

And most of all, not credit the forum!

 

[BillRo]

Cleaned out another box; here is a complete pristine set of Tacit Rainbow AGM-136A marketing promotions, a sticker, patch and pin.

 

[quellish]

Cleaned out another box; here is a complete pristine set of Tacit Rainbow AGM-136A marketing promotions, a sticker, patch and pin.

Very cool!

 

[usbusi]

Elmayerle confused this topic a little by introducing information on the TASSM stealthy cruise missile program run out of Northrop Aircraft Division in Hawthorne. The Tacit Rainbow, later the AGM-136A, was an anti-radar loitering drone and was done by Northrop Ventura Division at Newbury Park. It was a joint Navy/Air Force effort and flight test was accomplished at China Lake with Navy assets. The Air Force provided their aircraft when needed (F-16, B-52) and some captive flights launched out of Edwards. The Air Force were responsible for the container.

I got to the program as production design was starting, so had nothing to do with the configuration. As to the question about Army involvement, I saw a video of a test article being ejected out of a launcher (MRLS?) but it was not too successful as the item sort of trickeled out of the end. By '85 there was no sign of Army involvement.

Attached are some of the information I collected when the project was revealed to the public. Since a significant number of missiles were flown before it was cancelled. perhaps this topic should be moved to Military.

I worked in IT at the Newbury Park Ventura Division of Northrop Aircraft, which was before they merged with Grumman, 1988 - 1989 for about one year. I was laid off along with quite a few people at the Ventura Division March 1989 give or take a few months. My security clearance arrived in the mail one week after I was laid off, lol. From what I was told, the tacit rainbow contract was awarded to a different company, and at the same time the DOD scaled way back on the number of stealth bombers ordered, from 52 to 12 or thereabouts. The cold war had ended. So even though at 2 billion dollars each, you would think 24 billion would be enough to keep everyone at the company employed, the income forecast was of course severely reduced. The way aerospace works is feast or famine, depending on winning or losing contracts. The Ventura division was successfully making target and reconnaissance drones for some time. I'm guessing this was going to be their first "missile," but again I was not an engineer. The Ventura Division was originally called American Radio Plane, and the famous photo of Marilyn Monroe working in the weapons factory was from that company during WWII -- she must have been making target drones, (in Van Nuys.) The Newbury Park facility eventually became one of the Amgen buildings in Newbury Park. It had a small dirt airstrip (which was not being used when I worked there, but must have been from prior.) I don't think I've given away any secrets, but provided another piece of the jigsaw puzzle for military history buffs.