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/

Excellent!

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

He is more detail on the AARGM-ER and comparison to the ARRGM

Also found this image from Orbital ATK twitter from way back in the 2015:

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?

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

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.

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

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.

Given that the HARM's range is given 90+ miles, drift can be a lot

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.

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.

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.