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

If you think speed is all that matters for cruise missiles, you should rethink how you imagine cruise missiles are used. And possibly a lot of other things.

I still don't know where you're getting the idea that Mach 3 is somehow better for a cruise missile than subsonic.

Speed is, broadly speaking, a detriment, until you go so fast that you can't be reasonably intercepted. Literally everyone in the world will see you coming, and this is not good for a cruise missile, because once you know where a cruise missile is it is fairly trivial to intercept it with an airplane. Generally speaking weapons like ALCM, Tomahawk, LRASM, JASSM, JSOW, Storm Shadow, SCALP, and ACM survive by being not detected until they are basically on top of the target. Then you expect a few losses from terminal air defenses like AAA, but you're usually shooting enough missiles to overwhelm local air defense with targets anyway.

This is also why the USA explored LIDAR altimeters for things like ACM overland: because the radar altimeter could be detected at relatively long ranges (enough to matter) by passive RF systems like Strela-10 and Sosna-R, and possibly A-50U. The best defense against Tomahawk as it turned out was passive RF detection of the altimeter emission to guide in fighter-interceptors. You'd lose a lot of nukes that way.

This is really pretty simple, basic stuff, though.

Cruise missiles have two ideals: very low speed (subsonic, since IRSTs are good enough nowadays to detect supersonic targets from orbit, as in the case of SBIRS and its ability to detect things like Tu-22M) and very high speed (well in excess of however fast RATTLRS goes, closer to Mach 6 than Mach 3). Anything in between these two extremes is liable to be shot down. Mostly because, unlike most manned aircraft, cruise missiles neither take evasive action to evade incoming missiles, nor deploy decoys, and so the main issue becomes just finding the things. The easier you make it to find cruise missiles, the more cruise missiles you will lose, and the more you need to fire.

I'm not an economist but I think if you make the cost to neutralize a particular target higher on yourself, and you willingly do this, you're not investing money very smartly. Thankfully the USN is smarter than Lockheed and didn't go for RATTLRS when it had perfectly adequate Tomahawk all along, which sends bigger bombs further distances in a smaller package.

Now, I dunno about you, but I think sending a payload that's about half again to twice as big (1,000 or 750 lbs versus 500 lbs), half again as far (1,500 kilometers versus 1,000 kilometers), is better. Even if it takes another hour or so.

Pretty much everything that Tomahawk attacks, from ships to airbases, doesn't really go that far in an hour, and TACTOM can be retargeted in flight if the target actually moves fast-ish, like a truck. The difference between RATTLRS and Tomahawk is that TLAM might actually hit the thing at the edge of its range because it can loiter, sort of like Delilah. And nothing RATTLRS offers is very compelling in the era of CEC and high performance IRSTs. Granite is likely far more trivial to kill nowadays than it was in 1985 when it first showed up. E-2 is much better now and SBIRS-LO can track the missiles through flight.

There's no reason for the USA to replicate such a dead end weapon system.

That said, for a single, time critical target, of course, like a moving TEL or something, then yeah speed is good. You don't need to cruise, loiter, or launch in mass volleys. You're hitting one single target. While we can argue about the particulars of certain targets (I don't think a hypersonic missile is a good idea to hit a Scud, for example) it is a potential option provided the rest of the ISR apparatus is setup to support it.

But again, the USAF already has AGM-183 ARRW, now. And it was testing X-51 with NASA, then. Since RATTLRS would have probably entered service around 2017 or 2018 if all goes swimmingly then I don't see the benefit.

The USN would have been far more interested, as would the rest of DOD, in getting a Mach 5-6 missile as opposed to a slowpoke snoozer like RATTLRS. So it offers nothing. Perhaps if Lockeed had marketed it as "EATRS" they would have gotten a better response though. There's nothing "revolutionary" about RATTLRS, as it's broadly comparable to P-800 or Brahmos at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
No need to lecture me about mistakes, I've watched an accident aircraft takeoff that deprived three young boys their father. Ten days later my squadron was denied a TPS stud who's only alive because two NASA employees saw his parachute when they returned from lunch in Cal City. Also, I've nearly killed myself flight testing aircraft. Most certainly I am not in denial. Given all of the above, don't ascribe denial to disappointment. Furthermore, so much is left unsaid that I withhold my judgement since the information I would use to make a decision is not public. There's nuance to test conduct that click bait authors like David Axe and the like don't get, all they care about are getting views to boost their revenues.
And I get not blowing things out of proportion. That said, there are bone head mistakes that need to be called what they are. Not every mistake is because you flamed out at Mach 2, and conditions were mostly out of your control.
If you know anything about the SIB/AIB process then you would be super skeptical about any quotes from unnamed source while an investigation is underway. Also, keep in mind I spent years doing these types of tests, in that squadron with some of the members still there, including the squadron commander. Also, understand that in that same squadron there were multiple tests I conducted where the button was pushed and weapons didn't come off of the aircraft or did something they weren't supposed to do. Accident chains and swiss cheese are second nature to aircrew since we tended to table top a SIB on average once a month. The test world will brief the THA's and GMC's every mission readiness review and T-0 brief the next day before step.

Now, if there are more details or a flight test professional willing to put their name behind the dumb mistakes remarks please share. Otherwise, such conclusions are better suited to the David Axe/Tyler Rogoway fan clubs.
 
Always appreciate your insights, mkellytx. While the failures aren't confidence inducing, programs these days are sufficiently off the record such that they are hard to judge from a distance (if they ever were). I got really used to the US just saying everything about any program ever after the cold war ended, and we're going back into a period of strategic competition such that details are hard to come by. I think it is culture shock to people who watched weapons development after the post war and are having to readjust. In fact, quite honestly, I think the USAF is being more tight fisted with information that it was even the 80's (outside things like the B-2). Good for them, I can sleep at night without knowing what the AIM-260 looks like or is capable of.
 
Always appreciate your insights, mkellytx. While the failures aren't confidence inducing, programs these days are sufficiently off the record such that they are hard to judge from a distance (if they ever were). I got really used to the US just saying everything about any program ever after the cold war ended, and we're going back into a period of strategic competition such that details are hard to come by. I think it is culture shock to people who watched weapons development after the post war and are having to readjust. In fact, quite honestly, I think the USAF is being more tight fisted with information that it was even the 80's (outside things like the B-2). Good for them, I can sleep at night without knowing what the AIM-260 looks like or is capable of.
Thanks @Josh_TN, things like test safety and conduct aren't security secrets and the commercial guys tend to follow since they tend to hire retired TPS grads. It's not that difficult to Google the Air Force and Navy TPS manuals, heck SETP/SFTE probably have a bunch of public source stuff to look at. No need to be reserved talking about that stuff. Anything that deals with TTP, even if it's now a decade and a half out of date I'm not comfortable talking about unless there is something open source I can reference. Some of those failures I reference I'd never give the details b/c I'm just not comfortable explaining how certain things work, and that's from your period of open information...
 
The weapon has never been tested and it is on track for production next year?
 
Almost as if they allowed for minor test failures in the schedule.

While the latest incident may well be minor, they are still around 7 months behind where they expected to be at this time. IIRC the first booster flight test was to be towards the end of FY-20 with two additional test flights planned for this fiscal year. I think the production they speak of are the 8 AUR's 3-4 of which will eventually be used up in testing. I don't think this refers to a formal production program in the traditional acquisition sense. That decision has not been made and likely won't until the prototyping contract is complete.
 
For the first time, the Air Force gave procurement numbers for the AGM-183A ARRW hypersonic missile, saying USAF will buy 12 rounds in 2022 at a cost of $161 million, for a unit price of $13.4 million each. Pentagon officials said the objective price of the weapon will be much lower, but the Air Force did not offer any official out-years insight into its cost.

 
Any idea when the USAF is going to get off its collective arse and have the first test-launch?
 
I think that Mach 20 number is a mistake. The article I read used it in the context of, "boost gliders fly at up to Mach 20" with it being a general comment, not necessarily tied to this project. (Especially if this is something small enough to launch from a fighter.)
well to be fair it was launched from a b 52, maybe they will put it on the b21 raider, but I don't think its gonna be deployed on a fighter, unless may the strike eagle could have it. but I cant think of many platforms which could use it. as for the speed, I think your right. but we can definitely say that the ARRW will be hypersonic, just maybe not Mach 20.
 
No one has listed a launch weight, but I suspect it will be at best something an F-15 can carry centerline only, if there's clearance. I doubt anyone would waste a B-21 carrying something that probably has a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles. The B-52 will likely be the sole platform, in my opinion.
 
No one has listed a launch weight, but I suspect it will be at best something an F-15 can carry centerline only, if there's clearance.
I strongly suspect that the AGM-183 is just a little too big for the F-15 to carry.

On an off-topic note are there any threads dealing with torpedos?
 
Can't the F-15E carry 5,000lb bunker busters?
It might be able to carry the weight, but the ARRW might simply be too physically big to carry. A bunker buster is a dense weapon.

25ft long (~7.5m). 5ft 5in wingspan (~1.7m). Actually, it says here 225inches (5.5m).


The larger missile below is the X-51, also 25ft and 23 inches wide (575mm), the smaller is the AGM-183A. It looks roughly the same size as the old ASM-135.

1623264994131.png

1623265521424.png
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Given the cost and the likely production rate, it will be a long time before there is enough inventory to begin adding platforms beyond the B-52, and perhaps the B-1. With HACM now in the official USAF budget request, it appears that the AF has a better weapon, that is more suited for carriage on its strike fighters in addition the bombers. HACM, upgraded JASSM-ER and SIAW are all going to be part of the future tactical strike fighter loadouts against a peer threat.
 
Test team detonates hypersonic missile warhead
By Samuel King Jr. / Published July 07, 2021

96th Test Wing

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. --
Recently, the 780th Test Squadron successfully detonated an AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon warhead for the first time.

The first-of-its-kind test for the air-to-ground, rocket-powered, high-altitude, hypersonic missile collected data on the lethality of the unique weapon.

The unique nature and shape of the warhead required a lot of firsts for everyone involved, according to the test’s manager, David Spiker 780th TS.

Some of the firsts were the new and unorthodox design and construction of the test arena, the test procedures and equipment, the warhead’s fragmentation data collecting and the post-test data processing to ensure the warhead’s effects have been accurately characterized.

The 780th TS successfully designed and conducted the test to ensure the customer’s data requirements were met using new and improved test tools, technologies, and techniques.

This successful test positioned Eglin’s test team to remain at the forefront to support the testing of hypersonic weapons long into the future.

 
The are already buying this weapon but as far as I know have never flight tested it?
 
...
 

Attachments

  • E5yZzZCXEAIzD2G.jpg
    E5yZzZCXEAIzD2G.jpg
    964.5 KB · Views: 38
The are already buying this weapon but as far as I know have never flight tested it?

They are buying prototypes. 12 prototypes were requested by the USAF in FY22, but the House so far has approved only 8 which I believe is because of the test delays (they want some proof before they add that money back). If the AF can successfully complete development and testing, then they could transition the effort into a formal program of record and begin sustained procurement more like a traditional weapons program. But there is a lot to do between that and where they are now and they have about a year to a year and a half remaining based on their original schedule.
 
Last edited:
There hasn't been any confirmation that the test was to support the ARRW (though it could have been). TBG, HAWC 1 and 2 are all in need of flight testing and could have been the ones tested yesterday (if they indeed tested something). If it was one of them then we may not get an announcement. An ARRW success or failure will likely be released in the coming days if it was tested over the weekend.
 
Last edited:
Jassm is 550mm wide, Arrw is 750mm.
The shot makes you see the entire breadth of jassm while arrw full aspect diameter is not visible.
where did you get the ARRW diameter from?
30' x 270', 7300 lbs was mentioned for F-15ex centreline hardpoint carry.
Edit: 30' is 762mm
We finally get the size of ARRW
It is surprisingly small compared to our previous estimate
ARRW.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jassm is 550mm wide, Arrw is 750mm.
The shot makes you see the entire breadth of jassm while arrw full aspect diameter is not visible.
where did you get the ARRW diameter from?
30' x 270', 7300 lbs was mentioned for F-15ex centreline hardpoint carry.
Edit: 30' is 762mm
We finally get the size of ARRW
View attachment 660611
A lot smaller than expected.

It confirms the earlier released artist design was a fake, since it wouldn't have enough volume to carry a 150 lb warhead.
 
with current ARRW size, I kinda wonder whether it can fit on F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F as well. Doesn't seem all that long or heavy
 
with current ARRW size, I kinda wonder whether it can fit on F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F as well. Doesn't seem all that long or heavy
IF it cant be slung by the F15s, which has both stronger harderpoints, larger weight limits, and all around more space cause of it be a massive plane.

I doubt that the smaller birds can. Hell I believe the F22 hardpoints are only spec for 3k pounds.
 
with current ARRW size, I kinda wonder whether it can fit on F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F as well. Doesn't seem all that long or heavy
IF it cant be slung by the F15s, which has both stronger harderpoints, larger weight limits, and all around more space cause of it be a massive plane.

I doubt that the smaller birds can. Hell I believe the F22 hardpoints are only spec for 3k pounds.
I believe that they said F-15 can carry the missile, originally ARRW weight was estimated to be around 7000 lbs
F-22 inner station probably the same as F-35, which is adequate for 5000 pounds
F35 payload data 2012.jpg
 
with current ARRW size, I kinda wonder whether it can fit on F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F as well. Doesn't seem all that long or heavy
IF it cant be slung by the F15s, which has both stronger harderpoints, larger weight limits, and all around more space cause of it be a massive plane.

I doubt that the smaller birds can. Hell I believe the F22 hardpoints are only spec for 3k pounds.
F-22 are 5000lb. Also, based on the picture above, the ARRW is within F-15 capability.
 
The Air Force conducted its second AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon booster flight test July 28.

While it did not meet all flight objectives, the test demonstrated several first-time events as the program continues to track toward fielding a hypersonic capability in the early 2020s.

Objectives for the test included demonstrating the safe release of the booster test vehicle from the B 52H and assessing booster performance. An Edwards AFB B-52 released the ARRW test missile, dubbed Booster Test Vehicle 1b or BTV-1b, over Point Mugu Sea Range.

The missile cleanly separated from the aircraft and successfully demonstrated the full release sequence including GPS acquisition, umbilical disconnect and power transfer from the aircraft to the missile. The missile also demonstrated fin operation and de-confliction maneuvers which ensures a safe operation for the aircrew.

Following the safe separation maneuvers, the rocket motor did not ignite. The ARRW team continues to progress through the rapid prototyping effort with a steadfast commitment to the well-being of Airmen and equipment, striking a balance between prudent risk and rapid advancement of the program.

“Developing first-of-its-kind missiles is difficult business and this why we test,” said Brig. Gen. Heath Collins, the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Weapons. “This is a critical capability for our Air Force and we have the very best team working to figure out what happened, fix it and move out to deliver ARRW to our warfighters as quickly as possible.”

The Edwards-based 419th Flight Test Squadron and the Global Power Bomber Combined Test Force were involved in the testing.

The ARRW program aims to deliver a conventional hypersonic weapons capability to the warfighter in the early 2020s. The weapon system is designed to provide the ability to destroy high-value, time-sensitive targets. It will also expand precision-strike weapon systems’ capabilities by enabling rapid response strikes against heavily defended land targets.

 
Following the safe separation maneuvers, the rocket motor did not ignite.

Ugh.

tenor.gif


A rocket motor failing to ignite is not one of those "well, shoot, we're still new at this sort of thing" problems.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom