US Air Force begins flight tests of a prototype hypersonic missile AGM-183A ARRW

The first prototype of the American promising hypersonic aeroballistic missile ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon) is prepared for independent flight. According to Flightglobal, the first flight of the rocket should take place before March 7, 2021.

According to the publication, the prototype AGM-183A ARRW is completely ready, during the first flight the operation of the accelerator will be checked. Previously, a rocket mockup took part in the tests. In June 2019, the first flight tests of hypersonic warheads with the AGM-183A ARRW air launch system took place.

The AGM-183A ARRW rocket is being created in response to similar developments in Russia and China. The first to be armed with a hypersonic missile will be the B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers (four missiles for one strategist).

Details of the development have not been disclosed, it is known that the rocket will be able to reach speeds of up to Mach 6,5 - 8, will receive a solid-fuel engine and a detachable hypersonic gliding warhead with a nuclear or high-explosive part.

Work on a new rocket started in 2018 as part of a contract between the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin to create an ARRW hypersonic missile (Weapon rapid response airborne). The agreement includes a critical review of the ARRW project, support for testing and preparation of the complex for production.

At the end of 2020, it was reported that work was progressing on schedule, the rocket should be ready in 2021, and the initial operational readiness by 2022.

Comments

[Cowbra]

Place your bets, gentlemen - will it be more epic than the F-35?
If you follow the model previously used in the invention of the "peremog" in the Pentagon, then they will be tested, and even brought to hypersound. Then they will pretend that they only remembered the control unit now, and therefore they will say that control is not needed for hypersonic weapons, and again spreading cranberry gardens will begin, about "the best" and "unparalleled." Well, actually, as usual, as with the Zamwalts, for example

[bayard]

In vain you are ironic, there is nothing difficult and critically impossible in such an aeroballistic missile, so it is likely that by 2022 this weapon will appear in service.
And this is a serious threat. Moreover, such or similar missiles are planned to be suspended under the F-15EX. The enemy must be taken seriously.
Another thing is that a small glider (the warhead of this missile) will not fit into a small glider for a conventional explosive.
So there will be a low-power nuclear charge.
And this makes you take a closer look at this product.

[Zaurbek]

When the Dagger was shown, there were a bunch of articles on what is and what is not ... In the end, is it a BR or a GP - a rocket with a ramjet engine?

[Temples]

Quote: Zaurbek

there were a bunch of articles on what is and what is not ... In the end ...

What is GP?

[Zaurbek]

Hypersound ...

[Kalmar]

Quote: Zaurbek

In the end, is it a BR or GP - a ramjet rocket?

There is a feeling that the term "hypersonic" will soon become a la "GMO-free": they will stick to any product that can overcome even for a moment the cherished 5M - otherwise they will not sell to the customer)

[bayard]

Quote: Zaurbek

..In the end, is it a BR or GP - a ramjet rocket?

This is an aeroballistic rocket with a solid-propellant engine - the same as on the "Dagger".
In practice, this is an analogue of our "Dagger", but with a warhead in the form of a hypersonic glider.
Let's see how the tests will go and only then we will draw conclusions. There are a lot of questions about this product, especially about its warhead.

[carstorm 11]

Is she in the photo? She reminds me of something externally)

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: carstorm 11

She reminds me of something externally)

SRAM?

[carstorm 11]

Well no.

everything is much simpler.

[The eye of the crying]

The dagger also looks like SRAM

[carstorm 11]

Perhaps if her range is 10 times and the speed is raised twice) but the external similarity is touching)

[The eye of the crying]

You spoke about the external similarity. And so yes, SRAM flew not far. But he is 40 years older.

[carstorm 11]

So I wrote so) just when the dagger showed how much criticism there was) curiously the same rain will fall from the experts)))

[Kalmar]

Quote: carstorm 11

but the resemblance is touching)

Similar tasks dictate similar solutions. All BRs (including aeroballistic ones) are more or less similar to each other.

[bayard]

Quote: carstorm 11

Perhaps if her range is 10 times and the speed is raised twice) but the external similarity is touching)

Their range is about the same, and so is the dimension. The "Dagger" has up to 2000 km. , but this is due to the fact that it starts at high altitude with a carrier speed of 2500 km / h, and the Americans start from a subsonic carrier and from a lower altitude, therefore, the range is declared at 1600 km.
But on the other hand, on the B-52, they will be able to bring them very far.

