Agm-183 Arrw Hypersonic Missile

[Josh]

Apparently this program is being rapidly prototyped. The initial test shape has flown on a B-52 to test vibration and areodynamic characteristics, with IOC rather optimistically stated as being 2022.

Since there is no information concerning the system that I can find outside the basic fact it is a boost/glide type hypersonic, I wanted to open the floor to wild speculation. Predecessors? Guidance? Target set? In regards to the former, it seems like a very wide body missile. The B-52 carrying it looks to have had its port heavy stores beam modified with two unique hard points to carry the weapon, with only one carry point occupied. That seems to point to weight/clearance/separation issues that would limit it four weapons in an operational configuration. The missile itself is very wide and I suspect is not a custom build - the Russians and later Israelis rapidly introduced high speed weapons by co-opting high speed ground based artillery. But the US has no such weapons. Available pictures of the test object look faintly like they might be based on GBM or Minotaur I/II family, themselves derived from Minuteman III. In this case I'd venture the second stage motor - thoughts?

[JasonJ]

So I guess we don't know if it can attack only ground targets or also sea targets? Maybe optional low field nuke version is possible down the road?

[EchoFiveMike]

Why not go back to the AGM-28 Hound Dog missile envelope//pylon? 10K lbs weight, 40ft length. S/F....Ken M

[Josh]

So I guess we don't know if it can attack only ground targets or also sea targets? Maybe optional low field nuke version is possible down the road?

 

I think sea targets would be a much lower priority, especially for the USAF. Even the USN wasn't especially concerned with anti-surface until recently. Plus I think terminal guidance against moving targets will be *far* more challenging than hitting static targets which could just involve GPS/INS guidance. I don't see any reason why nukes would be useful unless you share the Russians' paranoia concerning ABM defenses.

[Josh]

Why not go back to the AGM-28 Hound Dog missile envelope//pylon? 10K lbs weight, 40ft length. S/F....Ken M

 

The goal is a conventional weapon with precision and extreme speed and altitude. Hound Dog doesn't fulfill that requirement.

[Brian Kennedy]

Big feature story in the nytimes https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/magazine/hypersonic-missiles.html

[EchoFiveMike]

^ I mean that size frame, not the exact missile. Less legitimate qualification stuff, as well as reduced bullshit pogue paperwork and opportunity for waste fraud and abuse. S/F....Ken M

[Josh]

^ I mean that size frame, not the exact missile. Less legitimate qualification stuff, as well as reduced bullshit pogue paperwork and opportunity for waste fraud and abuse. S/F....Ken M

 

I don't see what that would buy you - if its a different missile using a different motor, you'd still have different CoG and such. It would still be completely different certifications, captive carries, etc. I suspect the project does use a current missile as its basis to save time and design work, but I think it is something much more modern and solid fueled that hasn't previously been air launched.

[lastdingo]

They keep trying, and so far they only wasted money.

 

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/hystrike.htm

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Yes

 

 

^ I mean that size frame, not the exact missile. Less legitimate qualification stuff, as well as reduced bullshit pogue paperwork and opportunity for waste fraud and abuse. S/F....Ken M

 

I don't see what that would buy you - if its a different missile using a different motor, you'd still have different CoG and such. It would still be completely different certifications, captive carries, etc. I suspect the project does use a current missile as its basis to save time and design work, but I think it is something much more modern and solid fueled that hasn't previously been air launched.

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Hanging things on airplanes is more difficult than you seem to think.

 

^ I mean that size frame, not the exact missile. Less legitimate qualification stuff, as well as reduced bullshit pogue paperwork and opportunity for waste fraud and abuse. S/F....Ken M

[Dawes]

USAF has an entire program (Seek Eagle) to insure that munitions separate cleanly from the aircraft without causing damage. There's various YouTube videos that show munitions porpoising back in the airstream and impacting the aircraft.

[Josh]

You know you're an aircraft nerd when you hear 'separation issues', and instead of thinking of your child or last girlfriend, you ponder if the next B-61 mod 12 will work out:

[Josh]

Successful AUP test:

https://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3240613/air-force-conducts-first-arrw-operational-prototype-missile-test/

 

[TrustMe]

The US is still 10 years behind the Russians.

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

The US is still 10 years behind the Russians.

Behind, yes, 10 years no (also China is the pacing hypersonic threat, not Russia). IMO the real breakthrough capability for the US will be HACM when it becomes available (hopefully 2027). I expect that system to be relatively inexpensive and prolifically fielded - the manufacturer produced its test article using a completely 3D printed combustor with almost no moving parts and the initial integration platform is the F-15. I also expect it will have a terminal guidance capability, if not initially, then as part of its first upgrade spiral, that will make it suitable for use against ships and large aircraft. The fact that the weapon will move consistently in the low hypersonic range will allow it to use far less exotic sensors/guidance modes than the boost glide projectiles that have to survive double digit mach numbers.

[TrustMe]

error post

Edited December 12, 2022 by TrustMe

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Behind, yes, 10 years no (also China is the pacing hypersonic threat, not Russia). IMO the real breakthrough capability for the US will be HACM when it becomes available (hopefully 2027). I expect that system to be relatively inexpensive and prolifically fielded - the manufacturer produced its test article using a completely 3D printed combustor with almost no moving parts and the initial integration platform is the F-15. I also expect it will have a terminal guidance capability, if not initially, then as part of its first upgrade spiral, that will make it suitable for use against ships and large aircraft. The fact that the weapon will move consistently in the low hypersonic range will allow it to use far less exotic sensors/guidance modes than the boost glide projectiles that have to survive double digit mach numbers.

This is the first time i've seen a report of a successful test. The rest haven't worked for one reason or another - they have never stated what the error was -

If you look at US "Guided Weapon Systems " it takes roughly 13 to 14 years to field a decent weapon. This value has been quite consistent in the years post Vietnam, so the US still has lots of catching up to do. Denying that they do not, is just wishful thinking that loose wars.

It's not just China that's a threat, but India has fielded the Brahmos ramjet supersonic AShM as well (based on Russian technology). You never know if India will become a threat just like what China is becoming now.

[Olof Larsson]

13 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

If you look at US "Guided Weapon Systems " it takes roughly 13 to 14 years to field a decent weapon. This value has been quite consistent in the years post Vietnam, so the US still has lots of catching up to do. Denying that they do not, is just wishful thinking that loose wars.

PrSM - 7 years to IOC.

AIM-260 - 5-6 years to IOC.

SM-6 - 7 years to IOC.

 

The ARRW is planned to reach IOC in 7 years.

[TrustMe]

I doubt your figues are correct so if you provide a link I can look for myself. And BTW I said it takes 13 - 14 years to field a "decent weapon" not simply IOC. 

[Josh]

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

This is the first time i've seen a report of a successful test. The rest haven't worked for one reason or another - they have never stated what the error was -

If you look at US "Guided Weapon Systems " it takes roughly 13 to 14 years to field a decent weapon. This value has been quite consistent in the years post Vietnam, so the US still has lots of catching up to do. Denying that they do not, is just wishful thinking that loose wars.

It's not just China that's a threat, but India has fielded the Brahmos ramjet supersonic AShM as well (based on Russian technology). You never know if India will become a threat just like what China is becoming now.

The other tests were of the booster alone, and the three failures were all the booster failing to even ignite. Disheartening to be sure, but there were two subsequent successful booster tests and this end to end, all up round test with the glider. That the glider worked the very first time out the gate is a very positive step.

As for time to deploy a missile: the AGM-183 program is only five years old. That break neck pace might actually be why the initial testing had so many issues. This successful test likely means a small number of missiles purchased for testing enters service next year, which would mean the US catches up to Russia’s tactical system (kinzhal) in the next year or two. The Army’s Medium Range Capability system was put together from parts and existing missile types in the several years since the US left the INF Treaty. The B-21 program is 7-8 years old and will likely enter low rate production in a year or two. The HACW program has produced two separate weapons demonstrator designs, each of which was flown three times successfully, and Raytheon was chosen due to having a design closer to being a finished product. I’m confident HACM can be delivered close to schedule and I’m confident it will be superior to Zircon in most respects (in particular range and cost).

India will not be a threat for several decades assuming it ever has that intention. Currently it is if anything leaning more towards the US than it has historically. China definitely has an edge in boost glide weapons, since it has at least one deployed land system and also is testing air and sea launches systems, as well as an orbital system. I am not convinced they are ahead in scramjet tech and the US deployment of LRHW/CPS (in addition to AGN-183) should go far the close the boost glide gap.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Josh

[bfng3569]

5 hours ago, TrustMe said:

This is the first time i've seen a report of a successful test. The rest haven't worked for one reason or another - they have never stated what the error was -

If you look at US "Guided Weapon Systems " it takes roughly 13 to 14 years to field a decent weapon. This value has been quite consistent in the years post Vietnam, so the US still has lots of catching up to do. Denying that they do not, is just wishful thinking that loose wars.

It's not just China that's a threat, but India has fielded the Brahmos ramjet supersonic AShM as well (based on Russian technology). You never know if India will become a threat just like what China is becoming now.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/success-air-forces-first-hypersonic-weapon-completes-full-test-with-flying-colors

 

[Josh]

The second full up test didn’t apparently go well. There is R&D money scheduled through 2024 but no purchase money. Three more tests are planned; I think any more failures and the program gets cut in favor of just waiting for HACM.

[Josh]

And ARRW is to complete testing and be closed out by the airforce, barring Congress forcing them to buy it.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/air-force-to-ditch-troubled-arrw-hypersonic-missile/