The ALARM missile, national
solution to the RAF requirement for the Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD), is
arguably by far the most advanced Anti-Radiation Missile (ARM) on the market,
able as it is to loiter over an area to strike at enemy radars as soon as they
turn on, and has the especially good feature of being relatively small and
light, allowing carriage of numerous missiles on a single plane. On a Tornado
GR4, ALARM missiles can be carried as self defence weapons, along with other
weapon payloads, to help the jet make its way through the enemy defences to its
target.
The Tornado can carry a huge amount of ALARM rounds, making for a very capable SEAD asset |
The ALARM's best feature is that it
does not require a dedicate SEAD airplane to be employed, differently from the
US HARM, which requires a variety of specialized radar-locating ESM to be
fitted to the launching platforms: so, while the RAF can notionally put ALARM
missiles on any Tornado GR4 (and, from 2003 to their retirement in 2011, on
Tornado F3 as well), air forces using the HARM have to use specialized,
purpose-built/kitted airplanes for the SEAD role. This is true for Germany and
Italy (Tornado ECR variant) and for the US as well.
The old generation HARM is also quite easily
countered by turning down the targeted radar, leaving the missile without
guidance. With the ALARM, this is not possible, as the missile can still
navigate its way to the target, or anyway go into loitering mode, climbing at
high altitude and dangling from a parachute, forcing the enemy to either keep
the radar turned off, letting the strike jets pass, or turn on the radar and be
destroyed.
The ALARM, however, is approaching
the end of its service life. Although unconfirmed, a 2013 out of service date
has appeared on some documents, and the requirement for integration of the
missile on Typhoon has been dropped.
The HARM is even more out of date,
and less and less effective, but the USAF's attempts of producing a replacement
in the form of a multi-role
missile capable to replace at once the AMRAAM and HARM have so far been
unsuccessful, with the latest in a series of development effort being
killed off by the 2012 budget cuts at the DoD.
The HARM uses speed as its main
instrument for success, being meant to hit the radar quickly after it is
located, rushing against it at high supersonic speed, but its inability to
pursue radars that are shut down after its launch have limited its combat
effectiveness already in the 90s, making it less and less convincing and
reliable a solution to the SEAD problem.
Differently from the USAF, which is
willing to wait on an HARM replacement in order to develop a super multi-role
future missile, the US Navy and USMC have chosen a quicker, simpler path to
walk. Since 2003, the US Navy is funding the development and acquisition of an
improved HARM, the AGM88E
AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile) which is meant to counter
radar-shutdown techniques and introduce other improvements. The missile is
fitted with a passive radar seeker, which locks onto the enemy radar emissions;
a GPS navigation system capable to keep in memory the position of the enemy
radiation source, and an active, millimeter-wave radar seeker (similar to that
used by the Longbow Hellfire and Brimstone missiles) to detect, identify and
track the radar and SAM launchers for striking them with accuracy even if the
emissions are terminated.
In 2005 the AARGM also gained the
funding and participation of the Italian armed forces, which use HARM missiles
on the Tornado ECR SEAD airplanes of the 155° Squadron, 50° Wing, based in San
Damiano, near Piacenza. The AARGM is thus going to be employed on airplanes
such as the Growler, the Prowler and, by Italy, on the Tornado ECR and,
possibly in the future, on Typhoon. Germany is a possible future user of the
AARGM as well, depending on what they decide to do with their own SEAD squadron
on Tornado ECR, or with their Typhoons. Use on the F35B (external carriage) is
also a distinct possibility, since the US Marines will not have a replacement
for their Prowlers, and won't field any Growler. The F35B is all they are going
to have.
The missile could also go on the
USAF F16 Wild Weasels (the SEAD specialists) and on F/A-18s and other
platforms.
The american AGM-88 HARM (A, B, C) and AGM-88E AARGM family is the current american SEAD kinetic effector |
Italy's participation in the AARGM
followed the failure of an european, German-led initiative for the development
of a new generation ARG missile. The program died for lack of funding,
unfortunately, but between the late 90s and early 00s, the initiative generated
the ARMIGER (Anti-Radiation Missile with Intelligent Guidance and Extended
Range). The AARGM was seen as a low cost, low risk alternative, as most of the
missile (propulsion, warhead) is just carried through from existing HARM of the
AGM88B and C variants already in use.
The ARMIGER was a new missile,
faster and with longer range thanks to the adoption of RamJet propulsion (as on
the Meteor, to which the ARMIGER bores some resemblance). It was to use a
double seeker with a passive radar sensor and an Infrared Imaging one for
terminal guidance. It gained the interest of the RAF, of Italy and even of
France, but ultimately went nowhere.
In 2001, however, the new idea was
to take the ARMIGER double seeker, and fit
it to the Meteor air to air missile body, creating an ARM with the same
size factors of the new air to air missile. This would mean dramatic
advantages, opening up many more options for carriage, including the
under-fuselage recesses of the Typhoon and the weapon bays of the F35.
Targeting would require a couple of
Typhoons flying together and sharing their sensor-generated picture to
triangulate the source of enemy radiations. The missile would work like the
AARGM, but be totally passive (undetectable to ESM) thanks to its terminal
guidance being based on an Infrared seeker instead of a radar one.
Unfortunately, even this approach
seems not to have proceeded much further, with no funding being provided in the
latest years, even though the US themselves became interested in the effort, in
particular the US Navy. Boeing
was tasked with studying the feasibility of a ARM Meteor, and studies were
completed, apparently with success. Back then, the Meteor was faced with a double,
huge opportunity: being selected by the US Navy as a Phoenix long-range AAM
replacement, and as new ARM.
However, no one in Europe committed
funding for the ARM development, and the craving of the US Navy for a new Phoenix
eventually went a bit cold as time moved on, even though it is not entirely
vanished even now.
The lack of decision and courage on
the multi-role Meteor is a really sad one. The US Navy eventually started the
AARGM effort, while continuing
to make tests for a new, much faster missile as a long-term replacement.
Then, in 2005, there was another
twitch of life for the Meteor ARM, when Italy joined the AARGM effort but,
looking at the future, required, as part of the negotiations over the program,
to study
the feasibility of putting the AARGM seeker onto the Meteor.
Despite the AARGM being 250 mm in
diameter, against 180 for the Meteor, the seeker system was small enough to
make the migration feasible. As of 2011, this development path was
still talked of, and in theory it is an alive concept, but progress is
unheard of, since no one is exactly committing to the system, and the only real
hope at the moment is represented by the US Navy eventually deciding to aim
strongly for the Meteor, perhaps with the ambition of bringing in service also
the basic air-to-air variant, as Phoenix replacement and, long term, possibly
as AMRAAM successor (NOTE: while the USAF is studying and testing options for
long term AMRAAM replacement as seen earlier, the US Navy is not at the moment
planning an AMRAAM replacement of its own, counting to use its AIM-120 stocks
for many more years).
A game-changing development could be
the commitment of the RAF to this relatively low-risk solution. It is possible
(albeit of course far from certain) that the decision of the UK to develop the
Meteor ARM would be the stimulus needed for partners such as Germany and Italy or
even the US Navy to "get on with it", as the requirement definitely
exists, but no one seems to want to go at it alone, fearing the costs of such
an enterprise.
A Meteor-based ARM would be compatible
with internal carriage in the F35's bays, and readily available for use from
the 6 Typhoon stations cleared for Meteor. It could represent a huge export
win, if the F35 sells a lot (as expected) in the next 30 years, just because it
would be the only compatible ARM.
It would not have the loitering mode
of the ALARM, but thanks to its radar or IIR terminal guidance it would not
need it, as it would be able to see the radar, recognize it, and hit it even if
it is turned off.
It would be possibly twice as fast
as HARM (Meteor is a Mach 4 missile) and it could well offer a massively
increased range (the Meteor is an unique AAM because its RamJet engine burns
for the whole length of the attack sequence. AMRAAM's rocket, instead, burns
very quickly, accelerating the missile to Mach 4 and then turning off, letting
the missile fly forwards only on the accumulated kinetic energy. Having
propulsion all the time, the Meteor offers a much greater range, and a much
greater "no escape" zone as it can maneuver a lot more without losing
speed and kinetic energy, differently from AMRAAM. Attacking a static or
semi-static target such as a ground based radar, even truck or tank-mounted,
does not require much in terms of maneuvers, and would allow the missile to
glide at high speed for many more miles after the engine dies off for lack of
fuel, extending the range probably by a huge margin).
It could be possible to develop a
multi-role Meteor, with appropriate funding [a missile meeting the USAF
specifics of "Triple Target Terminator" by combining active and
passive radar seeker allowing it to work as air-to-air missile, Anti-Radiation
Missile and ground-attack missile for the destruction of time-sensitive
targets] but this might be too ambitious and expensive, at least in the short
term.
Developing an ARM variant of the
Meteor, to add to the air-to-air one, on the other end, seems a relatively
straightforward job, with at least two Seekers up to the job and pretty much
ready for adoption.
If there's a weapon program i'd like
to see added to the "Complex Weapons" initiative list of to-do, it is
the Meteor ARM.
Electronic War: no need to Growl
It has been noted, rightfully so,
that in Europe there's no one at the moment with adequate strategic electronic
war capabilities. In Libya last year the only way for NATO to have a wall of
electronic disturbs to hide behind was to have US Navy Growlers or Prowlers
leading the way to the targets.
Electronic War is important in today's
technological battlefield, and it is likely to be even more relevant in tomorrow's
one. Accordingly, the US Navy is acquiring a consistent number of Growler
airplanes specialized in EW. They are acquiring over one hundred, to form 10
squadrons, each with 5 airplanes, to assign to each of the Aircraft Carrier Air
Wings. 4 more "Expeditionary" squadrons add to the force for
supporting enduring operations and land operations, helping the USAF fill the
hole left by the termination of the B52 standoff jammer system. The 14
squadrons are supported by a 12-airplane Fleet Replacement Squadron training
the personnel for service.
The Growler is a powerful war
machine of the modern times. It combines EW and kinetic weaponry on a capable
F/A-18 airframe. It goes into battle normally loaded with the pods of the EW
system plus a couple of HARM/AARGM missiles for the physical destruction of
radars, and a couple of AMRAAM missiles for self defence. It is the replacement
for the old Prowlers.
The USMC has its own 4 Electronic
War squadrons, equipped with Prowler, but they have no plan of putting in service any Growler. Their program is to keep
the Prowler going in the short term, sustaining their fleet with the airplanes
that the US Navy replaces with Growlers, and then provide EW from the F35B and
from a drone yet to be selected.
It is expected that the USMC Prowler
squadrons will begin to disband, one per year, from 2016 to 2019/2020.
The replacement is intended to be in
the form of F35Bs carrying Next
Generation Jammer pods. The NGJ
is a replacement program for the ALQ-99 EW system used on the Growler, and its
integration on the F35 is especially relevant for the USMC.
For the UK, the Next Generation
Jammer represents a big chance of expanding its capabilities at relatively low
cost and complication. There's no need to have the EA-18 Growler to obtain
world-class capacity to blind the enemy sensors and silence their
communications, once the development
of NGJ and its fielding on JSF are on the way. Unfortunately, there
is no date at the moment for F35 integration, but the USMC's need for a
Prowler replacement and the unwillingness to renounce to the advantages of a
jet fleet on sole F35s should ensure that the program progresses at some point
in the next few years.
Gabriele thats a very good article. Your right the US really dominates this field of Electronic warfare and like AWAC and ISTAR they use it to great effect and it massively multiplies the effectiveness of their forces. Though its nice to see that Europe may be offering a bit of competition.
ReplyDeleteIf Europe ever wish's to have the ability of power projection they do need to improve in these areas. Personally i prefer the idea of a specialised version of a plane for the role (such as the EA-18) and would love to see some typhoons or f-35s modified specifically for this role.
I'm very glad you liked the article.
ReplyDeleteThere is some early speculation and concept works for an "EA-35" which could even be twin-seat.
Israel is very interested in a two-seat F35 for the future, especially if it comes as a big electronic warfare platform.
The US are also going to face questions for the future if, after spending so much on stealth, they send stealthy planes into mission escorted by legacy, not-at-all-stealth-and-not-supercruising EA-18Gs...
We'll see how things develop.
I would agree that the US navy would love to have an "EA-35" but they are already trying to get so much from one airframe it seems hard to see how they will achieve this, without extensive costs. As it is likely that further increases in cost of the f-35 project and a large budget deficit after the general election will make the armed forces one of the favourites for cuts and without any current-real life need for the "EA-35" and the huge amount already spent on the project i can see there being reluctance to create this capacity.
ReplyDeleteI think they will hope the AESA radar will be able to cope and they can retire the EA-18's.
"not-at-all-stealth-and-not-supercruising EA-18Gs... "
The f-35s aren't completely stealthy themselves from what i have heard and with Russia and China trying to counter "stealth" i do at times wonder how invisible to radar they will be. As for super-cruise, there is no WAY the F-35's will have this ability.