[carstorm 11]

Range we talked about SRAM)

[bayard]

Well, how can a daughter not be like a mother?

[carstorm 11]

Well, this is understandable)))) it is simply surprising that they decided to go the same way in essence. The only difference is in the glider, although I still don't understand why it is needed there.

[bayard]

Quote: carstorm 11

Well, this is understandable)))) it is simply surprising that they decided to go the same way in essence.

Why reinvent the wheel? The laws of aerodynamics have not changed, the laws of physics are still the same. Especially if there is absolutely no time for experiments. And for the United States, this is how things stand - they missed the rearmament of their army, missed a turn, and so they are catching up. Fortunately, they have enough reserves.
But by 2022, they may well get such a missile into service.

Quote: carstorm 11

The only difference is in the glider, although I still don't understand why it is needed there.

Firstly, it is a detachable warhead, and secondly, it maneuvers at hypersonic and high supersonic speeds. It is very difficult to hit such a target. And it's very hard to find.
But there is also a conditional minus - this glider is very small and you can place very little of an ordinary explosive there. So it is not effective in high-explosive equipment.
But in a nuclear (low-power nuclear charge), this is a very serious argument.

[carstorm 11]

I understand why she is on the Vanguard. And here a bunch of resources on the warhead are quite minimal in size. What's the point? How much is she carrying? Kg 200? It is unrealistic to knock down a dagger with the whole carcass, why a detachable glider?

[bayard]

Quote: carstorm 11

How much is she carrying? Kg 200?

Judging by the size, God forbid that a kilogram of 20 BB would fit.
So it is rational to use only in the nuclear version.
If the glider is not fake.

[carstorm 11]

Here I am about the same ... why should it be ..

[Alexey-74]

The fact that the Americans will nevertheless create hypersonic missiles, in principle, is beyond doubt, the main thing here is timing, but it is important for Russia to take the next step - protection against hypersonic systems, which in the foreseeable future will be put into service in the United States and NATO.

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey-74

Well, it is important for Russia to take the next step - protection against hypersonic systems, which in the foreseeable future will be adopted by both the United States and NATO.

The S-400 and S-500 complexes were designed for just such types of targets, because the Americans threatened at one time to create something similar by the beginning or middle of the "noughties".
And the latest modifications of the S-300 were capable of this.

[Ka-52]

Details of the development have not been disclosed, it is known that the rocket will be able to reach speeds of up to Mach 6,5 - 8, will receive a solid-fuel engine and a detachable hypersonic gliding warhead with a nuclear or high-explosive part.

It's a pity that the memory did not retain the details of that heated discussion in which admirers of the American military-industrial complex so fiercely argued to me that such a technology (in the case of the Vanguard) is all fairy tales of Russian propaganda. And now the American military-industrial complex is developing the same scheme (accelerator + combat gliding unit), following in our footsteps. Either cartoons turned out to be so infectious, or technologically it is still possible

[bayard]

Quote: Ka-52

Either cartoons turned out to be so infectious, or technologically it is still possible

Yes, there is nothing particularly outstanding in such missiles - aeroballistic missiles were in service with both the United States (on the B-1B) and the USSR (on the Tu-22M3 - X-15). True, the range was then smaller, the speed was slightly lower, and the dimensions were more modest. But they included:
- in V-1V - 12 pcs on two intra-fuselage drums),
- in Tu-22M3 - 6 pieces in the weapon compartment.
Now everything has become more brutal.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: bayard

Yes, there is nothing particularly outstanding in such missiles -

Pure water marketing. "Hypersonic" missiles that we have, that the United States has been in service for a long time, both countries know how to shoot them down. It's just a beautiful word. Everything sounds more impressive: Nazi Germany bombed London with FAU-2 hypersonic missiles. Not curved-oblique FAU-2, but hypersonic!
That really everyone is waiting for the scramjet, so it will give a qualitatively different level. But in any case, it will cost horse money and there will be very little of them.
Ultimately, as the subsonic missiles were the main strike means, they will remain.

[bayard]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Ultimately, as the subsonic missiles were the main strike means, they will remain.

Of course, in terms of the price / quality / efficiency ratio, thanks to the low-rise profile with relief bending, they will always be more massive.
But all the same, suppressing air defense, hitting headquarters and other priority targets will be these - hypersonic. And after that, Calibers \ Axes will go to break through the infrastructure.

[Ka-52]

"Hypersonic" missiles that we have, that the United States has long been in service, both countries know how to shoot them down.

what nonsense. Akin to "T-34 and T-90, well, in principle, one and the same in terms of armor penetration."

[Ka-52]

Yes, there is nothing particularly outstanding in such missiles - aeroballistic missiles were in service with both the United States (on the B-1V) and the USSR (on the Tu-22M3 - X-15)

you write about completely different things. In any case, with the Vanguard. In addition to the aeroballistic flight trajectory of the upper stage, they have nothing in common.

[bayard]

I did not write anything about the relationship between Avangard and the American product. But if we recognize the relationship of the American glider (small and suitable only for nuclear warheads), which is the warhead of the American missile, with our strategic and VERY heavy Avangard, then it would be VERY RUDE to agree with this.
I pointed out the relationship of the American aeroballistic missile with similar missiles of previous years. Only hypersonic no one called them.

[Ka-52]

I pointed out the relationship of the American aeroballistic missile with similar missiles of previous years. Nobody called them hypersonic.

.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The X-15 (which is the American AGM-69A SRAM) can be compared with the Vanguard only in terms of flight. on the boost section (even without taking into account the speed and altitude characteristics). Further differences begin. X-15 and AGM-69A SRAM are single-body missiles, inside the first there is a dual-mode solid propellant-160 and 150 kg warhead and homing missiles, depending on the purpose. The trajectory is changed due to the taxiing planes when pre-targeting.
The vanguard has detachable planning unit... Which is capable of making evolutions both in direction and in speed (since it has its own power plant).
And the materials are different. The X-15 is a titanium tube and the Vanguard (block) is a composite body.

[voyaka uh]

Dagger Blend (tactical air launch BR)
with Vanguard (separating planning warhead).

[slipped]

Quote: voyaka uh

Dagger Blend (tactical air launch BR)
with Vanguard (separating planning warhead).

It does not even reach the Dagger, that speed developed 10 swings. Especially before the Vanguard. And why a "planning warhead" on a tactical missile is unclear.

[voyaka uh]

The dagger was not designed from scratch - they took a heavy Iskander with a non-detachable warhead and hung it under the plane.
Cheap and cheerful.
Here design from scratch. The rocket is light, and the warhead is detachable.

Planning block? - for the same as that of the Vanguard - a non-ballistic trajectory.
Harder to shoot down.

[slipped]

Quote: voyaka uh

The dagger was not designed from scratch - they took a heavy Iskander with a non-detachable warhead and hung it under the plane.

We took part of the Iskander missile - it's not heavy.

Quote: voyaka uh

Cheap and cheerful.

Effectively. They know how.

Quote: voyaka uh

Here design from scratch. The rocket is light, and the warhead is detachable.

Here I am about the same - what for goat accordion?

Quote: voyaka uh

Planning block? - for the same as the Vanguard - non-ballistic trajectory. Harder to shoot down.

Those. their rocket cannot fly along a quasi-ballistic trajectory and is used only as an accelerator. Instead, they use a gliding unit with a SPVRD with a small, apparently, warhead.

[voyaka uh]

A quasi-ballistic trajectory is simply a flatter, sub-optimal
for flight, but a ballistic (computed) trajectory.
In the middle (main) stage, Iskander does not maneuver.
Only on takeoff. And a correction at the terminal site.

Israeli Laura has the same quasi-ballistic trajectory as
at Iskander. And the Americans will undoubtedly have it.

[slipped]

Quote: voyaka uh

In the middle (main) stage, Iskander does not maneuver, only on takeoff.

The Dagger has no "takeoff". It has already been dispersed in front of the separation.

Quote: voyaka uh

And a correction at the terminal site.

Maneuvers entirely, without separating anything.

[voyaka uh]

"The Dagger has no" takeoff ". It has already been dispersed before the separation" ///
----
It is overclocked, that's right, it is still there during takeoff.
The dagger, after separation, makes a candle from 10 to 50 km,
leaving on its quasi-ballistic trajectory.
Further - exactly like Iskander's. Astro correction, and over the goal -
almost straight down. And the final correction with an active radar.
In the last kilometers. When the speed drops from braking by atmosphere
to supersonic.

[slipped]

Quote: voyaka uh

It is overclocked, that's right, it is still there during takeoff.
The dagger, after separation, makes a candle from 10 to 50 km,
leaving on its quasi-ballistic trajectory.

It can be launched from an altitude of more than 20 km.

Quote: voyaka uh

almost straight down.

Completely not dividing and half a ton warhead.

[bayard]

Quote: slipped

It can be launched from an altitude of more than 20 km.

The officially declared launch altitude is 17 km. this is probably the optimum separation height.

Quote: slipped

Completely not dividing and half a ton warhead.

But this is more a minus than a plus. With the timely separation of the warhead, it does not lose so much in speed, the EPR of the separated warhead is less than the entire rocket by an order of magnitude \ orders, and finally for the enemy's air defense / missile defense there is more hemorrhoid with selection, because both the warhead and the already empty rocket are flying, and if its undermining (after the separation of the warhead), then a whole cloud of debris / targets.
With a massive raid / salvo, the situation will be even more aggravated, for there will be a cloud of real and false targets in the sky.
During the "Desert Storm" American "Patriots" often hit not the warhead, but the empty missile of the Iraqis, because the mark from the large flying barrel is much larger and brighter.

[slipped]

Quote: bayard

The officially declared launch altitude is 17 km. this is probably the optimum separation height.

well, if you think so, then probably

Quote: bayard

During the "Desert Storm" American "Patriots" often hit not the warhead, but the empty missile of the Iraqis, because the mark from the large flying barrel is much larger and brighter.

at that time there were no such missiles as the Iskander and even more so as the Dagger.

[bayard]

Quote: slipped

Quote: bayard
The officially declared launch altitude is 17 km. this is probably the optimum separation height.


well, if you think so, then probably

What are we laughing at, citizen?
The launch altitude is officially declared - 17 km.
Is it funny?
Or do you think that it is possible and higher?
It is possible, the carrier, in principle, allows. But most likely the optimal height of the sand is precisely the height of 17 km.
And I don't think so.

Quote: slipped

at that time there were no such missiles as the Iskander and even more so as the Dagger.

Iraq does not have them now.
So what ?
Or do you think that it is more difficult to hit an undivided missile (with a warhead)?
"Iskander" maneuvers, but "Patriot" and to this day the banal "Scud" takes with difficulty.

[bayard]

Quote: slipped

It does not even reach the Dagger, that speed developed 10 swings.

Subtract Mach 2 from the speed of the "Dagger" (the difference between the starting speed from the carrier) and get the same 8M. After all, an American rocket not only starts at a lower speed, but also from a lower altitude.
Dagger - from 17 km.
American counterpart from about 10 km. (maybe from 12 km.).
This is solid physics.

[slipped]

Quote: bayard

Subtract Mach 2 from the speed of the "Dagger"

but there it is not necessary to subtract 2 swings, there, on the contrary, it is necessary to add

it is strange that you are discussing an American missile as if it already exists. Developer?

[bayard]

Quote: slipped

it is strange that you are discussing an American missile as if it already exists. Developer?

Air Defense soldier.
And I studied physics well.
I see missiles like these as my legitimate targets.

[Andre___86]

Norm, as always, the Yankees quickly swayed in the place where they are inferior and, in a year or two, they will have these missiles a couple of hundred, or even thousands. And we have a couple dozen)))

[Quadro]

Go pray before the American flag.

[Andre___86]

Not going to. It's just that their military-industrial complex is geared towards making a profit. There is a demand - get an offer. The candy wrappers will print. But it is already clear that we ourselves opened Pandora's box, for which we will not have time later.

[bk0010]

Fast? The X-15 was made back in 1980.

[Ros 56]

It will not work, we are not to blame.

[Castro Ruiz]

How to bistro poluchilas eta kvazibalisticheskaya raketa u nich.
Nu posmotrim kak poletit "Kinzhalskiy". :)

[Old26]

Quote: Ka-52

And now the American military-industrial complex is developing the same scheme (accelerator + combat gliding unit), following in our footsteps.

In fact, the "Dagger", like the "Iskander", has a non-detachable warhead. So the scheme is still somewhat different.