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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 12:33
by spazsinbad
AARGM-ER cleared for EMD
08 Mar 2019 ALERT5

...NAVY
Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, Northridge, California, is awarded a $322,504,595 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to provide for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the AGM-88G, Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER). The EMD effort includes the design, integration and test of a new solid rocket motor for the AARGM-ER for use on the F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and F-35A/C aircraft platforms. Work will be performed in Northridge, California (98 percent); and Ridgecrest, California (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2023. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $55,087,929 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-19-C-0050)."...
Source: https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1779133/


Graphic: http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/AARGM1.png

Source: http://alert5.com/2019/03/08/aargm-er-cleared-for-emd/

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 13:30
by popcorn
Excellent!

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 14:51
by gc
Wonder addition to US Navy’s Armory. Raytheon used to talk about the AARGMS/JSOW/MALD combination to kick down the A2/AD door. Soon it will be the AARGM-ER/JSOW-ER/MALD-N allowing Rhinos to stand-off outside the S-400 threat rings and work on targets detected and identified by F-35C

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 16:48
by scudbuster
He is more detail on the AARGM-ER and comparison to the ARRGM

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 17:17
by hythelday
Also found this image from Orbital ATK twitter from way back in the 2015:
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 17:57
by steve2267
Two Dogs never cared for the HARM. Oh, he employed them... more as a distraction, to keep the SAM site(s) off the air. But his preferred tactic was either a Mk84 on Mr. SAM, or, his personal favorite, the Rockeye / cluster munition. If he was out of bombs, he strafed the site if he was able.

Since the AARGM-ER re-uses the same guidance / electronics... what is so improved that the new AARGM-ER will be a reliable DEAD munition, and not simply a SEAD tool?

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 19:05
by aussiebloke
steve2267 wrote:Since the AARGM-ER re-uses the same guidance / electronics... what is so improved that the new AARGM-ER will be a reliable DEAD munition, and not simply a SEAD tool?


I suspect the DEAD capabilities of the AARGM-ER and the AARGM are very similar. The improvement in capability from a SEAD missile to a DEAD missile would have occurred with the upgrading of the AGM-88C to AGM-88D Block VI around 2005 or soon after. A GPS navigation system was added. "This greatly increases accuracy when radar lock is lost after emitter switch-off".
Losing radar lock and therefore being unable to continue to home in was the biggest problem with the HARMs that Dan Hampton was using in 1991 in Iraq. Further improvements to the missile's DEAD capabilities came with the AGM-88E (aka AARGM). This upgrade added, among other improvements, an active millimeter-wave radar seeker to accompany the existing passive radar seeker. I found this web page useful:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 20:25
by wrightwing
steve2267 wrote:Two Dogs never cared for the HARM. Oh, he employed them... more as a distraction, to keep the SAM site(s) off the air. But his preferred tactic was either a Mk84 on Mr. SAM, or, his personal favorite, the Rockeye / cluster munition. If he was out of bombs, he strafed the site if he was able.

Since the AARGM-ER re-uses the same guidance / electronics... what is so improved that the new AARGM-ER will be a reliable DEAD munition, and not simply a SEAD tool?

The current AARGM, is already a DEAD capability missile vs the HARM. The AARGM-ER just adds speed and ~2x the range, along with a lower RCS.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 21:22
by spazsinbad
'scudbuster' thanks for graphics. Would you happen to have the source/URL for the modified graphic below please? Thanks.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 22:00
by SpudmanWP
Basically here are two of the major changes to AARGM from HARM:
1. GPS INS: Shutting off the transmitter will not keep the AARGM from heading your way
2. MMW terminal seeker: The AARGM has point of impact & target selection functionality

SAR:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1018961.pdf

DOT&E:
https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY ... 7aargm.pdf

Northrop:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... tSheet.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 05:51
by steve2267
SpudmanWP wrote:Basically here are two of the major changes to AARGM from HARM:
1. GPS INS: Shutting off the transmitter will not keep the AARGM from heading your way
2. MMW terminal seeker: The AARGM has point of impact & target selection functionality

SAR:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1018961.pdf

DOT&E:
https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY ... 7aargm.pdf

Northrop:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... tSheet.pdf


I thought HARM was one of the original "smart" weapons and also memorized where the target was emitting, such that if the emitter shut down... the HARM would guide itself to those last known coords. I recall reading that HARM also had some rather sophisticated Kalman filtering to even enable it to "guess" where a moving target, that had been radiating, would be. Granted it didn't have GPS, but reportedly used an internal INS to guide itself to last target coordinates. Hampton seemed rather less than impressed.

If you could get a good GPS fix... I could see that possibly eliminating INS drift... but how much will a missile drift in 20-30 mi? (Apparently enough to miss the trailer!). I could see a MMW that was smart enough to recognize a target being somewhat of a gamechanger, though. Maybe AARGM-ER will do for anti-radiation missiles what AMRAAM did for radar guided air-to-air missiles.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 06:07
by SpudmanWP
Given that the HARM's range is given 90+ miles, drift can be a lot

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 06:31
by steve2267
SpudmanWP wrote:Given that the HARM's range is given 90+ miles, drift can be a lot


Hmmm... yes, I could see drift adding up a lot over 90 miles... enough to miss a radar van.

In Hampton's recounting of the fighting in the 2nd Iraq War, it seems most of the HARM shots were from 10-30 miles. FWIW.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 06:52
by SpudmanWP
Given the accuracy of the ESM of the times, I don't think getting a solid lock enough for a passive attack was not available at the time for anything outside that range.

The F-35's and Growler's (now? or soon?) ability to 1-Ship geolocate an emitter should make a longer range shot a lot more successful.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 10:23
by squirrelshoes
Big difference between flying towards last known coordinates and a MMW terminal that should (in theory, I guess I have no idea if does) pick out components of an IADS system among the clutter.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 12:21
by aussiebloke
steve2267 wrote:I thought HARM was one of the original "smart" weapons and also memorized where the target was emitting, such that if the emitter shut down... the HARM would guide itself to those last known coords.


The early HARMs seemed less than "smart". From Dan Hampton's book Viper pilot:

For the F-16CJ, the HARM Targeting System (HTS), thankfully, evolved into something that had less and less to do with lobbing anti-radiation missiles and more to do with precision-targeting. HTS was initially fairly inaccurate, since the HARM didn’t require a very tight firing solution. The missile was supposed to “see” the radar signal, called a “beam,” and follow that beam back to impact. Think of standing in a dark room with a pistol and shooting at pulsating flashlight beams, and you get the idea. However, shooting at the beam doesn’t mean you have much of a chance of hitting the source. You might scare it though, and force it to turn off. That’s okay for the moment, but the flashlight is still alive and may get you another time.

So, lobbing HARMs at radar beams and calling it Weaseling is an extremely dangerous notion. Threats rarely do what you expect, and that early version of the HARM, in many opinions, was really a very crappy missile. If the threat didn’t emit, then the HARM had nothing to guide on and went “stupid.” The concept had worked in the 1960s and 1970s, when SAMs had to actively emit to shoot missiles, but by the 1990s SAMs utilized optics, infrared, or other guidance sources.

The Texas Instrument marketing folks were obviously very good, because I thought, as did many others, that the missile was generally a waste of a weapon station. I shot over thirty of these things in combat and have no idea what they hit except the earth or maybe some poor Iraqi jabbering on a cell phone at the wrong time. So HTS was only initially designed with enough accuracy for the HARM, and the end effect was a targeting solution that wasn’t good enough for precision weapons.


Taken from what I suspect is a copyright infringed version at:
http://abramtsevo.msk.ru/rlib/utf8/480601.html

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 13:36
by sferrin
Had no problem taking out a Patriot radar.

viewtopic.php?t=3161

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 00:36
by SpudmanWP
Almost forgot: Speaking of "not knowing", the AARGM sends back a BDA report prior to impact.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 01:52
by h-bomb
aussiebloke wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I thought HARM was one of the original "smart" weapons and also memorized where the target was emitting, such that if the emitter shut down... the HARM would guide itself to those last known coords.


The early HARMs seemed less than "smart". From Dan Hampton's book Viper pilot:

For the F-16CJ, the HARM Targeting System (HTS), thankfully, evolved into something that had less and less to do with lobbing anti-radiation missiles and more to do with precision-targeting. HTS was initially fairly inaccurate, since the HARM didn’t require a very tight firing solution. The missile was supposed to “see” the radar signal, called a “beam,” and follow that beam back to impact. Think of standing in a dark room with a pistol and shooting at pulsating flashlight beams, and you get the idea. However, shooting at the beam doesn’t mean you have much of a chance of hitting the source. You might scare it though, and force it to turn off. That’s okay for the moment, but the flashlight is still alive and may get you another time.

So, lobbing HARMs at radar beams and calling it Weaseling is an extremely dangerous notion. Threats rarely do what you expect, and that early version of the HARM, in many opinions, was really a very crappy missile. If the threat didn’t emit, then the HARM had nothing to guide on and went “stupid.” The concept had worked in the 1960s and 1970s, when SAMs had to actively emit to shoot missiles, but by the 1990s SAMs utilized optics, infrared, or other guidance sources.

The Texas Instrument marketing folks were obviously very good, because I thought, as did many others, that the missile was generally a waste of a weapon station. I shot over thirty of these things in combat and have no idea what they hit except the earth or maybe some poor Iraqi jabbering on a cell phone at the wrong time. So HTS was only initially designed with enough accuracy for the HARM, and the end effect was a targeting solution that wasn’t good enough for precision weapons.


Taken from what I suspect is a copyright infringed version at:
http://abramtsevo.msk.ru/rlib/utf8/480601.html


"So, lobbing HARMs at radar beams and calling it Weaseling is an extremely dangerous notion." That is the Ironbird mission, goes back to early Vietnam and the Standard ARM! I hate to remind people that that the CJ cannot perform the "Wild Weasel" mission without an RC-135 Rivet Joint.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 05:55
by popcorn
Ironhand?

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 21:56
by steve2267
h-bomb wrote:
"So, lobbing HARMs at radar beams and calling it Weaseling is an extremely dangerous notion." That is the Ironbird mission, goes back to early Vietnam and the Standard ARM! I hate to remind people that that the CJ cannot perform the "Wild Weasel" mission without an RC-135 Rivet Joint.


How many SAM sites was Hampton credited with killing in the 2nd Gulf War? 'Twas well over twenty, as I recall. I'd say he Weasled pretty damn good in the CJ. Unless he left it out of his book, I don't recall his getting much help from an RC-135. The good folks in the AWACS always seemed to get it wrong, though...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 22:52
by marauder2048
Another advantage of an active seeker for AARGM/AARGM-ER is improved fuzing against targets; laser proximity
tends to be very short range.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 23:54
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:Another advantage of an active seeker for AARGM/AARGM-ER is improved fuzing against targets; laser proximity
tends to be very short range.


With the additional guidance modes it effectively becomes an all around air to surface missile. You could hit a ship with it, or an aircraft parked on the ramp.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 03:20
by bring_it_on
Yup it is much more than an ARM with that seeker and with a larger motor and greater range/speed they now have more flexibility in terms of how they employ it.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php?op ... le&id=3116

I wish that the seeker or something similar can end up on an SDB II like form factor / performance.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 06:37
by popcorn
bring_it_on wrote:Yup it is much more than an ARM with that seeker and with a larger motor and greater range/speed they now have more flexibility in terms of how they employ it.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php?op ... le&id=3116

I wish that the seeker or something similar can end up on an SDB II like form factor / performance.

I don"t see the advantage as a glide bomb would be too slow. Wouldn't you want something that you can fire ahead of the strike package from a further distance to suppress enemy defenses?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 09:56
by hornetfinn
aussiebloke wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I thought HARM was one of the original "smart" weapons and also memorized where the target was emitting, such that if the emitter shut down... the HARM would guide itself to those last known coords.


The early HARMs seemed less than "smart". From Dan Hampton's book Viper pilot:

For the F-16CJ, the HARM Targeting System (HTS), thankfully, evolved into something that had less and less to do with lobbing anti-radiation missiles and more to do with precision-targeting. HTS was initially fairly inaccurate, since the HARM didn’t require a very tight firing solution. The missile was supposed to “see” the radar signal, called a “beam,” and follow that beam back to impact. Think of standing in a dark room with a pistol and shooting at pulsating flashlight beams, and you get the idea. However, shooting at the beam doesn’t mean you have much of a chance of hitting the source. You might scare it though, and force it to turn off. That’s okay for the moment, but the flashlight is still alive and may get you another time.

So, lobbing HARMs at radar beams and calling it Weaseling is an extremely dangerous notion. Threats rarely do what you expect, and that early version of the HARM, in many opinions, was really a very crappy missile. If the threat didn’t emit, then the HARM had nothing to guide on and went “stupid.” The concept had worked in the 1960s and 1970s, when SAMs had to actively emit to shoot missiles, but by the 1990s SAMs utilized optics, infrared, or other guidance sources.

The Texas Instrument marketing folks were obviously very good, because I thought, as did many others, that the missile was generally a waste of a weapon station. I shot over thirty of these things in combat and have no idea what they hit except the earth or maybe some poor Iraqi jabbering on a cell phone at the wrong time. So HTS was only initially designed with enough accuracy for the HARM, and the end effect was a targeting solution that wasn’t good enough for precision weapons.


Taken from what I suspect is a copyright infringed version at:
http://abramtsevo.msk.ru/rlib/utf8/480601.html


This is a pretty good description of the problem with all ARM missiles, not just HARM. They have been great when enemies were unaware of them or how to counter them. Of course the counter to them has been pretty obvious from the start and I'm sure TI and USAF/USN people have known of the potential counters. Problem has been that there has not been good technological solutions for the missiles until very recently.

For example only the advent of very accurate GPS aided INS systems have recently allowed the missile the fly accurately towards the threat emitter even if it shut down. Earlier INS systems were either fairly inaccurate or far too large and expensive for tactical missiles. Also aircraft using such missiles needed very accurate geolocation capabilities to know the coordinates where the missile was supposed to fly to. Missile itself can only see the beam (or sidelobes) of the radar and can not effectively geolocate themselves (unless two or more missiles can do some sensor fusion between themselves).

I think HARM has been pretty much as good ARM as was possible during its history. They worked well against old radars and at least threatened more modern radars to shut down for a while. That gave time to do things like getting strike packages through. HARM got better all the time, but naturally so did threats and countermeasures and tactics. I think AARGM was really big improvement over earlier HARMs and made the life of enemy radars and IADS much harder. AARGM-ER is nice improvement over that as I think the HARM missile body and aerodynamics were restricting the system performance. Of course it's still just one tool in the box and is not going to solve all problems even for SEAD/DEAD.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 14:18
by bring_it_on
popcorn wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:Yup it is much more than an ARM with that seeker and with a larger motor and greater range/speed they now have more flexibility in terms of how they employ it.

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php?op ... le&id=3116

I wish that the seeker or something similar can end up on an SDB II like form factor / performance.

I don"t see the advantage as a glide bomb would be too slow. Wouldn't you want something that you can fire ahead of the strike package from a further distance to suppress enemy defenses?


Slow (10-15 minute flight times?) yes but you are not worrying about shut downs anymore with a multi-mode seeker. If you can unleash a pack of 6-8 of these weapons on a SAM battery it will pose a fairly significant challenge when also coupled with more stand off options like the AARGM-ER. It will allow to target radars, TEL's, communications/SATCOM etc etc more effectively..

I believe the USAF is looking at a DEAD weapon as part of its AS2030..something that can be carried in large numbers internally on the stealth fighters and UCAV's would be a great addition and complementary to the likes of AARGM and the hypersonic weapons that are also likely going to be tasked with these targets imho.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... ns-ew.html

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 18:01
by aussiebloke
h-bomb wrote: I hate to remind people that that the CJ cannot perform the "Wild Weasel" mission without an RC-135 Rivet Joint.


I doubt this is still the case as the F-16CJ's HARM Targeting System has evolved and been improved:

The F-16 HARM Targeting System (HTS) is currently the only programmed reactive SEAD capability and enables targeting the HARM missile in its most lethal 'range known' mode. The program provides F-16 Block 50/52 and Block 40/42 aircraft with the ability to employ the AN/ASQ-213 Pod. With the introduction of HTS Revision 7 (HTS R7) in 2007, the AN/ASQ-213 Pod now has a precision geo-location capability to target Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) to destroy fixed and mobile enemy air defense elements. Additionally, by relocating the AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 Pod to the aircraft's left inlet hard point, the F-16 can simultaneously carry the HTS R7 Pod and an Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). HTS R7 fielding is complete and represents the Air Force's near-term solution for reactive time critical targeting for DEAD until this mission can be transferred to F-35 or a yet to be defined system.


From: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... b_2016.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 18:21
by scudbuster
The source for the graphic is Northrop Grumman Media Relations. Full Fact Sheet Attached.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 04:25
by squirrelshoes
popcorn wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:I don"t see the advantage as a glide bomb would be too slow. Wouldn't you want something that you can fire ahead of the strike package from a further distance to suppress enemy defenses?
I think the only advantages would be magazine depth and armament flexibility.

An aircraft flying with 8 SDBs could be engaging tanks or personnel but also engage a popup SAM threat, whereas another aircraft with a couple of AARGMs is far less flexible in mission. Obviously the AARGM are superior for dedicated SEAD/DEAD but if SDB seeker could do passive antiradiation as well it might have a use.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 05:09
by popcorn
squirrelshoes wrote:
popcorn wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:I don"t see the advantage as a glide bomb would be too slow. Wouldn't you want something that you can fire ahead of the strike package from a further distance to suppress enemy defenses?
I think the only advantages would be magazine depth and armament flexibility.

An aircraft flying with 8 SDBs could be engaging tanks or personnel but also engage a popup SAM threat, whereas another aircraft with a couple of AARGMs is far less flexible in mission. Obviously the AARGM are superior for dedicated SEAD/DEAD but if SDB seeker could do passive antiradiation as well it might have a use.

Exactly, Stormbreaker already exists. No need for a variant with an AARGM-like seeker IMO.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 14:20
by bring_it_on
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 22:18
by spazsinbad
Northrop Grumman starts full-scale development of AARGM-ER radar-killing missile for Navy combat aircraft
08 Mar 2019 John Keller

"PATUXENT RIVER NAS, Md. – U.S. Navy aerial warfare experts are beginning full-scale development of a new and advanced radar-killing missile designed to enable U.S. jet fighter-bombers suppress enemy air defenses preceding bomber attacks.

Officials of the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md., announced a $322.5 million contract Thursday to the Northrop Grumman Corp. Innovation Systems segment (formerly Orbital ATK) in Dulles, Va., for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER)….

...AARGM provides the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and Italian air force with a weapon system for engaging and destroying enemy air defenses and time-critical, mobile targets. The AARGM also has precise Global Positioning System (GPS)/inertial navigation system (INS) guidance and network-centric connectivity.

The AARGM offers advanced signal processing and improved frequency coverage, detection range, and field of view, compared to earlier versions of the HARM system. It has time-critical standoff strike with supersonic GPS/INS point-to-point or point-to-millimeter-wave-terminal guidance.

It also has missile impact zone control to prevent collateral damage through tightly coupled, digital terrain elevation database-aided GPS/INS, as well as counter-emitter shutdown through active millimeter-wave-radar terminal guidance.

In early 2018 Orbital ATK engineers started upgrading the sensors and embedded computing components of the AGM-88E to help mitigate existing missile cost and production issues. This project involved building the executive processor circuit card assembly for the missile's advanced digital anti-radiation homing sensor and its millimeter wave radar terminal seeker.

These upgrades were to support Naval Air Systems Command's Direct and Time Sensitive Strike program office. Upgrades were to mitigate cost and production issues, as well as incorporate hardware for future expansion...."

Source: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... gm-er.html
&
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... ssile.html

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 04:16
by spazsinbad
LONG Article BEST READ - with plenty of photos/graphics - at source.
Air Force To Turn Navy Air Defense Busting Missile Into High-Speed Critical Strike Weapon
18 Mar 2019 Joseph Trevithick & Tyler Rogoway

"The new missile will give the service's F-35As a key tool to rapidly destroy air defenses, ballistic and cruise missile launchers, and other threats.

he U.S. Air Force has revealed that it is working to turn the U.S. Navy’ s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range, or AARGM-ER, into a fast-flying strike weapon that its F-35A Joint Strike Fighters will be able to use against a variety of time-sensitive targets. This is something that The War Zone had thought would be the case based on previous information about this program. The new missile would give those stealthy jets, as well as other aircraft in the future, an important tool for quickly knocking down anti-access and area denial threats, as well as destroying pop-up targets on short notice.

What appears to be the first public announcement that the AARGM-ER would serve as the basis for what the Air Force officially refers to as the Stand In Attack Weapon, or SiAW, was included in detailed documents about the service’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2020, which it released on Mar. 18, 2019. Mention of the SiAW had first appeared in the Air Force’s budget request for the 2018 fiscal cycle, which came out in February 2017, but the line items made no mention of using a particular missile as the starting point....

...The SiAW will feature a different warhead and fuze, of unspecified types, which the Navy began working on in the 2019 Fiscal Year. The Navy already has a requirement for the AARGM-ER to fit inside the weapon bays of its F-35C, so the new variant just needs to retain a similar dimensional profile for the F-35A to carry it internally.

The Air Force will also need to make sure the flight computer on its jets can “talk” with the missile, something the service has been working on itself since FY19. The USAF's latest budget proposal asks for nearly $163 million in additional funding to continue this developmental work. The AARGM-ER is already set to be an extremely capable missile. This is why it seemed like an obvious choice for at least a starting place for the SiAW to us at The War Zone last year....

...The SiAW program makes good sense given concerns about increasingly dense integrated air defense environments in the future, especially those that Russia and China are working to establish. Stealthy features and defensive electronic warfare systems may not be enough to guarantee survival against networks of advanced enemy radars and other sensors linked to long-range surface-to-air missiles and increasingly capable jamming systems.

There is always the potential for pop-up systems to appear with little notice and for wild card threats to emerge. This is to say nothing of other kinetic and non-kinetic weapons that could challenge American forces on the ground, at sea, or even in space, as the Air Force’s budget documents note....

...The F-35A will almost certainly only be the first platform to get the SiAW, not the last. The Air Force’s 2018 Fiscal Year budget proposal mentioned a desire to also integrate it onto the upcoming B-21 Raider stealth bomber....

...With the impending demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, between the United States and Russia, the U.S. military will only be presented with more threats from ground-launched cruise missiles and theater ballistic missiles, in the coming years. Ballistic and cruise missile technology, in particular, as well as road-mobile launchers for these weapons, are steadily proliferating, even among non-state actors, as well.

With all this in mind, the Air Force’s new “stand-in” missile is one of, if not the most relevant air-launched weapon one could imagine to help the Air Force respond the most significant threats it faces in the near future."

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27 ... ike-weapon)

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 07:14
by marauder2048
The missile also has a two-way data link so the launching aircraft, or another source,
can feed it new target information in flight.


Since when?

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 08:02
by SpudmanWP
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

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 15:05
by spazsinbad
Northrop Grumman awarded AARGM-ER EMD contract
19 Mar 2019 Robin Hughes

"...The AARGM-ER development is part of the evolution strategy of the in-service AGM-88E Block 1 AARGM, and it leverages existing subsystems and components from the in-service AARGM, including the sensors, electronics, and warhead.

Northrop Grumman's AARGM-ER design introduces a new aft actuator control system - designed by Northrop Grumman Missile Systems - with the mid-body wings on the legacy AARGM removed. This not only enables a form fit capability internal to the F-35 but also improves manoeuvrability and reduces drag. The company has introduced side-body strakes that deliver lift during the missile's flight. To assist the required range increment, the existing mid-body control section componentry is repackaged to deliver additional space for propulsion, while the airframe is tapered up from aft of the seeker section to deliver an approximate 10% increase in diameter, with consequent additional volume for propulsion. A new solid propellant rocket motor for the AARGM-ER will be designed and integrated by Northrop Grumman Missile Systems."

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/87325/nor ... d-contract

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 17:13
by SpudmanWP
The diameter increase of 10% results is a 21% increase in propulsion alone plus the motor length increase due to the reduction of the control section. An overall 25%- 30% increase in propulsion is likely.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 19:36
by bring_it_on
The USAF is spending about $20 Million this and next fiscal year to develop the warhead and fuse for the SiAW/AARGMER..Northrop has in the past claimed that its LEO design would have AARGM as a candidate weapon...

In a statement, Northrop Grumman said: “Early LEO designs focused on light target requirements, future LEO designs will require the ability to defeat medium to medium-heavy targets. Preliminary results indicate that the new warhead will defeat medium to medium-heavy targets while maintaining the original performance. This provides a great flexibility to the warfighter, where a single weapon can defeat a wide spectrum of targets. LEO also provides penetration survivability against buildings for greater warfighter flexibility and predicable patterns for low collateral damage mission capabilities, providing a safer alternative to some legacy munitions, which can cause unintended harm to civilians and infrastructure.”

The series of demonstrations of the new warhead development were conducted in response to a customer requirement and will ultimately lead to a contract to further develop the technology, the spokesperson added.

Initially developed, beginning 2016, as the Alternative Warhead solution to replace the Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) on the US Army’s 270 mm Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), LEO warhead technology has been tested on large to miniature munitions, including 155 mm artillery projectiles, the M1061 60 mm mortar rounds, and the Hatchet miniature precision strike munition. A LEO warhead solution is also being developed for the extended-range variant of its AGM-88E Block 1 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM-ER), which is scheduled to enter the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase next year.


https://www.janes.com/article/84118/nor ... c-missiles

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 21:11
by steve2267
What is "LEO"?

I couldn't figure it out. The Google coughed up this:

Orbital ATK’s LEO Warhead – the Alternative to Cluster Munitions
March 16, 2016

At the start of the new year, Orbital ATK’s Fuze and Warhead team – part of its Defense Systems Group – announced it had signed and important agreement for production of its Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (AW) for the U.S. Army. The ‘alternative’ in the title refers to an alternative to cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched weapons that release a number of smaller submunitions. First developed in World War II and currently part of many nations’ weapons stockpiles, the use of cluster munitions has become highly scrutinized in recent years due to the risk posed from unexploded ordnance (UX).

...

In 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed a Pentagon cluster munitions policy directing that, by 2018, the military must only use weapons that do not result in more than one percent UX, opening the door for its Alternative Warhead Program (AWP). And while the AWP commitment was to reduce the percentage of unexploded ordnance from cluster munitions to just one percent; the ultimate goal was to eliminate unexploded ordnance completely. “Technically speaking, that’s pretty hard to do—especially less than one percent duds,” Rice told the Inside the Army. “It effectively calls for something other than a cluster munition to attack broadly dispersed targets.”
MLRS
An Army file photo shows an example of an earlier Multiple Launch Rocket System firing.

Enter Orbital ATK. With decades of experience in insensitive munitions, our Fuze and Warhead team in Plymouth, Minnesota, began developing a warhead that was something “other than a cluster munition.” This Design must meet the goal of eliminating UX completely without reducing the effectiveness the military had come to count on.

The result was Orbital ATK’s Lethality Enhanced Ordnance technology, or LEO. Instead of submunitions, LEO relies on inert projectiles placed inside the warhead. In tests, the Orbital ATK warheads with LEO technology achieved the Army’s stated requirements for area effectiveness, but left behind no unexploded ordnance.

[... more at the jump ...]

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/features/orbital-atks-leo-warhead-the-alternative-to-cluster-munitions

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 21:23
by steve2267
Also relevant:

Northrop Grumman tests new LEO warhead for hypersonic missiles
Robin Hughes, London - Jane's Missiles & Rockets 29 October 2018

Image
Northrop Grumman recently completed series testing of a new 50 lb-class warhead designed to equip future US air-to-surface and surface-to-surface hypersonic weapons to defeat a broader range of target sets, from ground forces to light/medium vehicles and aircraft.

The new warhead leverages the company's Lethality Enhanced Ordnance (LEO) technology: a scalable fragmentation/penetration warhead solution developed by Northrop Grumman in response to a US Department of Defense (DoD) requirement that by 2019 cluster munitions containing submunitions do not result in more than 1% unexploded ordnance (UXO) after arming. Unlike submunitions, LEO technology uses a thinned out shell casing supplemented with an inner fragmentation layer that can be scaled according to the required target set. Northrop Grumman said that in a series of warhead tests - started in early 2018 and completed in August - with LEO technology achieved the army's stated requirements for area effectiveness, but left behind no UXO.

Northrop Grumman uses an in-house developed modelling tool to accurately determine the size, velocity, and distribution (fuze sensor/height of burst) of fragmentation required to optimise a weapon's performance against its intended target set. Correspondingly, this reduces the time spent in the design phase.

"LEO is a fairly generic technology: PBXN-110 explosive fill and fragmentation layer. It's how we array those fragments that determines the desired effects," Pat Nolan, vice-president and general manager for missile products at Northrop Grumman, told Jane's .

In late March this year at the EMPI Test Facility in Burnet, Texas, Northrop Grumman, using internal research and development (IRAD) funding, demonstrated the new warhead for the first time to customers competing for the DoD hypersonic weapons contracts. The new warhead development also marks the first time that the company has made some of its specific warhead components - including the fragmenting inner body - using additive manufacturing (AM).

https://www.janes.com/article/84118/northrop-grumman-tests-new-leo-warhead-for-hypersonic-missiles


Orbital ATK tests partially 3D printed warhead for hypersonic weapons
By: Jen Judson   April 9, 2018

BURNET, Texas — The 50-lb warhead arrived to the test site in the Texas desert in the back of a dust-covered Jeep nestled in an unassuming open, beat-up cardboard box.

Less than 30 minutes later, the warhead exploded from its perch hanging from a couple of 2x4s, driving into the ground below and sending thin metal panels around it — set up to measure fragmentation from the blast — flying backward. A shockwave ripped through the ground and could be felt many hundreds of yards away in a bunker.

When the dust settled, the fragmentation-pocked metal panels lay contorted on the earth and evidence of a warhead test was everywhere including fragmentation embedded deep in random test rigging and the tip of the warhead resting on the ground in the center of the test arena.

“It’s too early to say it’s going to match our model, but it’s what we were expecting,” Richard Truitt, Orbital ATK’s program manager for warhead development programs, told Defense News while surveying the aftermath.

The warhead — designed for hypersonic applications — marks a major first for the company. Three out of five of its major components were made using additive manufacturing. And the March 29 test was the first time Orbital ATK has tested a warhead built partially from 3D-printed materials.

Hypersonic weapons are anything that can exceed Mach 5, which is five times faster than the speed of sound.

The company has developed its Lethality Enhanced Ordnance (LEO) warhead capability and some modeling techniques to help look at fragmentation design on certain target sets, Pat Nolan, vice president and general manager of Orbital ATK’s missile products division, told Defense News in a recent interview before the test.

“Now we’re coupling our rocket motor hypersonic experience with our warhead design experience to design a warhead that can survive at high speeds, high temperatures, when you’re going that fast,” Nolan said before the test. The test will examine what effects the fragmentation will have on various targets.

[... and more at the jump about hypersonic this and that ...]

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/04/09/orbital-atk-tests-partially-3d-printed-warhead-for-hypersonic-weapons/


Not sure that one can draw the conclusion that AARGM-ER is going to be a Mach 5+ missile. AGM-88E is reportedly only a Mach 2 airframe. Sounds like NG is simply leveraging their IRAD investment in a new warhead design that oughta work well on the AARGM-ER.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 23:17
by bring_it_on
steve2267 wrote:Also relevant:



That Jane's article is linked in my post above.

Not sure that one can draw the conclusion that AARGM-ER is going to be a Mach 5+ missile. AGM-88E is reportedly only a Mach 2 airframe. Sounds like NG is simply leveraging their IRAD investment in a new warhead design that oughta work well on the AARGM-ER.


As the article states, Northrop Grumman IS is leveraging the technology on a whole host of programs and weapon systems. One application being hypersonic weapons, while the article very clearly mentions that NG is also developing a LEO warhead for the AARGM-ER.

A LEO warhead solution is also being developed for the extended-range variant of its AGM-88E Block 1 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM-ER), which is scheduled to enter the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase next year.


As far as the AARGM-ER speed is concerned, while not directly providing a number here's a quote from OATK from a couple of years ago (they've never mentioned hypersonic speeds)-

'Increased Survivability' is built into the AARGM ER requirement, although Stuart declined to comment on the specifics of the Orbital ATK solution, noting only that "speed is in the equation. We're going double the range in about the same amount of time, and you have to increase speed to achieve that; so speed in and of itself is an improvement to survivability. There are other aspects of our design solution that improve survivability, but these are not releasable".


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/ ... #msg307762

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 00:09
by hythelday
So it's a better HE-FRAG warhead, not DPICM "replacement". "Bigger-better-badder" fragmentation is going to do squat against armor, unlike true DPICM, like BONUS or Rockeye or whatever else.

Here's a video:


Of all the weapons they show, none have been "demonstrated" against "targeting objective: heavy target" and only Hatchet is "planned" to target "heavy targets", although I fail to see how a 60mm, six pound total weight unitary munition can effectively penetrate more than one tank.

Getting rid of cluster munitions is stupid, especially if the other side has no problem dropping RBK-500s and incendiaries in urban areas.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 01:26
by count_to_10
Unitaries are for soft targets, and cluster munitions were more meant for light armor than heavy. For heavy armor, you are really going to want precision guidance and a top attack.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 02:02
by steve2267
Was the Sensor Fuzed Weapon considered a "cluster munition"? If it met the 1% UX rate... SFW would seem to be an ideal anti-armor weapon -- it reportedly did a number on Iraqi armor, including heavy armor I would have to think, in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Except that apparently Textron voluntarily stopped manufacturing it.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 12:26
by hornetfinn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 16:06
by aussiebloke
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2019, 20:16
by SpudmanWP
Correct, but I meant two-way in the traditional sense of ongoing communications and not just a BDA report.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 00:38
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 16:27
by bring_it_on
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..

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 21:34
by aussiebloke
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2019, 22:59
by bring_it_on
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2019, 20:24
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 20:57
by aussiebloke
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2019, 20:42
by blain
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2019, 22:05
by marauder2048
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

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 07:06
by hornetfinn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2019, 13:44
by aussiebloke
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 00:01
by blain
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 01:45
by marauder2048
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 03:25
by squirrelshoes
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?

USAF used to favor CBU-97/105 for DEAD, I'm not sure how that has evolved given current tabooisms on cluster munitions.

USN also used JSOW for DEAD, which USAF never seemed very interested in.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2019, 03:52
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes 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?

USAF used to favor CBU-97/105 for DEAD, I'm not sure how that has evolved given current tabooisms on cluster munitions.

USN also used JSOW for DEAD, which USAF never seemed very interested in.



The Navy used the sub-munition variant of JSOW. These slow-moving sub-munitions aren't going to have
much utility against modern SPAAGs (they can fit a proximity fuze in a 30x113) or active protection systems;

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 00:11
by wolfpak
Wonder if they'll use this new propellant in the AARGM-ER?

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-purdue-st ... ology.html

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2019, 01:54
by marauder2048
wolfpak wrote:Wonder if they'll use this new propellant in the AARGM-ER?

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-purdue-st ... ology.html


Pretty sure NAVAIR had decided on NAWCWD's highly-loaded grain design.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 02:42
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:The Navy used the sub-munition variant of JSOW. These slow-moving sub-munitions aren't going to have much utility against modern SPAAGs (they can fit a proximity fuze in a 30x113) or active protection systems;

An SPAAG is going to shoot down 145 dispersed submunitions? Skpetical.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 06:18
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:The Navy used the sub-munition variant of JSOW. These slow-moving sub-munitions aren't going to have much utility against modern SPAAGs (they can fit a proximity fuze in a 30x113) or active protection systems;

An SPAAG is going to shoot down 145 dispersed submunitions? Skpetical.



Practically any vehicle can mount the LW30. And given how slow these submunitions
are traveling, the predictability of their trajectories and their low areal density
I don't see a huge problem particularly since the BLU-97 is a glorified grenade that only
needs to be deflected.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 08:34
by eloise
marauder2048 wrote:
Practically any vehicle can mount the LW30. And given how slow these submunitions
are traveling, the predictability of their trajectories and their low areal density
I don't see a huge problem particularly since the BLU-97 is a glorified grenade that only
needs to be deflected.

Small targets are very hard to hit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja76yCZY8fA

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2019, 11:29
by hornetfinn
As a former SPAAG crew member, there is no way any SPAAG is going to shoot down such submunitions. There is simply far too many of them and they are released at so low altitudes that there is no chance at all to shoot at them. At best there would be time to shoot down one submunition, but no more than that and there would be plenty more coming. Only chance for SPAAG would be to shoot down the carrier weapon before the submunitions are released. That would be possible but difficult to do in real world situations due to low signatures of the weapon. If the SPAAG gets advance warning of the bomb and gets it in sights, then shooting it down would be possible with the latest systems with timed (like AHEAD) or prox fuze ammo. Without them it would require huge amount of luck. Of course dropping two or more bombs simultaneously would make it much harder.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 05:07
by marauder2048
IIRC, typical JSOW-A dispense altitudes were like 3,000 feet which would give you nearly half
a minute before the sub-munitions would impact. And we are talking about very hot prox rounds fired
from a large number guns since practically any vehicle can mount a RWS with the LW30.

I agree that if you devoted one JSOW-A to a single air defense weapon and optimized the dispense altitude
to the minimum tolerable by the sub-munition fuzes (say 300 ft), then the only recourse would be
to hit the carrier vehicle.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2019, 08:50
by wrightwing
marauder2048 wrote:IIRC, typical JSOW-A dispense altitudes were like 3,000 feet which would give you nearly half
a minute before the sub-munitions would impact. And we are talking about very hot prox rounds fired
from a large number guns since practically any vehicle can mount a RWS with the LW30.

I agree that if you devoted one JSOW-A to a single air defense weapon and optimized the dispense altitude
to the minimum tolerable by the sub-munition fuzes (say 300 ft), then the only recourse would be
to hit the carrier vehicle.

That doesn't have nearly the precision needed to hit submunitions (on purpose anyhow.) If they're released outside of the guns range, it doesn't have a chance of hitting any significant number.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2019, 05:51
by marauder2048
wrightwing wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:IIRC, typical JSOW-A dispense altitudes were like 3,000 feet which would give you nearly half
a minute before the sub-munitions would impact. And we are talking about very hot prox rounds fired
from a large number guns since practically any vehicle can mount a RWS with the LW30.

I agree that if you devoted one JSOW-A to a single air defense weapon and optimized the dispense altitude
to the minimum tolerable by the sub-munition fuzes (say 300 ft), then the only recourse would be
to hit the carrier vehicle.

That doesn't have nearly the precision needed to hit submunitions (on purpose anyhow.) If they're released outside of the guns range, it doesn't have a chance of hitting any significant number.


You are talking about a sub-munition that's descending at ~ 100 fps and has to, practically speaking,
make contact with a vehicle to damage it.

For this round, it depends on the proximity fuze radius and the blast/frag radius; my impression
is that it's the HEI version rather than the HEDP version so the fragment velocity or blast effect might
well be higher.

I haven't mentioned the guided version but it is under development.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 09:19
by squirrelshoes
Here is a video of a JSOW-A, it has a timestamp running that shows the time from submuntion dispersal to striking the ground is less than 5 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KapgbVRPjaI

IMO it takes a suspension of disbelief to consider a gun (or even many guns) having any effect on that cloud of 145 submunitions, regardless of how fancy the ammunition. It's what hornetfinn said, you either hit the JSOW container unit before it releases payload or you're toast.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 10:45
by hornetfinn
marauder2048 wrote:You are talking about a sub-munition that's descending at ~ 100 fps and has to, practically speaking,
make contact with a vehicle to damage it.

For this round, it depends on the proximity fuze radius and the blast/frag radius; my impression
is that it's the HEI version rather than the HEDP version so the fragment velocity or blast effect might
well be higher.

I haven't mentioned the guided version but it is under development.


There are numerous problems with engaging such small submunitions.

First, there is a lot of them coming your way and it takes approximately 3-10 seconds (depending on many factors) for a modern SPAAG to engage a single target after it has been detected. Naturally detection will not be instantaneous when those submunitions are released. That means those submunitions would descend at least 500 feet from release before first projectiles would leave the barrels. Then it takes few seconds to fire at that single target even if the target is killed. It usually takes about 1 second to fire and 2-8 seconds (range dependent mostly) for projectiles to reach their targets and confirming that target is killed. So that means those submunitions are falling at least additional 300 feet before first submunition is taken out by single SPAAG. Then it takes additional 5-10 seconds to engage second submunition. Another additional 500-1000 feet for submunitions to fall. So now the SPAAG has taken out 2 submunitions at most if the release altitude was above 1500 feet and everything goes very smoothly for the SPAAG and crew is very skilled at what they do. The crew also needs to be extremely alert during the time of attack and SPAAG is fully operating at the time.

RWS systems on other vehicles are far less capable in taking out very small fast moving object with their guns. Their fire control systems are simply not designed for that. They can take out helicopters and ground attack aircraft that come within range, but submunitions would be very difficult. They don't have radar to detect the submunitions and would rely on very narrow FoV thermal/optical sights. Those cool and small submunitions would be very difficult to detect and track using those sensors. RWS systems generally do not generally have fully computerized and automated FCS like modern SPAAGs do. They are mostly manually operated, which means that chances of targeting a very small submunition are very, very low. Some systems have automatic target trackers, but still require manual targeting before autotracker can lock on which would be very difficult to do with such a very small target. If the range is long, chances are that submunitions would not be seen at all. At close ranges the submunition would move quickly relative to RWS and would require turning the sights very quickly. This would make it very difficult for the RWS gunner to keep the submunition in sights.

It would require enormous number of modern guns to have chance in shooting down even 1/10th the submunitions in a single JSOW, IMO. This might be doable with future C-RAM system with laser guns.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 12:55
by viper12
Hyvææ pæivææ ! (spoken (nearly) like a true Finn :mrgreen: )

Just to be sure, what's RWS in this context ?

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 17:31
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:Here is a video of a JSOW-A, it has a timestamp running that shows the time from submuntion dispersal to striking the ground is less than 5 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KapgbVRPjaI

IMO it takes a suspension of disbelief to consider a gun (or even many guns) having any effect on that cloud of 145 submunitions, regardless of how fancy the ammunition. It's what hornetfinn said, you either hit the JSOW container unit before it releases payload or you're toast.



Which implies a dispense altitude in the 600 feet range; typical dispense altitudes for JSOW-A were around 3000 feet.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 17:42
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:Here is a video of a JSOW-A, it has a timestamp running that shows the time from submuntion dispersal to striking the ground is less than 5 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KapgbVRPjaI

IMO it takes a suspension of disbelief to consider a gun (or even many guns) having any effect on that cloud of 145 submunitions, regardless of how fancy the ammunition. It's what hornetfinn said, you either hit the JSOW container unit before it releases payload or you're toast.



Which implies a dispense altitude in the 600 feet range; typical dispense altitudes for JSOW-A were around 3000 feet.


For the bus to avoid getting killed before it dispenses it needs to release the submunitions miles before impact. Obviously this means smart, maneuverable sub-munitions. Think ATACMS/BAT.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2019, 18:33
by SpudmanWP
The dispense altitude will depend on how large an impact zone you are looking for. Don't forget that the JSOW is an LO platform that will be very hard to detect & track before it released it's payload.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 08:25
by hornetfinn
viper12 wrote:Hyvææ pæivææ ! (spoken (nearly) like a true Finn :mrgreen: )

Just to be sure, what's RWS in this context ?


Hyvää päivää sinullekin! :D

RWS in this context means Remote Weapons Station. Basically a small unmanned turret equipped with small to medium caliber weapons and thermal/optical sights.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 19:24
by marauder2048
Submunitions are typically ejected with a combination of pyrotechnics and either direct or indirect (think airbag)
contact with a hot gas generator. So they are pretty warm when first ejected.

Because of the UAV threat, you're starting to see more RWS capable of being directed by small radars.
This is the Blighter A400 which if you look at the data sheet is more than capable of tracking lots of slow moving
metallic cans at tactically useful ranges.

Then there's firing doctrine; pattern fire is generally what's called for in this situation particularly if you have a
proximity round.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 20:58
by wrightwing
There isn't a cannon in existence, that can stop hundreds of incoming projectiles, regardless of how well the projectiles are tracked.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2019, 22:06
by marauder2048
I don't think it's going to be the case of single cannon vs threat cloud given the number of RWS stations
that can accommodate the LW30 and the number of the C-UAS vehicle mounted radars out there.

And we haven't started in on APS.

So my view on the utility slow, non-stealthy weapons against threats equipped with all of the above is not favorable.

Aside from AARGM-ER, JSOW-C-1 would be a useful bus for a weapon with a high-speed terminal stage.

I'll also note that there's already money to add seekers to TACMS and GMLRS-ER for land-attack against
moving targets; their high approach velocities are harder for terminal systems to counter.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 01:20
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:I don't think it's going to be the case of single cannon vs threat cloud given the number of RWS stations that can accommodate the LW30 and the number of the C-UAS vehicle mounted radars out there.

So the IADS elements are immune from submunitions because each will have a fleet of vehicles parked around them with advanced gun systems that can somehow coordinate and each pick out different submunitions to engage? Still skeptical.

marauder2048 wrote:So my view on the utility slow, non-stealthy weapons against threats equipped with all of the above is not favorable.
It isn't physically possible to engage 145 slow, non-stealthy, soda can sized objects using gunfire especially with such a small window of opportunity.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 02:50
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:So the IADS elements are immune from submunitions because each will have a fleet of vehicles parked around them with advanced gun systems that can somehow coordinate and each pick out different submunitions to engage? Still skeptical.


I never claimed immunity just reduced utility. By virtue of this and APS.

Most of the C-UAS radars of this type are typically integrated into SHORAD networks; FAAD C2 in the US.
The coordination required here is on par with a multi-gun C-RAM engagement which is a combat reality
but more relaxed in some ways since you aren't reliant on body-to-body contact to deflect, damage or destroy
thick-walled artillery shells.

But there's nothing particularly advanced about the LW30 or the C-UAS radars.
You might call a medium caliber proximity round advanced but it's well within the state-of-the-art.

squirrelshoes wrote:It isn't physically possible to engage 145 slow, non-stealthy, soda can sized objects using gunfire especially with such a small window of opportunity.


Given about 30 seconds time-of-flight from the typical dispensing altitude. Yeah. You have lots of time.
The lower the dispense altitude, the less area of uncertainty a cluster munition system can cover which
tends to require greater expenditure of munitions. The point of JSOW is standoff so you have the time-of-flight
of the weapon + the time of flight of the sub-munitions which given the typical standoff range means
there's a lot of area to cover. Hence the higher dispense altitudes.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 05:10
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:I never claimed immunity just reduced utility. By virtue of this and APS.

You said: "These slow-moving sub-munitions aren't going to have much utility against modern SPAAGs"

To me that implies a belief they aren't a threat to them.

marauder2048 wrote:Most of the C-UAS radars of this type are typically integrated into SHORAD networks; FAAD C2 in the US.
The coordination required here is on par with a multi-gun C-RAM engagement which is a combat reality
but more relaxed in some ways since you aren't reliant on body-to-body contact to deflect, damage or destroy
thick-walled artillery shells.

A C-RAM engagement is targeting a single incoming round come in on a ballistic trajectory, that doesn't seem to be same coordination to engage 145 rounds popping into existence on a downward trajectory that might have less than 5 seconds until impact.

squirrelshoes wrote:Given about 30 seconds time-of-flight from the typical dispensing altitude. Yeah. You have lots of time. The lower the dispense altitude, the less area of uncertainty a cluster munition system can cover which
tends to require greater expenditure of munitions. The point of JSOW is standoff so you have the time-of-flight
of the weapon + the time of flight of the sub-munitions which given the typical standoff range means
there's a lot of area to cover. Hence the higher dispense altitudes.

You keep talking about this typical dispensing altitude but as others pointed out it depends on what you're trying to hit. If a particular IADS element is the target it could well be a lower burst just like you saw in the video where there was less than five seconds from from burst until impact. Higher burst has more utility for convoys of vehicles and other dispersed targets. Do you have a source for this 30 seconds thing, specifically for SEAD/DEAD role?

Even if it was 30 seconds how many submunitions do you really believe could be targeted by a gun given time to track, calculate firing solution, physically aim the weapon, and confirm a shoot down before moving on to the next?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 07:08
by hornetfinn
There is so simple and inexpensive counter to any gun based defence system and that is launching multiple weapons against one target. Launching say 4 JSOWs against one AD target (like SPAAG) is going to result in almost 600 cluster munitions at once. How about 2 bombs releasing their load at 3,000 ft and 2 bombs doing the same at 500 feet?

One real problem with such gun defence is that it requires a lot of vehicles parked near each other just to protect one AD system. Gun systems have short range to begin with and accuracy goes down with range meaning a lot more rounds need to be fired to hit targets. 30 mm prox fuze has very short effective range as it simply does not contain much explosives or fragments. So it doesn't really matter if they shoot one burst against single submunition at a time or if they fire in pattern to cover a large area at once. The kill probability per round will be very low in any case and a very large number of guns is needed and parked in a very small geographical area. All those vehicles also need to be in suitable overlapping firing positions with all systems up and running at the time the submunitions are released. That sounds like a juicy target to me.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 12:32
by sferrin
The notion that a cloud of 100+ submunitions is going to get shot down with guns is laughable. You need directed energy weapons for that, with little need to lead the target and zero time of flight. Even then it isn't instant. The most THEL ever tried to engage simultaneously was five. FIVE. And that was with a laser. Just go watch C-RAM shooting at targets. Now multiply that by 100+. To defend ONE target.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 15:34
by hythelday
sferrin wrote:The notion that a cloud of 100+ submunitions is going to get shot down with guns is laughable. ... Just go watch C-RAM shooting at targets. Now multiply that by 100+. To defend ONE target.


He's gonna say that 20mm don't have proxy fuzes :D



Marauder, I gotta say that nobody on this thread so far agrees with you even remotely that SPAAGs can successfully defend against submunitions. Those include people who served with a weapon system like this:


A not something as flimsy as M230, just lookat the dispersion:


Besides, if what you say is true, and a couple of RWS can take care of 140+ submunitions, what chance does a single missile have? :devil:

Oh and BTW I don't know a single APS in service that 1) protects from arial attack 2) ismeant to defend against several projectiles coming from the same sector.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 16:34
by SpudmanWP
Remember that nothing works alone.

If the defensible nature of the target was a serious enough threat to it's success, then just add a little icing on the cake in the form of some standoff jamming or a MALD-J.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 18:36
by marauder2048
hythelday wrote:
sferrin wrote:The notion that a cloud of 100+ submunitions is going to get shot down with guns is laughable. ... Just go watch C-RAM shooting at targets. Now multiply that by 100+. To defend ONE target.


He's gonna say that 20mm don't have proxy fuzes :D


They have self-destruct fuzes. Mainly to prevent UOX from the rounds that miss.


hythelday wrote:A not something as flimsy as M230, just lookat the dispersion:


Dispersion is desirable for pattern fire.

hythelday wrote:Besides, if what you say is true, and a couple of RWS can take care of 140+ submunitions, what chance does a single missile have? :devil:


Quite a good chance since the approach velocity is much faster.

hythelday wrote:
Oh and BTW I don't know a single APS in service that 1) protects from arial attack 2) ismeant to defend against several projectiles coming from the same sector.


They protect against top attack munitions.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 21:27
by marauder2048
hornetfinn wrote:There is so simple and inexpensive counter to any gun based defence system and that is launching multiple weapons against one target. Launching say 4 JSOWs against one AD target (like SPAAG) is going to result in almost 600 cluster munitions at once. How about 2 bombs releasing their load at 3,000 ft and 2 bombs doing the same at 500 feet?


So that's all of the JSOWs a two-ship formation of F-35s can carry. For a single emitter.

hornetfinn wrote:One real problem with such gun defence is that it requires a lot of vehicles parked near each other just to protect one AD system. Gun systems have short range to begin with and accuracy goes down with range meaning a lot more rounds need to be fired to hit targets. 30 mm prox fuze has very short effective range as it simply does not contain much explosives or fragments. So it doesn't really matter if they shoot one burst against single submunition at a time or if they fire in pattern to cover a large area at once. The kill probability per round will be very low in any case and a very large number of guns is needed and parked in a very small geographical area. All those vehicles also need to be in suitable overlapping firing positions with all systems up and running at the time the submunitions are released. That sounds like a juicy target to me.


Judging by the HEI-T round, the effective radius is around 5 m. That's not very short.

You don't need to kill a submunition; deflection is sufficient since it can only kill a vehicle protected by
the most basic B-kit armor by direct contact.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2019, 21:43
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:I never claimed immunity just reduced utility. By virtue of this and APS.

You said: "These slow-moving sub-munitions aren't going to have much utility against modern SPAAGs"

To me that implies a belief they aren't a threat to them.


Where do I claim that cluster munitions are not a threat?

squirrelshoes wrote:A C-RAM engagement is targeting a single incoming round


I hope you aren't suggesting that C-RAM engagements don't involve destroying multiple incoming rounds because they do.

squirrelshoes wrote:come in on a ballistic trajectory,


As opposed to the much slower ballistic trajectory for cluster munitions?


squirrelshoes wrote:You keep talking about this typical dispensing altitude but as others pointed out it depends on what you're trying to hit. If a particular IADS element is the target it could well be a lower burst just like you saw in the video where there was less than five seconds from from burst until impact. Higher burst has more utility for convoys of vehicles and other dispersed targets.


The median ellipse for a T/FDOA 2-ship receiver configuration against one emitter is 2.5 km^2.
If the target can move during the time-of-the-flight of the munition (for JSOW from typical ranges TOF is *minutes*)
the area you have to cover grows dramatically. This either requires high-altitude dispensing (low-altitude is around 0.4 km^2 area effect) or a large number of weapons.

JSOW will have to deal with the possible interception of the bus and its sub-munitions; both are slow and the latter
are very slow so the number of shots the defense gets against both is high.

AARGM-ER doesn't suffer from this problem and has an active seeker to search out the area of uncertainty.

The average altitude for dispensing is GWI was 3000 feet; I believe I read that in the Gulf War air power survey.
But you could argue that the SCUD hunt (where they went for maximum area coverage) distorts the average.

If you can find median dispensing altitudes that would be helpful; most everything has to be inferred from the patterns
the sub-munitions left on the ground in Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia and Afghanistan.

squirrelshoes wrote:Even if it was 30 seconds how many submunitions do you really believe could be targeted by a gun given time to track, calculate firing solution, physically aim the weapon, and confirm a shoot down before moving on to the next?


The whole point of pattern fire is that relaxes the need to abide by this firing doctrine.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 17:57
by spazsinbad
Here’s how a radar-killing missile is getting a whole lot more capable [VIDEO 'missile for F-35 explained']
03 Jun 2019 Jeff Martin

"Here's how a radar-killing missile is getting a whole lot more capable

Northrop Grumman's Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile is in the process of some major upgrades that will see it able to be launched from an F-35."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters ... e-capable/

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 18:17
by eloise
marauder2048 wrote:
The median ellipse for a T/FDOA 2-ship receiver configuration against one emitter is 2.5 km^2.
If the target can move during the time-of-the-flight of the munition (for JSOW from typical ranges TOF is *minutes*)
the area you have to cover grows dramatically. This either requires high-altitude dispensing (low-altitude is around 0.4 km^2 area effect) or a large number of weapons.

JSOW will have to deal with the ?



How do you come up with the number for the median?

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 18:57
by spazsinbad
F-35 Anti-Radiation Missile for Weapon Bay from DefenseNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWJ_qe0oCFc


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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 19:45
by marauder2048
eloise wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
The median ellipse for a T/FDOA 2-ship receiver configuration against one emitter is 2.5 km^2.
If the target can move during the time-of-the-flight of the munition (for JSOW from typical ranges TOF is *minutes*)
the area you have to cover grows dramatically. This either requires high-altitude dispensing (low-altitude is around 0.4 km^2 area effect) or a large number of weapons.

JSOW will have to deal with the ?



How do you come up with the number for the median?


https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1000/RR1051/RAND_RR1051.pdf

Page 112 which cites the dissertation:


https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/2012/RAND_RGSD308.pdf