FUTURE F-35 AARGM UPDATES

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23310
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Oct 2015, 02:28

The initial info about AARGM for F-35s was posted by 'brungITback' here:
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&p=304346&hilit=AARGM#p304346
AARGM Block IV
Hughes, Robin. Jane's Missiles & Rockets Vol. 19, 11

"F-35 JPO expected to issue a sole source contract to Lockheed Martin to assist Block 4 integration efforts of an extended range AARGM variant into Lightning II....

...In the interim, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office (JPO) is expected to award Lockheed Martin a sole source contract in October 2015 to complete a study to assist the NAVAIR Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PMA-242) in Block 4 integration efforts for an extended range (ER) variant of AARGM for internal carriage on the F-35A/C aircraft...."

Following on from that start here is the USN update on the AARGM.
Photo Release: AARGM moves forward with integrated test
15 Oct 2015 PEO(U&W) Public Affairs

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – An F/A-18 E/F launches a Block I Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) during test firings over the Point Mugu Sea Range in August 2015. AARGM completed the first phase of Block 1 integrated test in September after demonstrating the missile's effectiveness against a land based air defense unit target in an operationally relevant environment. The second phase of testing is scheduled to begin this fall. (U.S. Navy photo)"

"Multiple Block I Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) moments before hitting a mobile ship target during a test in August 2015 near Point M ..." Photo 1 (cropped): http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/MMM_0017.JPG (original 4.1Mb)
PHOTO 2: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/DT-14.png (original 0.3Mb)


Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6079

AARGM INFO here:
"...Platform compatibility: F-35, F-16 C/J..." http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 69417C5B49
Attachments
MMM_0017crop.jpg
DT-14.jpg
Last edited by spazsinbad on 16 Oct 2015, 02:58, edited 4 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5410
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Oct 2015, 02:34

If only we'd bothered to develop the ramjet version we'd have something that could be carried internally by the F-35. :bang:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post18 Oct 2015, 10:38

So for now the AARGM is only proposed as an external carry on the F-35? Seems likely given the wingspan.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post18 Oct 2015, 13:17

The AARM-ER that should be available by the time the F-35C declares FOC is currently expected to be internally carried. It will also be a block 4 option for F-35A operators.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Oct 2015, 13:50

I wonder if kickstarting a modified MALD/MASSM variant might be worthwhile for SEAD/DEAD?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post18 Oct 2015, 17:25

According to the RFI (thanks 'bring-it-on') just about every section of the missile is subject to review discussions except the seeker and the guidance. It does clearly state the control fins are part of the discussion:


ScreenHunter_11 Oct. 18 09.17.jpg


But the RFI also states that they want minimal changes to the aerodynamic profile so that HAS to to mean that the wing will be reduced in size ONLY as much as absolutely required to fit inside the F-35.

ScreenHunter_12 Oct. 18 09.20.jpg


10% weight growth limit is also interesting, considering the Range increase required. It's a good bet the submitting contractors will utilize every single bit of that 10%.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5410
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Oct 2015, 01:09

One can't help but wonder where we'd be had with bothered to develop this into a usable weapon.

Image

I mean it's only been about a decade. :doh:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23310
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Oct 2015, 23:07

Raytheon’s HCSM anti-radiation missile upgrade completes key test
26 Oct 2015 James Drew

"Raytheon and the US Air Force have completed the third round of operating testing of improved AGM-88F High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) following a recent full-rate production decision, and the new version is now on track to be declared fit for combat.

The HARM Control Section Modification (HCSM) adds satellite and inertial navigation controls to keep the supersonic weapon on target and outside of pre-planned “zones of exclusion,” even if an emitting target switches off or a decoy switches on.

Raytheon says the last flight test of Operational Test-3 occurred on 5 August, and the new control section will be declared operational once the test series is complete.

“The main purpose of the upgrade was to address the evolving threat, incorporate advanced capabilities – GPS/digital inertial measurement unit (IMU) – that could counter ‘counter-HARM tactics’ and reduce or eliminate collateral damage and fratricide,” says Bill Reaves, senior manager for Raytheon Air Warfare Systems.

In a recent test from a Lockheed Martin F-16, the HCSM AGM-88F successfully navigated onto a target without being distracted by a “radiating emitter” or decoy located inside a zone of exclusion, which in the real world could represent an area with friendly forces, civilians, or a non-combatant state...." [More about other version as seen above at URL]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pl-418218/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post09 Nov 2015, 15:48

bring_it_on wrote:The AARM-ER that should be available by the time the F-35C declares FOC is currently expected to be internally carried. It will also be a block 4 option for F-35A operators.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi

So is this yet another weapon the B can't carry internally?
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post09 Nov 2015, 15:52

popcorn wrote:I wonder if kickstarting a modified MALD/MASSM variant might be worthwhile for SEAD/DEAD?

Definitely. Stick a hellfire warhead in a MALD-V, job done.*

*Probably more complicated than that but you know what I mean.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Nov 2015, 15:54

uclass wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:The AARM-ER that should be available by the time the F-35C declares FOC is currently expected to be internally carried. It will also be a block 4 option for F-35A operators.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi

So is this yet another weapon the B can't carry internally?

The primary mission of the B models, is different than the A/C. The USMC's primary focus isn't flying SEAD/DEAD missions.
Offline

reaper

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015, 06:56

Unread post16 Nov 2015, 17:38

wrightwing wrote:
uclass wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:The AARM-ER that should be available by the time the F-35C declares FOC is currently expected to be internally carried. It will also be a block 4 option for F-35A operators.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi

So is this yet another weapon the B can't carry internally?

The primary mission of the B models, is different than the A/C. The USMC's primary focus isn't flying SEAD/DEAD missions.
You are aware that the US isn't the only customer correct?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5410
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Nov 2015, 18:20

uclass wrote:
popcorn wrote:I wonder if kickstarting a modified MALD/MASSM variant might be worthwhile for SEAD/DEAD?

Definitely. Stick a hellfire warhead in a MALD-V, job done.*

*Probably more complicated than that but you know what I mean.


You get what you pay for. TOR and Pantsir operators have never experienced a turkey shoot before.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post16 Nov 2015, 22:50

So if some other country needs a weapon to fit into the B that the US doesn't need to fit in the B isn't that technically their problem? Why reduce weapon performance to make it fit? Doesn't seem like a problem the US needs to worry about.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Nov 2015, 23:00

Given that Turkey is building an LHD, is a JSF Partner, and makes the SOM.. I could see a F-35B version of the SOM.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests