AARGM / VFDR Missiles

SOC

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
24 January 2006
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
373

Attachments

  • ARC VFDR.JPG
    ARC VFDR.JPG
    59.2 KB · Views: 1,400
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is another shot of that one and also the ramjet AARGM (notice it also has the ARC logo on the board) to eliminate confusion. I think the one launched from the Phantom is larger than the one on the F-16, at least in diameter.

edit: Just hazarding a guess but "ARC VFDR" could stand for "Atlantic Research Corp. Variable Flow Ducted Rocket" a program mentioned in "FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID PROPELLANT TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS AT ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION", an AIAA paper. They apparently did two static firings with both of them successful.

From another site:

"The company is the US leader in air- breathing rocket technology following the successful completion of a I0-year, $50m variable flow-ducted rocket (VFDR) programme. This proven technology best meets the requirements of the advanced strike weapon and the beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM). ARC has extensive in-house facilities for ramjet testing. "

And another:

Aerojet Awarded Air Force Research Laboratory Ramjet Development Contract

Aerojet, a GenCorp Inc. company, through its recently announced acquisition of the assets of Atlantic Research Corporation’s propulsion business (ARC Propulsion) was named by Raytheon Missile Systems to be the […]
www.spaceref.com www.spaceref.com

It's also mentioned in this AIAA paper (with picture)

"The evolution of ramjet missile propulsion in the U.S. and where we are headed" The picture in that paper is a dead ringer for the one on the F-16.
 

Attachments

  • DUCTROCK.gif
    DUCTROCK.gif
    60 KB · Views: 1,160
  • AARGM2.jpg
    AARGM2.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 1,133
  • together.jpg
    together.jpg
    114.3 KB · Views: 1,099
  • today 2.jpg
    today 2.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 1,058
The AARGM2 picture shows a different missile from either the QF-4 shots or the F-16 ones. The inlets are side mounted versus the "4 o'clock and 7 o'clock" ones of the other pics.
The diameter of the missile on the F-4 looks very close to the HARM. In fact i bet it's the same body/seeker bolted on a different rear propulsive end.
I can't quite figure out if the missile on the F-16 is the same as on the F-4. The configuration is definitely the same, but I can't tell if it's the same body diameter/overall size. ???

what do you guys think?

according to this

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net www.f-16.net
the missile is part of the
the program's name is HSAD
 
The one with the side ducts was the configuration that was originally going to be used for AARGM and then AARGM became simply a front end replacement for the HARM. Since then I've heard nothing of it. If it were me I'd go with the airframe on the F-4 as it is both the most recent (ASALM is long dead and I believe the AARGM config. is as well) and probably the most likely to be used in a future ARM.
 
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.


HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.

Aerojet's variable-flow ducted rocket (VFDR), aka integrated rocket ramjet (IRR), already powers the Navy's Orbital Sciences GQM-163 Coyote supersonic sea-skimming target.

And here's the Navy's picture of the HSAD launch:
 
And the AGM-88E AARGM upgrade for HARM, meanwhile, has completed operational assessment firings, according to this Alliant Techsystems August press release:


A production decision is scheduled for later this year. As pointed out previously, AARGM is a guidance system upgrade for HARM (and only Navy HARMs), while HSAD (which uses AARGM's guidance section) would be a propulsion upgrade.

The problem appears to be a disagreement between the Air Force and Navy over what the next anti-radar missile should be. The Air Force wants JDRADM to replace both AMRAAM and HARM, but the Navy has no formal interest.
 
CammNut said:
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=3977&site_id=16

HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.
Click to expand...

Which strikes me as odd. Do they think HARM will last forever? Not sure I'd want to be the guy in an F-16 trying to launch a HARM at an S-400 site. :eek:
 
sferrin said:
CammNut said:
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=3977&site_id=16

HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.
Click to expand...

Which strikes me as odd. Do they think HARM will last forever? Not sure I'd want to be the guy in an F-16 trying to launch a HARM at an S-400 site. :eek:
Click to expand...


Possibly they're thinking that with a propulsion upgrade to HARM, they can get the desired standoff range with lower risk and cost, sort of like what happened with JASSM and SLAM-ER (based on Harpoon). Specifically, JASSM has 50nm more range, and is stealthy, but has had a protracted and troubled development and entry into service. SLAM-ER goes far enough to meet the Navy's needs, had an easy introduction and was available years before JASSM. Maybe USN thinks a propulsion upgrade to HARM would do the same thing.
 
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
CammNut said:
Here's the link to the Navy's release on the HSAD "controlled test vehicle" launch from a QF-4 over White Sands in August.

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.view&Press_release_id=3977&site_id=16

HSAD is a Congressional "earmark" - in other words Aerojet's pet Congressman inserted funding into the budget to pay for the program as there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile.
Click to expand...

Which strikes me as odd. Do they think HARM will last forever? Not sure I'd want to be the guy in an F-16 trying to launch a HARM at an S-400 site. :eek:
Click to expand...


Possibly they're thinking that with a propulsion upgrade to HARM, they
Click to expand...

"there is not formal Navy (or Air Force) requirement for a faster, longer-range anti-radiation missile" when they say that they're referring to the HARM propulsion upgrade.
 
This is a pic i have of the weapon..
 

