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

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

bring_it_on

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1007
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post26 Aug 2021, 13:52

The Air-Force has added a fair number of additional target types that it wants to defeat from a stand-in weapon. So let's assume that a mobile tactical ballistic or cruise missile launcher is being set up and the AF can get F-35A's, or B-21's within 100-120 km of the that then you are looking at possibly a 1.5-2 minute total flight to impact. Maybe less. That's very little time for an air-defense to protect the asset especially if the SAM's are not co-located.

It will be very interesting to see how the SiAW evolves. The AARGM-ER with a fuze and warhead upgrade meets AF's interim SEAD needs. SiAW will likely need additional technology insertion (that's where most of the AF's money on it seems to be going). Kinematically, the AARGM-ER is there to meet the stand-in mission need. Guidance wise, I think they may insert a new seeker to go after some of the completely passive or non radar type targets (perhaps IIR?).
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post26 Aug 2021, 23:19

Yep, plus from a DEAD perspective that also ought to help clean up SAM TELs, command vehicles etc., not just the emitters. You could theoretically wipe an entire SAM site with a large enough salvo, since they simply wouldn't have enough time to relocate from the time of launch.
Offline

bring_it_on

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1007
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post27 Aug 2021, 00:18

IADS (all components) is just part of the target set for the USAF while it may be the entire set for the Growlers. AF wants SiAW to hunt Cruise and Ballistic Missile launchers, Anti Ship Missile launchers, and IADS. So i think it makes sense to field the modified AARGM-ER as the interim SEAD weapon, and then insert technologies into it, or another weapon that go after the complete requirement. That's what they seem to be spending their money on. A little over half of the money they've requested for SiAW goes towards developing and integrating the new fuze and warhead, or integrating basic AARGM-ER with the F-35 using UAI. The rest is being spent on component level tech development, maturation and to fund competitive SiAW prototypes before they select the final solution.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26380
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Aug 2021, 14:10

Navy’s Anti-Air Defense Missile Readying For Initial Production
27 Aug 2021 Justin Katz

"With the missile past milestone C, the Navy is now clear to award Northrop Grumman a low-rate initial production contract in the coming months....

...The extended range modification improves the weapon’s guidance and control sections, includes a new rocket motor, and installs a Control Actuation System in an outer mold that allows the missile to be launched from different aircraft....

...The service plans to procure 54 missiles in fiscal year 2022, according to budget justification documents. The program office conducted its first live-fire event in July to “verify system integration and rocket motor performance, as well as initiate modeling and simulation validation,” according to a Navy statement.

“Captive and live fire flight testing is planned to continue through 2022 and initial operational capability is planned for 2023,” the statement continues."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/nav ... roduction/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post14 Sep 2021, 02:50

eloise wrote:Their current configuration of THOR-ER is with 10 inches diameter , which is the same diameter as HARMs. So current range can be 3-4 times of HARMs. But suppose if THOR-ER design is chosen as basis for production SIAW ,I don't see any technical barrier to why they can't just make production THOR-ER with 11.5 inches body , in which case it can get 3-4 times the range of AARGM-ER.

Why doesn't Meteor have 3x range of AIM-120D?

Both missiles are 12 feet long, 7"wide, and the Meteor is in fact a much heavier missile.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5716
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Sep 2021, 16:50

squirrelshoes wrote:
eloise wrote:Their current configuration of THOR-ER is with 10 inches diameter , which is the same diameter as HARMs. So current range can be 3-4 times of HARMs. But suppose if THOR-ER design is chosen as basis for production SIAW ,I don't see any technical barrier to why they can't just make production THOR-ER with 11.5 inches body , in which case it can get 3-4 times the range of AARGM-ER.

Why doesn't Meteor have 3x range of AIM-120D?

Both missiles are 12 feet long, 7"wide, and the Meteor is in fact a much heavier missile.


Because ramjets don't have 3 times the range of rockets.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3669
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Sep 2021, 07:29

sferrin wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:
eloise wrote:Their current configuration of THOR-ER is with 10 inches diameter , which is the same diameter as HARMs. So current range can be 3-4 times of HARMs. But suppose if THOR-ER design is chosen as basis for production SIAW ,I don't see any technical barrier to why they can't just make production THOR-ER with 11.5 inches body , in which case it can get 3-4 times the range of AARGM-ER.

Why doesn't Meteor have 3x range of AIM-120D?

Both missiles are 12 feet long, 7"wide, and the Meteor is in fact a much heavier missile.


Because ramjets don't have 3 times the range of rockets.


Exactly. It's likely that ramjets do have longer range than rockets, but I think these 3-5 times range claims are comparing them to decades old missiles with rocket motors. These missiles used a lot of space for seeker electronics reducing fuel volume and also had rather inefficient flight profiles. Modern versions of the same missiles have a lot longer ranges due to larger fuel volume and more efficient flight profiles.

AIM-120D has a lot longer (something like 2-3 times) range than AIM-120A/B with just larger fuel volume and more efficient flight profiles. I think ramjet Meteor missile likely has somewhat longer range and especially NEZ, but difference is probably a lot less than 3 times. I bet it depends on target and engagement geometry, how big the difference there really is. At shorter ranges rocket motors with much higher acceleration will likely be preferable.

Modern dual/multi boost rocket motors seem to offer almost similar range improvement than ramjets. For example MICA NG has over twice the range over current MICA with dual boost rocket motor and more compact internals with more volume for fuel. AARGM-ER also has a dual boost rocket motor which gives it over twice the range of AARGM/HARM missile while having far higher speed. I doubt ramjet engine would give it 3 times longer range than AARGM-ER. Maybe 3 times longer range over AARGM/HARM.
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest