Lockheed Martin AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)

[sferrin]

Whoever got fired would just be replaced with equally useless people who now have to worry about getting fired for failure. It's ridiculous.

Not for failure for giving up at the sign of a serious problem instead of trying to solve it, make it clear to the replacement what is expected of them which is to persevere NOT quit at the sign of the problem.

Sadly, it's usually lip service. How many times have we heard, "this time it's different. We know it will be difficult, but we accept there will be failure along the way." Then failure comes and it's, "whoops, can't have that. We quit".

 

[bring_it_on]

I think axing it at this point just means they'll have to come back later and spend the same money again to get back to the same place they are now.

I think the USAF is more interested in HACM because it’s much less expensive and more can be carried on a wider variety of platforms. But of course it wouldn’t enter service until 2028ish.

More like the 2030s unless you factor in the insanely small "leave behind" capability they are talking about. This decade for the USAF is primarily about raising production and annual buys for existing weapons like Stormbreaker, JASSM/LRASM and the less risky programs like SiAW and JATM, AMRAAM etc. This is not a bad thing since those, in higher quantities, are much needed since much of the last decade was spent in ramping up buys for direct attack munitions etc.

HACM if it makes it through development will not enter production in any meaningful quantity until the next decade.

ARRW has 2 more flight tests after which its production fate will be in the hands of Congress. The USAF will not fund production but the Congress could always do so. It is the only option of decent sized annual buys of AL hypersonic system this decade. I don't blame the folks focusing on the munition buys to want the cheaper stuff in greater quantities. At least until a more affordability (hopefully) hypersonic option is delivered. The SM-6 Blk 1B, and the LRHW are the only hypersonic systems that will be produced this decade in anything besides bespoke very low rate quantities mostly there to support flight test activities and within the narrow "residual/leave behind" definitions of a usual MTA contract.

Service admits ARRW test failed, and hints pretty heavily they're about ready to walk away from in in favor of HACM.

ARRW hypersonic missile test failed, US Air Force admits

Secretary Frank Kendall confirmed this month's ARRW hypersonic test wasn't successful, and said the service is more committed to another weapon.

www.defensenews.com

Just another example of them quitting as soon as something gets a little difficult. Makes me want to puke.

They are likely going to complete the program and finish all the flight tests. I think the tone on the program has very much been that it may not make the cut even if its successful primarily due to its cost and the availability of a cheaper option 3-5 years out to its start of production. Its not like they are cutting spending on munitions..they will pump that money to boost production rates and annual buys on existing programs.

Tell me 1 system that is not ICBM/SLBM in the Western world has with similar capability to Kinzhal? , there is nothing, not even remotely close.

When has any of this been a criteria for starting/stopping a weapons program?

For strike weapons, the USAF aims to increase production of its existing portfolio, and field the SiAW and its stand off analogue with both being digitally engineered for rapid upgradability to meet its need. HACM and ARRW were very much viewed as medium term options given that their core technologies were still transitioning from DARPA/AFRL and into actual programs. That comes with development and production risk. The SiAW and the stand off program are going to be based on a lot more mature, and easier to produce, tech so hopefully will be available in far greater quantities..and sooner (at scale) relative to the more exotic air-breathing or boost glide options.

Ultimately, if someone is trying to build or increase in quality/quantity of the munitions portfolio for 2030, then the focus on those programs is more than justified. You can field those in far greater quantities, at far lower cost and make them compatible with a larger number of platforms. HACM or ARRW 2.0 will still mostly be in flight testing or very low rate production and only available in handful of quantities till then. If you want to build a decent sized hypersonic capability by 2030 the best focus should be on arming ships with SM61B, and increase the production of ground launchers, and LRHW missiles. We have factories and an established industrial base for those that can scale over the next five years if we so wish.

 

[sferrin]

Patriot was struggling against the several decade old Scud, I highly doubt that it can intercept something that capable of moving at Mach 12. When was the last time PAC-2 or PAC-3 intercept anything moving at Mach 10-12? Never happened, even in test.

Original Patriot struggled against SCUD. Here's PAC-3 intercepting a maneuvering Pershing II RV decades ago:

OSC Storm

www.designation-systems.net

PAC-3 MSE is even more capable. And don't forget THAAD. Lastly, Kinzhals peak speed is Mach 10-12 in very thin atmosphere/space. By the time it's down to 50k feet it's speed will have dropped significantly.

 

[Forest Green]

Patriot was struggling against the several decade old Scud, I highly doubt that it can intercept something that capable of moving at Mach 12. When was

When Patriot was struggling against Scud, intercepting ballistic missiles with non-nuclear-tipped interceptors was unheard of.

 

[Josh_TN]

High speed targets are always going to be challenging. Witness the effectiveness of HIMARS in combat, despite being deployed against one of the better IADS in the business. Something like AGM-88G or SiAW is going to be very hard to intercept, particularly at shorter ranges when it is still near its burnout speed. Something like AARW would of course be largely immune to opponent air defenses, but there's a high cost for that capability.

 

[bring_it_on]

PAC-3 MSE is even more capable. And don't forget THAAD. Lastly, Kinzhals peak speed is Mach 10-12 in very thin atmosphere/space. By the time it's down to 50k feet it's speed will have dropped significantly.

The lower tier program is also funding the next generation lower tier interceptor that will be required to defeat more capable threats than the current MSE capability. It is slated to enter production towards the end of the decade. Also worth noting that the MSE itself has untapped capability that will be opened up via IBCS and LTAMDS when the 3-43 fields the two in a year or two. And, as part of the Guam defense, we will have the ability to integrate PATRIOT, SM-6/SM3 variants and a CMD system on an integrated fire control network. That capability too will emerge this decade, and can easily be scaled for applications outside of the limited scope of defense of Guam.

That said, Air Defense is not required to be capable of defeating any and all threats in any and all quantities. It serves a purpose as part of the offense-defense mix. Mitigation strategies around dealing with Russian or Chinese weapons of varying capability does not begin or end with PATRIOT or AEGIS. Its a lot broader than that.

 

[Ronny]

Tell me 1 system that is not ICBM/SLBM in the Western world has with similar capability to Kinzhal? , there is nothing, not even remotely close.

When has any of this been a criteria for starting/stopping a weapons program?

I didn't say that it affect how US themselves start/stop their own weapon program.
I was arguing against the claim that: "Kinzhal isn't very useful and only cutting edge in like 1975"
Frankly, I find that claim to be nonsense. There is nothing in the Western world even approach its capability

 

[Ronny]

Patriot was struggling against the several decade old Scud, I highly doubt that it can intercept something that capable of moving at Mach 12. When was the last time PAC-2 or PAC-3 intercept anything moving at Mach 10-12? Never happened, even in test.

Original Patriot struggled against SCUD. Here's PAC-3 intercepting a maneuvering Pershing II RV decades ago:

OSC Storm

www.designation-systems.net

View attachment 696713

PAC-3 MSE is even more capable. And don't forget THAAD. Lastly, Kinzhals peak speed is Mach 10-12 in very thin atmosphere/space. By the time it's down to 50k feet it's speed will have dropped significantly.

From what I remember, Pershing II top out at Mach 8, so Kinzhal at Mach 12 is still 50% faster, not to mention ability to carry jamming decoys that also move at Mach 12. Yes, Kinzhal only reach Mach 12 in thin atmosphere, but that is for most of it's flight path because it is a ballistic missile. Whereas ARRW even if produced will have much lower end game speed because it glide at lower altitude (though that give better agility), HACM will have better agility still but even slower
Of course, I'm not saying Kinzhal can't be intercepted, sure THAAD or SM-6 can probably intercept it with some degree of success, but it is far from useless. The speed of range of the things is better than all air launched missile produced in the West at the moment

 

[Forest Green]

Wouldn't go by wiki, which simply states, "Over Mach 8." Ballistic missiles with a range of circa 1800km are generally Mach 10 or more. In fact this source states '2,400km,' which is more than Kinzhal.

The Pershing Missile: Peace Through Strength

The grave announcement came during the early-morning hours of November 4, 1956. Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy, speaking for just 35 seconds in dire tones appropriate to the hour, announced to his fellow countrymen that their worst fears had come to pass.

www.lockheedmartin.com

 

[bring_it_on]

I was arguing against the claim that: "Kinzhal isn't very useful and only cutting edge in like 1975"

It is nearly impossible to assess its usefulness in any campaign without knowing its actual performance, its cost, production rates and the number of platforms that can deliver it. The same applies to any other weapon system and its interaction with your overall operational plans, force structure and capability you field.

 

[DerTheodor]

Ultimately, if someone is trying to build or increase in quality/quantity of the munitions portfolio for 2030, then the focus on those programs is more than justified. You can field those in far greater quantities, at far lower cost and make them compatible with a larger number of platforms. HACM or ARRW 2.0 will still mostly be in flight testing or very low rate production and only available in handful of quantities till then. If you want to build a decent sized hypersonic capability by 2030 the best focus should be on arming ships with SM61B, and increase the production of ground launchers, and LRHW missiles. We have factories and an established industrial base for those that can scale over the next five years if we so wish.

I hope that they think about an air launched version of Sm 6 blk Ib or PrSM. Not that expensive and comparatively small, really good reach and and capable of hitting ships.

 

[sferrin]

PrSM, yes. SM-6, hell no.

 

[DerTheodor]

PrSM, yes. SM-6, hell no.

why no SM-6?

 

[sferrin]

PrSM, yes. SM-6, hell no.

why no SM-6?

More expensive, much larger, smaller warhead. Now if they wanted to bring back ArcLight on an SM-6 IB... But if they can't even manage to build AARW then ArcLight would be completely beyond their skillset.

 

[bobbymike]

What’s Next in US Hypersonic Efforts as Air Force Shelves ARRW

The service will focus on a potentially cheap scramjet as research continues in other services.

www.defenseone.com

Any rocket scientists out there? Why can’t the USAF go to ATK (now NG) or Aerojet and shop from one of their many small solid booster in their catalogs and put a SWERVE front end and start testing?

Obviously more to it but seems like a “near term” option.

 

[bring_it_on]

I hope that they think about an air launched version of Sm 6 blk Ib or PrSM. Not that expensive and comparatively small, really good reach and and capable of hitting ships.

The Air Force has a Stand In Attack Weapon program with a currently projected inventory buy of about 3,000 weapons including FY-23 and 24 buys of AARGM-ER derived solution (upgrades to warhead fuze and UPI integration into F35) with possible pivot to a new weapon of similar class around FY25-27. The service also has a Stand-off Attack Weapon (SoAW) program that it is interested in pursuing. Between those, and the JASSM production run (now expected to exceed 12,000 missiles not counting LRASM buys) the service has a fairly good plan to build near and medium term capacity. HACM in the next decade should be the services priority for time critical strike..

Air Force Looking for New Stand-off Attack Weapon | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is looking for new Stand-off Attack Weapon to affordably attack at standoff ranges with a capability as soon as 2030.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[DerTheodor]

I hope that they think about an air launched version of Sm 6 blk Ib or PrSM. Not that expensive and comparatively small, really good reach and and capable of hitting ships.

The Air Force has a Stand In Attack Weapon program with a currently projected inventory buy of about 3,000 weapons including FY-23 and 24 buys of AARGM-ER derived solution (upgrades to warhead fuze and UPI integration into F35) with possible pivot to a new weapon of similar class around FY25-27. The service also has a Stand-off Attack Weapon (SoAW) program that it is interested in pursuing. Between those, and the JASSM production run (now expected to exceed 12,000 missiles not counting LRASM buys) the service has a fairly good plan to build near and medium term capacity. HACM in the next decade should be the services priority for time critical strike..

Air Force Looking for New Stand-off Attack Weapon | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force is looking for new Stand-off Attack Weapon to affordably attack at standoff ranges with a capability as soon as 2030.

www.airandspaceforces.com

But wouldn't you say that these programs will produce results too late? SiAW IOC is projected for 2026...

I really liked your comment above because I agree that in this decade the primary role of munitions program is to acquire mass for proven weapons (that can be delivered by fighters as well) - partially to deter China in a situation where the number of bombers and subs is shockingly low (decade of concern etc etc...maybe the years 2027 to 2032 are the most critical.)

I just don't get why the USAF is not really interested in an air launched ballistic missiles. Imagine what 10 F 15's or even F 35 with 4 PrSMs inc 1/2 each could contribute to a Taiwan contigency.... And you could get that by 2027/28 without a doubt.

But I may be too focused on anti-ship roles.

 

[jsport]

Stand in stand off.. There is realization turn-desire that every bomb becomes a missile across the services. It would still appear that just like multiple Army missile programs there is logic in a cost conscious DoD to coerce a JOINT family of max commonality, scalable, modular 77mm FFAR diameter to Powered JSOW/SMsle diameter missiles/munitions with an easy multi purpose enabling component swap out.

Even Ramjet & Scramjet modularity might be added.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Tell me 1 system that is not ICBM/SLBM in the Western world has with similar capability to Kinzhal? , there is nothing, not even remotely close.

When has any of this been a criteria for starting/stopping a weapons program?

I didn't say that it affect how US themselves start/stop their own weapon program.
I was arguing against the claim that: "Kinzhal isn't very useful and only cutting edge in like 1975"
Frankly, I find that claim to be nonsense. There is nothing in the Western world even approach its capability

You're right. Western missiles are way better, between weapons like Storm Shadow and JASSM-ER being harder to detect and attack, to upcoming weapons like HACM and (perhaps) ARRW being harder to intercept.

Kinzhal is already obsolete if we're using Western metrics. If we're using Russian metrics, it's a great weapon to massively expand the envelope of targets that can be held under threat by an increasingly antiquated and cash strapped RuAF. Even the now-elderly MiG-31s and Tu-22s are precious to the Russian MOD. If America could only make Strike Eagles and Super Hornets in 2023, it might have had to consider strapping PrSMs to them to hold deep A2AD targets under threat.

Good thing America can make F-35 and B-21 then, isn't it? Equally so, good thing that F-15EX is getting the actually new, scramjet powered HACM, and not a warmed over Soviet-era ballistic missile? Strapping a Iskander to a MiG-31 is akin to the USAF strapping an ATACMS to an F-15E.

Do you understand now why it is a silly weapon to consider, in light of this context? Russia cannot make good airplanes anymore. They can barely produce Su-57s in number, which is less a stealth aircraft from its panel lines than an extremely high end 1980's tactical fighter, and it's an open question whether anyone will be willing to fund the Su-75 for them. It's natural that they want to extend the capability of their older aviation with "new" weapons like Kinzhal.

Unfortunately the inability to produce new airplanes comes with an equally limited ability to produce new weapon complexes. Vanguard, Kinzhal and Iskander are all Soviet-designed weapons from the late 1980's that would have entered service in the mid-1990's had the USSR not imploded, but instead entered service in the late 00's or 10's instead. The only significant, actually new weapons since the end of the Soviet Union that the RuMOD has developed are the Poseidon anti-carrier torpedo and the Storm Petrel nuclear powered cruise missile.

For all we know, those might just be developments of design studies done by the USSR though.

 

[bring_it_on]

But wouldn't you say that these programs will produce results too late? SiAW IOC is projected for 2026...

For SiAW, the Air Force likely purposefully chose the interim buy option of a modified AARGM-ER so that it could get the weapon to the squadrons sooner. The baseline AARGM-ER is currently in flight testing and will be operational in the coming months. It has a production facility already, a proven seeker/guidance system, and a new production facility is being built to support its production for larger annual lots. Using a modified version of AARGM-ER allows the Air Force to begin buying missiles in FY-2023 and buy it through FY-26 at which point it probably will look to pivot to a different solution or a highly modified version of the baseline system. It cannot do that with PrSM because a seeker equipped PrSM baseline is probably still 3-5 years from entering service not to mention solving for integrating the thing with the F-35. The SoAW program may head towards that direction and the USAF is giving itself about six years to work on that.

The point of pursuing an AARGM-ER based interim solution was to allow the USAF to run the initial SiAW phase as a mid tier / rapid prototyping effort which has a five year maximum schedule. They needed a relatively mature solution that they could modify to their needs and work around the F-35 Blk 4 schedule to integrate on that platform. A multi-mode PrSM would not have worked since the baseline is barely in tech demonstration phase right now (independent seeker prototyping and no flight test of an integrated system even in 2023).

I just don't get why the USAF is not really interested in an air launched ballistic missiles. Imagine what 10 F 15's or even F 35 with 4 PrSMs inc 1/2 each could contribute to a Taiwan contigency.... And you could get that by 2027/28 without a doubt.

An air-launched ballistic missile capable of hitting a moving target may be the path the SoAW goes towards. We will have to wait and see.

 

[paralay]

Kinzhal is already obsolete if we're using Western metrics.

Τρομακτικό κτύπημα 130 μέτρα υπογείως από ρωσικό υπερ-υπερηχητικό βλήμα Kinzhal στο κέντρο διοίκησης του ΝΑΤΟ στην Ουκρανία!

Δεκάδες νεκροί ΝΑΤΟϊκοί και Ουκρανοί αξιωματικοί

www.pronews.gr

Boom!

by Rodzher

coub.com

 

[NMaude]

Strapping a Iskander to a MiG-31 is akin to the USAF strapping an ATACMS to an F-15E.

When the ATACMS programme started in the 1980s wasn't there supposed to have been an air-launched version, an AGM-140?

 

[TINDALOS07]

PAC-3 MSE is even more capable. And don't forget THAAD. Lastly, Kinzhals peak speed is Mach 10-12 in very thin atmosphere/space. By the time it's down to 50k feet it's speed will have dropped significantly.

I have to remind you that during the terminal manuver phase, Pershing 2's RV would first pull up then pull down, the terminal speed at 15-20km height would definitely be a lot lower than the "more than 8 mach maximum speed". I remeber that Pershing 2's velocity at 15-20km altitude will only be around 3 mach if my memory serves me right...

 

[sferrin]

Strapping a Iskander to a MiG-31 is akin to the USAF strapping an ATACMS to an F-15E.

When the ATACMS programme started in the 1980s wasn't there supposed to have been an air-launched version, an AGM-140?

 

[sferrin]

I have to remind you that during the terminal manuver phase, Pershing 2's RV would first pull up then pull down, the terminal speed at 15-20km height would definitely be a lot lower than the "more than 8 mach maximum speed". I remeber that Pershing 2's velocity at 15-20km altitude will only be around 3 mach if my memory serves me right...

You do realize that was for a deployed Pershing 2? In this instance they could program the RV to fly however they wanted.

 

[sferrin]

Classy.

 

[flateric]

View attachment 696782

Classy.

Excessive over-quoting (the ratio of the cited information within the message to the new 3:1 or greater) and creating walls of double texts/graphics/videoframes is disregard to forum members not welcomed and subject of sanctions at most of the forums. So what the problem to make two clicks to get rid off extra text?

 

[flateric]

Kinzhal is already obsolete if we're using Western metrics.

Τρομακτικό κτύπημα 130 μέτρα υπογείως από ρωσικό υπερ-υπερηχητικό βλήμα Kinzhal στο κέντρο διοίκησης του ΝΑΤΟ στην Ουκρανία!

Δεκάδες νεκροί ΝΑΤΟϊκοί και Ουκρανοί αξιωματικοί

www.pronews.gr

what an absolutely trustful source here. no less credible than world-famous _Sohu_

 

[sferrin]

View attachment 696782

Classy.

Excessive over-quoting (the ratio of the cited information within the message to the new 3:1 or greater) and creating walls of double texts/graphics/videoframes is disregard to forum members not welcomed and subject of sanctions at most of the forums. So what the problem to make two clicks to get rid off extra text?

No problem with the trimming of the post. Was pointing out the childishness of the comment. (Doesn't the forum software have a setting to limit the levels of embedding? I know some do.)

 

[Ronny]

You're right. Western missiles are way better, between weapons like Storm Shadow and JASSM-ER being harder to detect and attack, to upcoming weapons like HACM and (perhaps) ARRW being harder to intercept.

Kinzhal is already obsolete if we're using Western metrics. If we're using Russian metrics, it's a great weapon to massively expand the envelope of targets that can be held under threat by an increasingly antiquated and cash strapped RuAF. Even the now-elderly MiG-31s and Tu-22s are precious to the Russian MOD. If America could only make Strike Eagles and Super Hornets in 2023, it might have had to consider strapping PrSMs to them to hold deep A2AD targets under threat.

Good thing America can make F-35 and B-21 then, isn't it? Equally so, good thing that F-15EX is getting the actually new, scramjet powered HACM, and not a warmed over Soviet-era ballistic missile? Strapping a Iskander to a MiG-31 is akin to the USAF strapping an ATACMS to an F-15E.

Do you understand now why it is a silly weapon to consider, in light of this context? Russia cannot make good airplanes anymore. They can barely produce Su-57s in number, which is less a stealth aircraft from its panel lines than an extremely high end 1980's tactical fighter, and it's an open question whether anyone will be willing to fund the Su-75 for them. It's natural that they want to extend the capability of their older aviation with "new" weapons like Kinzhal.

Unfortunately the inability to produce new airplanes comes with an equally limited ability to produce new weapon complexes. Vanguard, Kinzhal and Iskander are all Soviet-designed weapons from the late 1980's that would have entered service in the mid-1990's had the USSR not imploded, but instead entered service in the late 00's or 10's instead. The only significant, actually new weapons since the end of the Soviet Union that the RuMOD has developed are the Poseidon anti-carrier torpedo and the Storm Petrel nuclear powered cruise missile.

For all we know, those might just be developments of design studies done by the USSR though.

Better how?
Storm Shadow/JASSM-ER is harder to detect compared to Kinzhal, sure, but that doesn't mean they are harder to intercept. JASSM-ER/Storm shadow are also harder to detect compared to AARGM-ER, HACM, Halo, ARRW, Trident II ...etc. Does that mean it is also better than all those missiles?. In principle, slow and stealth missiles are always harder to detect compared to missile flying high and fast. But with the advance of various new radars at multiple frequencies and various optical and infrared sensor, just being stealth is no longer adequate for a missile to penetrate peer and near peer adversary air defense. But being extremely fast can help you defeat the interceptor. That why USN want HALO and USAF want HACM for a more demanding threat environment, if stealth alone was enough, they would be satisfied with LRASM and JASSM-ER. It not like only the West can make stealth missiles either, Russian also have their Kh-101/Kh-102 stealth missiles. Whereas NATO has nothing similar to Kinzhal.


Comparing ARRW and HACM to Kinzhal to claim that Kinzhal is obsolete is even more laughable to say the least. Kinzhal has been in service since 2017, it has been used several times in actual combat. By contrast ARRW has been tested 6 times where it failed 4 times leading to USAF not even want to purchase it anymore. On the other hand, even though HAWC test have been fairly successful, the first production missiles is not here till 2028. That is at least 11 years after Kinzhal, and we are not even sure whether they will cancel it eventually like they did with ARRW. Because god forbit if HACM get some test failures...Let not forget that Kinzhal still two times faster than HACM and can carry 10 decoys, it is questionable if the future HACM is even harder to intercept compared to Kinzhal.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I'd think a S-300PM2 would have difficulty with a maneuvering hypersonic airbreather, whereas PAC-3 MSE with IBCS pairing to an AWACS and F-35s would eat a Kinzhal for lunch long before it gets to deploy its decoys, much less becomes a threat. But believe what you want I suppose, I'm just assuming a surface to air missile designed in the 2010's and deployed in the 2020's will be able to defeat a ballistic missile designed in the 1980's and deployed in the 2010's, after all.

PAC-1s had trouble with Scuds though so who knows, as the SS-1 was famously so new in 1991 that the Soviet Army had already tried twice to replace it, first with OTRK Oka then with OTRK Iskander. They finally succeeded in the latter in...2008. Unfortunately the Soviet Army had turned into the Russian Army by that point, so no one paid much attention to the RuMOD fielding things they made in the 1980's after they'd finally found enough money under the couch cushions to build them. It's entirely possible, given the difference between Iskander/Kinzhal, and the apparent preference of offense over defense in surface to air engagements, that MSE might struggle with it. I sort of doubt it, provided MSE has the benefit of IBCS and potentially orbital targeting to boot. The only reasoning to think that is that the separation of years between PAC-1 and SS-1 is about the same as MSE and Iskander/Kinzhal.

OTOH HACM would present a far more difficult target, at least if you are considering the USAF intends to operate it in conjunction with MALD-X and Next Generation Jammer. Both of those together are far more potent penaids than anything a missile could carry by itself. Since you seem intent on comparing weapons, instead of their actual use cases and the context for their respective existences, I don't think that's a reasonable thing to consider.

The presence of penaids on the Kinzhal is not a particularly strong argument in its favor when you realize that the penaids are primarily due to the lack of stand-in jamming capability of the USSR to electronically escort their operational-tactical rocket complexes to the target. The USAF does not want for stand-in, or stand-off, jamming capability, as its missiles merely need to go fast and maneuver to hit things like TEL launchers that might be located in a terrain box. Kinzhal prefers a set of grid coordinates absolutely certain to be within "a couple nautical miles" of a VIDed HVU courtesy a sacrificial maritime patrol aircraft, yet is outside the range of friendly strike aviation or offensive jammers, precluding the use of more effective multi-axis decoy/jamming attacks.

 

[Ronny]

I'd think a S-300PM2 would have difficulty with a maneuvering hypersonic airbreather, whereas PAC-3 MSE with IBCS pairing to an AWACS and F-35s would eat a Kinzhal for lunch long before it gets to deploy its decoys, much less becomes a threat. But believe what you want I suppose, I'm just assuming a surface to air missile designed in the 2010's and deployed in the 2020's will be able to defeat a ballistic missile designed in the 1980's and deployed in the 2010's, after all.

PAC-1s had trouble with Scuds though so who knows, as the SS-1 was famously so new in 1991 that the Soviet Army had already tried twice to replace it, first with OTRK Oka then with OTRK Iskander. They finally succeeded in the latter in...2008. Unfortunately the Soviet Army had turned into the Russian Army by that point, so no one paid much attention to the RuMOD fielding things they made in the 1980's after they'd finally found enough money under the couch cushions to build them. It's entirely possible, given the difference between Iskander/Kinzhal, and the apparent preference of offense over defense in surface to air engagements, that MSE might struggle with it. I sort of doubt it, provided MSE has the benefit of IBCS and potentially orbital targeting to boot. The only reasoning to think that is that the separation of years between PAC-1 and SS-1 is about the same as MSE and Iskander/Kinzhal.

OTOH HACM would present a far more difficult target, at least if you are considering the USAF intends to operate it in conjunction with MALD-X and Next Generation Jammer. Both of those together are far more potent penaids than anything a missile could carry by itself. Since you seem intent on comparing weapons, instead of their actual use cases and the context for their respective existences, I don't think that's a reasonable thing to consider.

The presence of penaids on the Kinzhal is not a particularly strong argument in its favor when you realize that the penaids are primarily due to the lack of stand-in jamming capability of the USSR to electronically escort their operational-tactical rocket complexes to the target. The USAF does not want for stand-in, or stand-off, jamming capability, as its missiles merely need to go fast and maneuver to hit things like TEL launchers that might be located in a terrain box. Kinzhal prefers a set of grid coordinates absolutely certain to be within "a couple nautical miles" of a VIDed HVU courtesy a sacrificial maritime patrol aircraft, yet is outside the range of friendly strike aviation or offensive jammers, precluding the use of more effective multi-axis decoy/jamming attacks.

Iskander was designed in 1988, but since it is launched from ground, the top speed is only Mach 6. Whereas, Kinzhal being launched from Mig-31 give it top speed of Mach 12, which is twice as fast. The key factor that make ballistic missile so hard to intercept is their speed, so even though they are the same design, it is still much easier to intercept Iskander compared to Kinzhal. Ballistic missiles design are very simple, yet very extreme in their parameters. Just because a ballistic missiles was designed decades ago doesn't really mean it is easy to intercept. For example, Trident II missile was put in production since 1983, which is even earlier than Iskander, yet most air defense nowadays still struggle to intercept it. That because of the sheer speed that it can reach along with multiple warhead. That it, simple yet very effective way to deal with interceptor is going extreme with your speed and generate multiple target. Kinzhal do exactly that. Regarding the performance of modern interceptor against ballistic missiles, you don't have to looks very far though, On 29 May 2021, Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 31 Event 1, a salvo of two SM-6 Dual II missiles failed to intercept two medium-range ballistic missiles; only one MRBM was intercepted. Medium range ballistic missile have speed around Mach 7-10. That very recent event, showing us that intercept ballistic missiles is still very hard task.

Secondly, MALD-X and NGJ are extremely effective in fighters protection or even subsonic cruise missiles protection, but they will be rather useless as a tool to protect hypersonic missile such as HACM. Reason is simple: almost every radar nowadays has sidelobes canceller and sidelobe blanker. If your jammer located at their sidelobe, they will just "cancel" your jamming signal by generating the 180 degree delay electric copy from auxiliary antenna. But that is counter productive if jammer is in the same direction as the target aka both in main lobe. MALD-X have similar cruising speed as fighters, they can operate at similar altitude, so they can keep up and stay in the same direction as these fighters aircraft. MALD-X will likely stay forward while EA-18G with NGJ will stay behind of the actual squadron but the principle is similar. They are in the same direction.


But when you use HACM (or any similarly hypersonic missiles): it fly at very high altitude and high speed. So not only that MALD-X will lag too far behind to do the job as physical decoys (pretend to be the missiles), it also can't stay in the same direction as the missile to nullify sidelobes canceller/blanker. It is actually worse compared to Kinzhal penetration aid for this task. It is plausible that HACM will also have penetration aid but as it fly much lower in the atmosphere , I doubt that its penetration aid can fly very far

 

[bobbymike]

Was the Air Force’s hypersonic ARRW missile killed by a rush to save face? - Sandboxx

The U.S. Air Force's hypersonic ARRW missile is being canceled, but what exactly led to this promising program's failure?

www.sandboxx.us

 

[NMaude]

Sandboxx has put out an interesting video about what went wrong with the AGM-183A:

After yet another testing failure announced last week, the Air Force no longer intends to push its first hypersonic missile, the AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), into production.

These failures point toward overarching issues with the ARRW program, both in terms of its intended goals and the rush to put it into service. And that rush, evidence suggests, was not based on the weapon’s demonstrated capabilities, suggesting it may have been placed on the fast track toward service for political, rather than strategic reasons.

 

[Forest Green]

Going to struggle to get to Mars if they can't fire a little missile out of a plane.

 

[MihoshiK]

Going to struggle to get to Mars if they can't fire a little missile out of a plane.

If they'd let SpaceX do this they would have had MORE failures...But they would have a working prototye too, by now.

 

[Forest Green]

My question is, what happens if the remaining two tests work perfectly?

 

[GeorgeA]

My question is, what happens if the remaining two tests work perfectly?

Same thing that happened to Skybolt. It’s still canceled.

 

[NMaude]

Same thing that happened to Skybolt. It’s still canceled.

What are the odds that heads will be rolling, metaphorically speaking, in the senior USAF ranks if this happens?

 

[Josh_TN]

Same thing that happened to Skybolt. It’s still canceled.

What are the odds that heads will be rolling, metaphorically speaking, in the senior USAF ranks if this happens?

No. It seems likely USAF would have canceled it even if the last test was successful. USAF was turned off by the high price for a niche capability compared to HACM. ARRW was likely limited to static soft targets and B-52 launch for $30 million.