Attachments

  • HARM_VFDR.jpg
    HARM_VFDR.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 225
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
 

Attachments

  • Q4:HSAD1.jpg
    Q4:HSAD1.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 195
  • Q4:HSAD.jpg
    Q4:HSAD.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 162
From "uclass" at F-16.net:
 

Attachments

  • rtn_141803.jpg
    rtn_141803.jpg
    404.6 KB · Views: 454
Propulsion section from T3 and the AARGM guidance section. T3 program objectives included internal carriage for L-O platforms...
 
Thats fast AARGM-ER RFI was due by March ;)

www.scribd.com

Aargm Er Rfi | PDF

Aargm Er Rfi
www.scribd.com www.scribd.com

Interestingly the placement of the intakes isn't much different from the image DARPA used for the T3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
Click to expand...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?
 
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
Click to expand...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're looking too close. Other than pointy front ends and fire at the back they have nothing in common. However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread, and look real close, you may start to think Meteor looks just like a configuration the USAF has been playing with for decades. ;)
 
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
Click to expand...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're looking too close. Other than pointy front ends and fire at the back they have nothing in common. However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread, and look real close, you may start to think Meteor looks just like a configuration the USAF has been playing with for decades. ;)
Click to expand...

Any pictures of this missile?
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
Click to expand...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're looking too close. Other than pointy front ends and fire at the back they have nothing in common. However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread, and look real close, you may start to think Meteor looks just like a configuration the USAF has been playing with for decades. ;)
Click to expand...

Any pictures of this missile?
Click to expand...

"However, if you go back to the beginning of the thread"
 
FighterJock said:
bring_it_on said:
Thanks !

Edit- A better resolution of some of the images posted earlier...
Click to expand...

If you look close enough you may start to think that it looks like the Meteor air-air missile. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

It looks nothing like that other than the fact that its a missile and looks like one, is a VFDR missile so will have intakes etc. US Ramjet Air missiles have been tried and tested for years going into decades. One such concept was even offered to the UK's FRAAM requirements which essentially was an AMRAAM with a ramjet.

Does the Meteor look like the Ramjet AMRAAM? :) or another missile that even pre-dates that proposal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The HARM was built most recently by Raytheon, later Orbital ATK won the contract to produce the AARGM upgrade. Whoever wins AARGM-ER will produce it.
 
Interesting. The back end looks like a mockup, with no visible segment joins or control surface gaps - the front end could be a ground-training round or other hardware. It's probably not T3 because AFAIK T3 was intended to be AMRAAM-sized and HARM is >2x larger than AMRAAM.,,


And here it is:


www.flightglobal.com

Raytheon lifts veil on ramjet-powered HARM

Raytheon today unveiled a new concept for revolutionizing the accuracy, range, speed and perhaps even the mission of the quarter-century-old AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM).
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
 
LowObservable said:
Interesting. The back end looks like a mockup, with no visible segment joins or control surface gaps - the front end could be a ground-training round or other hardware. It's probably not T3 because AFAIK T3 was intended to be AMRAAM-sized and HARM is >2x larger than AMRAAM.,,


And here it is:


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-lifts-veil-on-ramjet-powered-harm-223342/
Click to expand...

This missile was reported on by Janes as well around the same time...
 

Attachments

  • HARM_VFDR.jpg
    HARM_VFDR.jpg
    53 KB · Views: 510
sferrin said:
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of alive. I believe the Navy is leaning toward if not decided upon a dual-pulse solid motor for AARGM-ER, but Raytheon and Aerojet are still actively promoting a VFDR solution either as a long-term upgrade or for other customers. So the weapon depicted in that mockup is not an active DoD program at this moment, but neither is it sitting forgotten in a warehouse.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
So did this thing ever go anywhere? Looks like many other concepts that made it to model stage and were then forgotten.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of alive. I believe the Navy is leaning toward if not decided upon a dual-pulse solid motor for AARGM-ER, but Raytheon and Aerojet are still actively promoting a VFDR solution either as a long-term upgrade or for other customers. So the weapon depicted in that mockup is not an active DoD program at this moment, but neither is it sitting forgotten in a warehouse.
Click to expand...

But did Raytheon ever actually fly that configuration? Here's another one (though what program is anybody's guess)
 

Attachments

  • jrakzrakraketahn3.jpg
    jrakzrakraketahn3.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 478
  • raytheon dradm.jpg
    raytheon dradm.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 481
sferrin said:
But did Raytheon ever actually fly that configuration? Here's another one (though what program is anybody's guess)
Click to expand...
Such testing may not have been disclosed publicly, depending on what the circumstances. That mockup is the Raytheon competitor for DRADM, with a 7" diameter VFDR. Circa 2011.
 
Possibly related (from Raytheon's 2nd quarter 2015 earnings report)

"MS [Missile Systems] also booked $99 million on a classified program"

It's the first classified program booking for Raytheon MS in some time.
 
Yet another AARGM (AARGM-ER). Hopefully it amounts to something.
 

Attachments

  • AARGM_ER.png
    AARGM_ER.png
    731.5 KB · Views: 299
James Drew (AvWeek) says the Orbital ATK mockup is a " double-range AARGM Extended Range with 11.5" rocket motor. Internal carriage on F-35"
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom