AARGM-ER cleared for EMD [for F-35A/C & other aircraft]
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/
- Active Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12
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
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 20:42
- Location: USA
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?
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?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
- Active Member
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29
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
Last edited by aussiebloke on 09 Mar 2019, 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
- Elite 4K
- Posts: 4474
- Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22
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.
'scudbuster' thanks for graphics. Would you happen to have the source/URL for the modified graphic below please? Thanks.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
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
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
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
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.
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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
- Active Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests