AARGM-ER cleared for EMD [for F-35A/C & other aircraft]

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post21 Mar 2019, 12:26

bring_it_on wrote:The AF has already been trying out SDB's equipped with HOJ seekers for a specific mission type. I think if you can have ARH along with GPS/INS then it becomes an even better SEAD/DEAD weapon when compared to the Multi mode SDB II. Let's see what concepts the USAF tries out under its AS2030 efforts.


I think that current StormBreaker is good enough for most SEAD/DEAD requirements as it's data linked weapon and can get accurate targeting information and updates especially from F-35s. IMO, another good weapon is Spear 3 missile as it gets quicker to target and has longer range (although smaller warhead) with similar guidance system. It's probably not worthwhile to do specialized anti-radar version of StorBreaker or Spear 3 as that would likely be pretty expensive weapon with lower flexibility than standard versions. Probably better option is to use AARGM-ER and HARM variants for most capable and threatening enemy radars and StromBreakers and other more general purpose weapons for others.
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post21 Mar 2019, 16:06

SpudmanWP wrote:The "2" in two-way is just for BDA. It has a normal 1-way datalink for target updates.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... /AARGM.pdf


The missile uploads the BDA to a satellite. It would seem reasonable that this BDA data could then be downloaded to the launch aircraft/strike package so the need for a restrike could be assessed. If it isn’t a true 2 way data link it isn’t too far off the mark.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8379
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Mar 2019, 20:16

Correct, but I meant two-way in the traditional sense of ongoing communications and not just a BDA report.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post22 Mar 2019, 00:38

aussiebloke wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The "2" in two-way is just for BDA. It has a normal 1-way datalink for target updates.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... /AARGM.pdf


The missile uploads the BDA to a satellite. It would seem reasonable that this BDA data could then be downloaded to the launch aircraft/strike package so the need for a restrike could be assessed. If it isn’t a true 2 way data link it isn’t too far off the mark.


No one defines a two-way datalink between launch platform and weapon in this manner.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post23 Mar 2019, 16:27

Common sense would dictate that "two-way" would be the ability to send and receive from/to the same source so you are right it is rather disingenuous (or possibly just a lack of specific knowledge on the WS) to claim that the weapon possesses a two-way data link..
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 21:34

bring_it_on wrote:Common sense would dictate that "two-way" would be the ability to send and receive from/to the same source so you are right it is rather disingenuous (or possibly just a lack of specific knowledge on the WS) to claim that the weapon possesses a two-way data link..


The two way data link that that I claim AARGM either has or is not far off having is not between launch platform and missile. It would be between satellite and missile. This is a two way data link technology that the USN has placed in the Block IV version of the Tomahawk missile. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 54203.html

The Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) is the enabler that could make this happen with the AARGM. We know AARGM has an IBS receiver.
“AARGM weapon system capabilities include: .....netted targeting real-time feed via Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) prior to missile launch.....IBS Receiver interfaces will enable the warfighter to directly receive national intelligence data, providing additional AARGM targeting data to increase overall pilot situational awareness.” http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/CLSS/ ... Y-FY12.pdf
That “national intelligence data” comes from satellites is shown in this document: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... /AARGM.pdf This same document shows that the off board target information obtained by the IBS receiver is fused with active radar homing (ARH) data “to form correlated target location/type/track file.” The AARGM data link transmitter is merely described in the document as having “connectivity with off-board sensors” in order to pass on BDA data just prior to warhead detonation. The graphics in this document show the off-board receiving sensor to be a satellite. It would seem to me very possible for this same transmitter to be used to regularly update the satellite with the “correlated target location/type/track file” data throughout the missile’s flight. If the IBS receiver is also capable of regularly receiving updated targeting data from the satellite during the missile’s flight then you have a two way data link.

A lot of “ifs” but that is why I qualified my original statement by saying “if it isn’t a true two way data link then it isn’t far off”. I still think that is the case.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 22:59

aussiebloke wrote:
A lot of “ifs” but that is why I qualified my original statement by saying “if it isn’t a true two way data link then it isn’t far off”. I still think that is the case.


I was not referring to your post but to the part originally quoted by Marauder from the WZ article..I don't think the author made any attempt to qualify his statement like you did so it was either an oversight or he just didn't know better...
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 20:24

aussiebloke wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:Common sense would dictate that "two-way" would be the ability to send and receive from/to the same source so you are right it is rather disingenuous (or possibly just a lack of specific knowledge on the WS) to claim that the weapon possesses a two-way data link..


The two way data link that that I claim AARGM either has or is not far off having is not between launch platform and missile. It would be between satellite and missile. This is a two way data link technology that the USN has placed in the Block IV version of the Tomahawk missile. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 54203.html

The Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) is the enabler that could make this happen with the AARGM. We know AARGM has an IBS receiver.
“AARGM weapon system capabilities include: .....netted targeting real-time feed via Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) prior to missile launch.....IBS Receiver interfaces will enable the warfighter to directly receive national intelligence data, providing additional AARGM targeting data to increase overall pilot situational awareness.” http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/CLSS/ ... Y-FY12.pdf
That “national intelligence data” comes from satellites is shown in this document: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... /AARGM.pdf This same document shows that the off board target information obtained by the IBS receiver is fused with active radar homing (ARH) data “to form correlated target location/type/track file.” The AARGM data link transmitter is merely described in the document as having “connectivity with off-board sensors” in order to pass on BDA data just prior to warhead detonation. The graphics in this document show the off-board receiving sensor to be a satellite. It would seem to me very possible for this same transmitter to be used to regularly update the satellite with the “correlated target location/type/track file” data throughout the missile’s flight. If the IBS receiver is also capable of regularly receiving updated targeting data from the satellite during the missile’s flight then you have a two way data link.

A lot of “ifs” but that is why I qualified my original statement by saying “if it isn’t a true two way data link then it isn’t far off”. I still think that is the case.


IBS-R happens on wing (not all platforms have IBS-R). IBS transmit happens near or at impact.

In no way is that a two-way datalink.

They have looked at providing AARGM with a weapons data link in a separate ONR
sponsored effort. But AFAIK it does not have one.

TACTOM only has ships as launching platforms and has a dedicated SATCOM circuit for its
uplink/downlink. It also has a time-of-flight measured in hours so the latency via SATCOM*
is tolerable.

* Or BACN which can carry a pod.
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post28 Mar 2019, 20:57

marauder2048 wrote:
IBS-R happens on wing (not all platforms have IBS-R). IBS transmit happens near or at impact.

In no way is that a two-way datalink.

They have looked at providing AARGM with a weapons data link in a separate ONR
sponsored effort. But AFAIK it does not have one.

TACTOM only has ships as launching platforms and has a dedicated SATCOM circuit for its
uplink/downlink. It also has a time-of-flight measured in hours so the latency via SATCOM*
is tolerable.

* Or BACN which can carry a pod.


Fair enough. The evidence just isn’t there to support my speculations. Some more IBS related comments and information:

You are right about the lack of IBS receivers on tactical aircraft. The only ones I can identify for sure are F-16 Block 40/50 which got IBS receivers during their SLEP and also F/A-18G Growlers which also got them as part of an update.

As to satellite latency issues IBS claims to transmit “near real-time” data.

“The Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) is the worldwide Department of Defense (DoD) standard network enterprise for disseminating time-sensitive tactical and strategic intelligence and targeting data to all echelons of Joint Service operational users.” https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... b_2015.pdf

“IBS Common Interactive Broadcast (CIB) .... disseminates reports via Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) SATCOM. The CIB facilitates Joint/FVEY, multi-sensor, multi-source intelligence exploitation of the battlefield and provides a key interactive link between producer and consumer, supporting time-critical targeting and real-time intelligence to the shooter. Timeliness in report transmission is prioritized with Imminent Threat data delivered in as little as 5 seconds.” http://www.missionessential.com/about-us/news/imt/

AARGM if travelling at 1,500 mph would travel about 2 miles in 5 seconds.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post29 Mar 2019, 20:42

hornetfinn wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:The AF has already been trying out SDB's equipped with HOJ seekers for a specific mission type. I think if you can have ARH along with GPS/INS then it becomes an even better SEAD/DEAD weapon when compared to the Multi mode SDB II. Let's see what concepts the USAF tries out under its AS2030 efforts.


I think that current StormBreaker is good enough for most SEAD/DEAD requirements as it's data linked weapon and can get accurate targeting information and updates especially from F-35s. IMO, another good weapon is Spear 3 missile as it gets quicker to target and has longer range (although smaller warhead) with similar guidance system. It's probably not worthwhile to do specialized anti-radar version of StorBreaker or Spear 3 as that would likely be pretty expensive weapon with lower flexibility than standard versions. Probably better option is to use AARGM-ER and HARM variants for most capable and threatening enemy radars and StromBreakers and other more general purpose weapons for others.


Storm Breakers are great for getting hard kills against SAM launchers but they are relatively slow compared with the AGM-88 and AARGM-ER. There will be times when you need a faster kill chain in order to protect friendly aircraft from being targeted.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post31 Mar 2019, 22:05

aussiebloke wrote:
“IBS Common Interactive Broadcast (CIB) .... disseminates reports via Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) SATCOM. The CIB facilitates Joint/FVEY, multi-sensor, multi-source intelligence exploitation of the battlefield and provides a key interactive link between producer and consumer, supporting time-critical targeting and real-time intelligence to the shooter. Timeliness in report transmission is prioritized with Imminent Threat data delivered in as little as 5 seconds.” http://www.missionessential.com/about-us/news/imt/

AARGM if travelling at 1,500 mph would travel about 2 miles in 5 seconds.



The Navy had previously defined 2 seconds as the upper bound latency for SATCOM IFTU datalinks
(there's 1 second propagation time for downlink/uplink) in order to prosecute ground moving targets.
Some of the newer AESAs are designed to emit on the move.


Tomahawk can tolerate its 9 second link latency because:

a. it's not moving very quickly so there's plenty of time to process the message and update guidance
b. it's mostly going against stationary targets
c. the maritime strike version has both a large passive and a large active seeker to make up the difference.

For LOS links, they've been continually trying to drive down this latency:

Link-16: 50 ms
QNT: 30 ms
TTNT: 2 ms
Attachments
KRFS- resize.jpg
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 07:06

blain wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think that current StormBreaker is good enough for most SEAD/DEAD requirements as it's data linked weapon and can get accurate targeting information and updates especially from F-35s. IMO, another good weapon is Spear 3 missile as it gets quicker to target and has longer range (although smaller warhead) with similar guidance system. It's probably not worthwhile to do specialized anti-radar version of StorBreaker or Spear 3 as that would likely be pretty expensive weapon with lower flexibility than standard versions. Probably better option is to use AARGM-ER and HARM variants for most capable and threatening enemy radars and StromBreakers and other more general purpose weapons for others.


Storm Breakers are great for getting hard kills against SAM launchers but they are relatively slow compared with the AGM-88 and AARGM-ER. There will be times when you need a faster kill chain in order to protect friendly aircraft from being targeted.


Sure, but then you can use HARMs and AARGM-ERs to prosecute those targets. JAGM and Spear 3 are available also when SDB/SB is too slow.
Offline

aussiebloke

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post01 Apr 2019, 13:44

The USAF appears never to have purchased the AGM-88E/AARGM. Is that correct? Not even for the F-16 Block 50s?

The USN appears never to have purchased the HARM Targeting System for its F/A-18s. Is that correct?

If these contentions are correct does this reflect some doctrinal differences between the USAF and the USN regarding SEAD/DEAD?
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 00:01

aussiebloke wrote:The USAF appears never to have purchased the AGM-88E/AARGM. Is that correct? Not even for the F-16 Block 50s?

The USN appears never to have purchased the HARM Targeting System for its F/A-18s. Is that correct?

If these contentions are correct does this reflect some doctrinal differences between the USAF and the USN regarding SEAD/DEAD?


The IAF has never bought the HARM either. They took down the Syrian IADS in 1982. The USAF also has more experience and seems to be more committed to stealth than the Navy.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 01:45

blain wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:The USAF appears never to have purchased the AGM-88E/AARGM. Is that correct? Not even for the F-16 Block 50s?

The USN appears never to have purchased the HARM Targeting System for its F/A-18s. Is that correct?

If these contentions are correct does this reflect some doctrinal differences between the USAF and the USN regarding SEAD/DEAD?


The IAF has never bought the HARM either. They took down the Syrian IADS in 1982. The USAF also has more experience and seems to be more committed to stealth than the Navy.



Syrian air defenses in the Bekaa were anything but integrated.
The IAF did ask for AGM-88 (presumably AARGM since it was on the DSCA list) back in 2013.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests