Raytheon re-invents JDRADM: enter T3

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1835fc1a7082636955d912cab76660d6&tab=core&tabmode=list&=

Synopsis:
Added: Feb 08, 2011 2:05 pm
The Air Armament Center, Advanced Programs Division, Advanced Projects Branch, Eglin AFB, FL 32542, intends to award a sole source contract to Boeing Inc. for aircraft/interface data in support of the Triple Target Terminator (T3) demonstration. This effort will provide potential T3 contractors: Boeing Defense, Space and Security Weapons; and Raytheon Missile Systems with aircraft integration expertise and data which will facilitate design, development, test, qualification, and safety certification for a flight test demonstration on the F-15C or F-15E aircraft. Information gathered by T3 contractors will be used to develop and evaluate missile configurations that could provide required system performance and satisfy compatibility with the F-15 C F-15E weapons stations.
This effort will be conducted in three phases. For Phase I, Boeing, Inc. will conduct a feasibility study which examines options, analyzes iterative airframe configurations, performs high level impact assessments and defines and/or estimates tasks for Phase II. Under Phase II, Boeing, Inc. will perform detailed Air System impact assessments, identify risks, recommend mitigations, and develop initial planning and estimates for Phase III. Phase III will require Boeing, Inc to implement full-scale integration and certification of the T3 for launch from the F-15C or F-15E aircraft.

Both Boeing and Raytheon have T3 contracts from DARPA (from 2010). I wonder what they involved?

A bit of info from last week’s Farnborough Air Show:

When asked at a press conference if he could outline the likely future development path for AIM-9X and AMRAAM, Harry Schulte, vice president of Air Warfare Systems for Raytheon is reported to have declined to do so. He had apparently been happy to expound on potential development paths for Tomahawk, but potential air-to-air developments are presumably sensitive.

Even thoutgh JDRADM cancelled in FY2013 budget, T3 lives on:

Title: Triple Target Terminator (T3)

Description: The Triple Target Terminator (T3) program will develop a high speed, long-range missile that can engage air, cruise
missile, and air defense targets. T3 would be carried internally on stealth aircraft or externally on fighters, bombers, and UAVs.
The enabling technologies are: propulsion, data links, and digital guidance and control. T3 would allow any aircraft to rapidly
switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. T3’s speed, maneuverability, and network-centric capabilities would
significantly improve U.S. aircraft survivability and increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each
sortie. The program is jointly funded with, and will transition to the Air Force.

FY 2011 Accomplishments:
– Conducted preliminary design review of T3 concepts.
– Initiated T3 critical design activities.

FY 2012 Plans:
– Conduct hardware-in-the-loop integrated subsystem testing.
– Conduct propulsion system ground testing.
– Fabricate and ground test demonstration vehicles.

FY 2013 Plans:
– Conduct captive carry test of flight test article.
– Conduct ground launch of test article.
– Conduct airborne launch of test articles against three target types.

T3 is not a reinvention or backup of JDRADM, but a part of the JDRADM’s development.

Well, hopefully I am wrong. As you may know, silent attack with the AN/ALR-94, on the F-22 and lesser (not so bad) systems on Block II Super Hornet and the F-35 are the way AMRAAM shots will be cued for launch when the target emits.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html

HOBS/helmet cued dog-fight missiles, newer BVR AMRAAMS, on the Block II of the Super for example are good things. Yet look at how the U.S. Navy went out and got the LM composite IRST/centerline drop tank order.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q3/070702a_nr.html

These will be sensor-fused to the Super Block II. I think when you team all that up with an optical terminal seeker on an AMRAAM body, you just upped the self-defense ability of the aircraft significantly. It still won’t be able to run much but it may be able to give out more hurt.

Have a good new year AD– Eric

Yep, all that stuff will definitely help the Super and other aircraft no doubt. I think you are still undervaluing the off-board targetting capabilities that the US maintains and will improve in future years. They are going to be increasingly important as LO aircraft begin to proliferate. The tiny on-board FCR is going to be increasingly irrelevant IMHO.

Radar based targetting is and will seemingly remain the main targetting system. New generation BVR air to air missiles such as Mica RF, Meteor, JDRADM and Sino/Russian weapons are still active radar guided variants.

Most are still trying to catch up to what AMRAAM can already do, too and AMRAAM isn’t standing still.

Anyhoo, have a good new year mate. Looking forward to seeing the defence news, for what should be a fairly interesting year in Australia at least…

(KC-30A, Super Hornet, Wedgetail, JASSM all reaching IOC…)

We’ll see Super Hornet et al at Pitch Black and perhaps overseas (Bersama Padu, Red Flag etc) and we may even see some serious decisions Government is due to make (MH-60R/NFH-90 etc, JSF Phase 1 contract etc).

Cheers,

AD

It will probably end up that way. Multiple-mode seeker systems are definitely the way of things in future years, but you IMHO are making the same mistake as Swerve made on the IR heater thread and automatically assume that one side is remaining static whilst the threat advances.

They don’t and if you think the HOJ capability hasn’t improved since it was introduced on the -B model AMRAAM then I would suggest you are being just a tad myopic…

Well, hopefully I am wrong. As you may know, silent attack with the AN/ALR-94, on the F-22 and lesser (not so bad) systems on Block II Super Hornet and the F-35 are the way AMRAAM shots will be cued for launch when the target emits.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9268-start-0.html

HOBS/helmet cued dog-fight missiles, newer BVR AMRAAMS, on the Block II of the Super for example are good things. Yet look at how the U.S. Navy went out and got the LM composite IRST/centerline drop tank order.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q3/070702a_nr.html

These will be sensor-fused to the Super Block II. I think when you team all that up with an optical terminal seeker on an AMRAAM body, you just upped the self-defense ability of the aircraft significantly. It still won’t be able to run much but it may be able to give out more hurt.

Have a good new year AD– Eric

HOJ is sort of OK for older jamming but it is a last ditch effort in the terminal phase.

Digital jammers and–even better if you have cross-eyed jamming and I doubt you will get the PK out of the AMRAAM HOJ-mode or no–or any radar homer that you would like.

Adding any L.O. to the front sector makes it even worse. We need a simple solution. That is an optical terminal seeker on the AMRAAM. That with the AMRAAMs data link–backed up by geo location in the F-22 (AN/ALR-94) and/or AESA will work fine.

It will probably end up that way. Multiple-mode seeker systems are definitely the way of things in future years, but you IMHO are making the same mistake as Swerve made on the IR heater thread and automatically assume that one side is remaining static whilst the threat advances.

They don’t and if you think the HOJ capability hasn’t improved since it was introduced on the -B model AMRAAM then I would suggest you are being just a tad myopic…

HOJ is sort of OK for older jamming but it is a last ditch effort in the terminal phase.

Digital jammers and–even better if you have cross-eyed jamming and I doubt you will get the PK out of the AMRAAM HOJ-mode or no–or any radar homer that you would like.

Adding any L.O. to the front sector makes it even worse. We need a simple solution. That is an optical terminal seeker on the AMRAAM. That with the AMRAAMs data link–backed up by geo location in the F-22 (AN/ALR-94) and/or AESA will work fine.

Re: AMRAAM–If the target in question, doesn’t jam it out.

Yeah. Because Home on Jam would be useless in such a scenario…

The Meteor is not of any threat to the USAF/USN , Looking for the future they really need the JDRADM rather then a dedicated AIm-120 Successor. The AIM-120D and beyond will still remain viable and competitive missiles for many many years to come.

Re: AMRAAM–If the target in question, doesn’t jam it out. Or in the coming years, have just enough L.O. to make the PK of a radar missile, not all that good or useless.

Some studies rate the MBDA Meteor better than the planned 120-D

The Meteor is not of any threat to the USAF/USN , Looking for the future they really need the JDRADM rather then a dedicated AIm-120 Successor. The AIM-120D and beyond will still remain viable and competitive missiles for many many years to come.

The U.S. should as a stop-gap, develop an AMRAAM that has an optical seeker like the AIM-9X or ASRAAM.

Not a dual-mode seeker, just a different variant that has an optical-only seeker.

This, along with the AMRAAMs data-linked ability would be doable, not so expensive, and lethal. This would give aircraft like the Super Slow Hornet Block II (especially when carrying the centerline IRST/fuel tank made by Lockheed that the Navy is getting and will be sensor fused into the Block II Super), much more powerful in BVR and not being at the mercy of jamming of the traditional radar versions. You can put the letter C or D after the AMRAAM but it still needs an “E” version that doesn’t depend on terminal radar guidance. Do this and you will see much more BVR killing force from AMRAAM shooters.

The U.S. fed budget is in trouble. Making an AMRAAM “E” for lack of a better name with an optical only seeker, could be done without drawing attention dollar problems. A mixed volley of C/D and E AMRAAMs would keep us from having an Achilles heel where our BVR eggs are all in one basket with radar only AMRAAMs.

The NCADE variant already adds the seeker from the -9X, and I suspect it could easily be used against fixed wing aircraft as well as TBMs.

“Air defence targets” refering to an ARM role , or something more ?

Both this missile and the JDRADM are designed to be able to be used against aerial targets, as well as SAM sites(replacing the HARM).

An 8 inch diameter motor carries 33% more propellant than a 7 inch diameter motor.

Well, in terms of US ‘stopgap’ BVR AAM class missiles per discussion which could conceivably be coupled also w/ a nominal joint ground engagement capbility (with proper software mod), I would concur with ELP’s well articulated comment. It could be argued as a legit interim requirement at a minimum and valid modern tactical mix, via deploying enhanced capability/deterrence at minimal cost and schedule.

And I’d also have to assess that on a 7″ body, it’s probably not the best exploited size missile (weight and performance wise) and perhaps not even most economical given the current tech at least, to integrate multiple seekers. A heavier 8″ body might be a better candidate for such capability, as would the obvious larger diameter class bodies?

Scooter :

Some studies rate the MBDA Meteor better than the planned 120-D .

Cheers .

Both will be options on the F-35!😎

The U.S. should as a stop-gap, develop an AMRAAM that has an optical seeker like the AIM-9X or ASRAAM.

Not a dual-mode seeker, just a different variant that has an optical-only seeker.

This, along with the AMRAAMs data-linked ability would be doable, not so expensive, and lethal. This would give aircraft like the Super Slow Hornet Block II (especially when carrying the centerline IRST/fuel tank made by Lockheed that the Navy is getting and will be sensor fused into the Block II Super), much more powerful in BVR and not being at the mercy of jamming of the traditional radar versions. You can put the letter C or D after the AMRAAM but it still needs an “E” version that doesn’t depend on terminal radar guidance. Do this and you will see much more BVR killing force from AMRAAM shooters.

The U.S. fed budget is in trouble. Making an AMRAAM “E” for lack of a better name with an optical only seeker, could be done without drawing attention dollar problems. A mixed volley of C/D and E AMRAAMs would keep us from having an Achilles heel where our BVR eggs are all in one basket with radar only AMRAAMs.

Scooter :

Does anything else even come close???

Some studies rate the MBDA Meteor better than the planned 120-D .

Cheers .

Yes, refer to ARM only.