US Triple Threat Terminator (T3) Program (New Long Range Anti-air missile)

Based on a discussion held on the Type 54 Frigate Thread II, where we got off topic and discussed at some length advanced US anti-air missiles and particularly the AIM-154 Phoenix missile, the AMRAAM missile and the once proposed ALRAAM missile, I decided to find and post an article about US developments in this area for further discussion.

The result is as follows:

Defense Industry Daily said:

February 2012:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In early FY 2011, DARPA awarded a pair of initial contracts for something called the Triple Target Terminator. In their own words:

“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, multi-mode seekers, data links, digital guidance and control, and advanced warheads. 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.”

Oddly, T3 sounds very similar to an ongoing Air Force Research Laboratory project – and seems to confirm a trend toward multi-guidance, multi-role smart weapons. But can the USAF develop and field its desired Next Generation Missile from among these development programs?

There are a couple of trends at work here. One involves electronics. The other involves stealth fighters.

Moore’s Law of computing power, and electronics miniaturization, continue to drive that industry. They make it possible to improve the quality of missile seekers, memory, and processors, even as they shrink in size. The natural corollary is weapons with multiple guidance modes, all correlated by on-board computers. At its simplest, this trend manifests itself as dual-mode GPS/laser guided bombs. Beyond that, tri-mode weapons like the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II, the imperiled JAGM missile, offer designs and capabilities that would not have been possible before.

T3 will need to go after very different sets of targets. The ideal solution is a missile that can use different guidance modes including GPS, radar, imaging infrared/multispectral, and/or laser guidance, while possessing enough computer power and memory to interpret very different sensor results and adjust to maneuvering supersonic fighters, stealthy cruise missiles, and ground-based vehicles. Needless to say, these are very different problem sets.

There are unconfirmed reports of a dual ground/air, ramjet powered missile design back in the 1970s, proposed as an alternate approach for the AMRAAM air-to-air missile competition, but it was pushed aside. As computing power and electronics have improved, that very approach looks to be coming around again.

READ MORE HERE

Click to expand...

The US Air Force Next Generation Missile (NGM) program, which was a second development path with Boeing working specifically on an AMRAAM and HARM missile replacement, was recently canceled.

T3 will be a long range triple threat missile meant to attack enemy aircraft , enemy missiles, and enemy sensor/radar targets.


The Darpa Program Site says the following:

DARPA T3 Program said:

"Foreign countries have studied U.S. military actions and are methodically developing strategies and technologies to defeat U.S. Air Dominance. This growing threat is in part attributed to the local numerical advantage many enemy defenses possess.

The T3 program seeks to develop a supersonic, long range missile that can engage enemy aircraft, cruise missiles, and surface-to-air missiles. The speed, maneuverability, and network-centric capabilities of the Triple Target Terminator (T3) should significantly improve U.S. aircraft survivability and increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each sortie. The T3 missile should enable an aircraft to rapidly switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities, and is designed to be carried internally by 5th generation aircraft (F-22 and F-35), as well as externally on 4th generation aircraft (F-15, F-16, and F-18). The enabling technologies are: air-breathing propulsion, advanced data networking, multi-role guidance and control, and advanced thermal and power management.

The program plans to culminate in a live-fire T3 missile demonstration against the three target types in the fall of 2013."

Click to expand...

Please use this thread to discuss all related US new, long range anti-air missile development and strategy.

(Note to mods: You may want to move the off topic portion of the Type 054 Thread II discussing this topic to this thread)

Friedman says there that f-14 used some sort of *intermittent semiactive* guidance for aim-54. Of course having a phased array would provide much more frequent updates but I don't see why even a mechanically steered array couldnt do a crude version of the trick. Perhaps that is why sometimes front dome is credited with illuminating two separate targets, IF they are close together. We don't know how close they have to be, is it one degree of difference or 10 degrees of difference. Yes, it could also be that the illuminator is fixed and both targets are in the cone, but do we have proof that is how it works? If Tomcat's radar could do it (and i swear i remember reading once that F15s could do something similar with later version sparrows) then why would it be impossible other mechanically steered radars do it.

Also, it is important to note that land based version, hq16, does have a phased array. Marketing pamphlets say one engagement radar can guide missiles to 4 different targets. But obviously, having any sort of ICWI, be it slow mechanical one or quick electronically steered one, doesn't give range improvements.

Fuel shouldnt be much of an issue as late 90s amraams had no bigger range than pl-12, and fuel technology raytheon used then must have been at least as good as late 70s sm-2, probably a bit better. (yes, amraam is a bit smaller, but is it smaller enough for 300% more range between hq16 and sm2? Fuel may be A (small) factor, but it doesn't seem to be THE factor, even by a longshot.

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

Dont forget that AMRAMM and PL-12 are air-launched and already possess an initial velocity and kinematic advantage due to their altitute that a land and naval based SAM still has to achieve by using boosters or burning so much fuel to overcome gravity and gain altitute and velocity.
Air-launched missiles are typically longer-ranged than surface launched missiles. This is why the PL-12 based SAM on the Chinese Humvee is only quoted to have just a dozen of kilometer range, so are other western SAM systems based on well-proven AAMs.

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

I didnt mention amraam or pl12 to compare either one of them to h16 or sm-2. I compared the difference in range between amraam and pl12 with difference in range between sm-2 and hq16.

Guidance through cruise phase of flight seems to be the single biggest culprit for hq16 poor range. Makes one wonder if hq9 has similar issues. And if not, if it has a proper autpilot and course correction system implemented, why haven't similar subsystems been added to hq16 design?

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

Mysterre said:

It doesn't really matter whether the range of the HHQ-16 is 35km or 70km. It's still a medium range missile, and 054A is still a fleet air defense ship. Point defense refers to short range guns or missiles with ranges around 5-15km. Medium range missiles are capable of providing fleet defense for other ships. If your criteria for a fleet defense missile consists of "being able to attack aircraft", I don't see how the HHQ-16 wouldn't fit the bill. If your criteria consists of "being able to attack aircraft before they launch their antiship missiles", then I don't see how even the SM-2 would be able to fit the bill, yet who would doubt that the SM-2 is a fleet defense missile? Medium range air defense is simply another layer in the air defense onion, which in the PLAN will be provided (at least for now) by the HHQ-16, and in the USN by the ESSM.

Click to expand...

The tactics employed by most navies is a defense in depth, or layerd defense. This defense today can consist of up to four layers which would be the long range weapons, the medium range weapons, the short range weapons, and the point defenses.

Many nations combine various levels on single platforms. For example, an Arliegh Burke vessel has three levels: long range SM missiles, medium range ESSM missiles (note: there are also what would be considered medium to long range SM missiles available), and close point defenses in terms of Phalynx. So, a Burke could function as either a picket type defense vessel out on a major threat axis, or as a goal keeper in close to the principle assett (ie. a carrier). The Burkes would benefit IMHO by following the South Korean AEGIS example and adding one or two RAM launchers to cover short range defenses as well.

Most carriers themselves have several levels of this defense included on the carrier. For the US, this means medium range ESSM missiles (16 ready to launch), short range RAM missiles (42 ready to launch), and point defense with Phalynx (two guns). The PLAN Carrier has short range FL-3000N missiles similar to RAM (72 missiles) and three Type 1030 CIWS.

In the US, there used to be a fifth layer, and that was F-14 Tomcats out on Barrier CAP whose AIM-54 Phoenix missiles were specifically designed to shoot down enemy attack aircraft before they fired their missiles, but could also perform in the anit-missile role. This asset is sorely missed in the CBG because it has not been adequately replaced. A Tomcat could be on Barrier CAP over 250 miles out with a missile that had another 100+ mile reach. With a Hawkeye nearby, they had a good chance of finding and engaging enemy aircraft before they got in range to launch.

The SuperHornet AMRAAM combo does not have nearly the ranges or time on station capabilities to get the same reach, and so the potential to get the shooters before they launch has been adversley impacted.

Anyhow, this defense in depth doctrine against incoming aircratf and especially missiles, is something that most navies who operate carrier strike groups employ to varying degrees whjether it is the US, France, the UK, Russia, Inida, Spain, Italy, etc. We see the PLAN itself doing so with the Type 052C (and to some extent with the Type 051C), the Type 054A and the Carrier itself. These vessels seem more specialized in terms of their fit with the Type 052C and Type 051C as more or less long range shooters, the Type 054A being a medium range shooter, and the carrier itself providing the short range and point defenses, though a goal keeper of any of the other three could also help provied point defense for the carrier.

It would be a advantages for the PLAN IMHO to add the FL-3000N system to the destroyers and the frigate if possible to enhance their layered defense capabilities.

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

But Jeff don't you think this layered defence relys on seeing the enemy aircraft and missiles, in the case where the element of suprise is preserved a few if these layers can be penetrated, and then it's down to just short range and point defence

In 2006 the Israeli navy Saar 5 was hit by a anti-ship missile, the warhead didn't go off but had it exploded a high probability is it would have sunk, it's point defence failed and it was using the Phalanx and crucially the C802 had the element of surprise

Obviously carrier battle groups have far more dedicated air defence but layers of defece rely on first detecting and then successfully engaging the threat, if right tactics are employed I think loop holes can be found and exploited

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

asif iqbal said:

But Jeff don't you think this layered defence relys on seeing the enemy aircraft and missiles, in the case where the element of suprise is preserved a few if these layers can be penetrated, and then it's down to just short range and point defence

In 2006 the Israeli navy Saar 5 was hit by a anti-ship missile, the warhead didn't go off but had it exploded a high probability is it would have sunk, it's point defence failed and it was using the Phalanx and crucially the C802 had the element of surprise

Obviously carrier battle groups have far more dedicated air defence but layers of defece rely on first detecting and then successfully engaging the threat, if right tactics are employed I think loop holes can be found and exploited

Click to expand...

ddin't that Saar 5 turned off bunch of its counter measures (flares chaff and jammers) and phalanx wasn't on auto-engage mode?

In a cluttered coastal enviornment those things would be off. but in a "clean" enviornment where one expect a big air sea battle those would be on.

btw I consider the ESMs , Jammers and chaffs an important layer too. actually the french relies on them more on their ships than the hard kill weapons. they rely on them and stay out of truoble. also signitures are also important. infrared and radar.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

asif iqbal said:

But Jeff don't you think this layered defence relys on seeing the enemy aircraft and missiles, in the case where the element of suprise is preserved a few if these layers can be penetrated, and then it's down to just short range and point defence

In 2006 the Israeli navy Saar 5 was hit by a anti-ship missile, the warhead didn't go off but had it exploded a high probability is it would have sunk, it's point defence failed and it was using the Phalanx and crucially the C802 had the element of surprise

Obviously carrier battle groups have far more dedicated air defence but layers of defece rely on first detecting and then successfully engaging the threat, if right tactics are employed I think loop holes can be found and exploited

Click to expand...

ddin't that Saar 5 turned off bunch of its counter measures (flares chaff and jammers) and phalanx wasn't on auto-engage mode?

In a cluttered coastal enviornment those things would be off. but in a "clean" enviornment where one expect a big air sea battle those would be on.

btw I consider the ESMs , Jammers and chaffs an important layer too. actually the french relies on them more on their ships than the hard kill weapons. they rely on them and stay out of truoble. also signitures are also important. infrared and radar.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

hmmwv said:

The similarly sized RIM-66 Standard can go up to 170km.

Click to expand...

RIM-66 is a much bigger bird.

the vanilla HQ-16 also dom't have the booster stage that RIM-66 SM-2 has.

Buk-M weighs about 500 kg. while SM-2 weights about 700 kg.

Buk-M is comparable to earlier Tatar missile in spec and range.


also I think HQ-16 does have an inertial driven auto pilot, not simply a dumb SARH missile.

lactive version is in trial. expect to be seen soon.

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

Totoro said:

Friedman says there that f-14 used some sort of *intermittent semiactive* guidance for aim-54. Of course having a phased array would provide much more frequent updates but I don't see why even a mechanically steered array couldnt do a crude version of the trick. Perhaps that is why sometimes front dome is credited with illuminating two separate targets, IF they are close together. We don't know how close they have to be, is it one degree of difference or 10 degrees of difference. Yes, it could also be that the illuminator is fixed and both targets are in the cone, but do we have proof that is how it works? If Tomcat's radar could do it (and i swear i remember reading once that F15s could do something similar with later version sparrows) then why would it be impossible other mechanically steered radars do it.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the MR-90 is a passive phased array, which is why I think it has a crude ability to illuminate more than one target. And I'm assuming the illuminators on the 054A are equivalent to the Russian version. Parabolic emitters like the AN/SPG-62 are always CWI illuminators, meaning they can only light up one target at a time. They can do multiples only if their targets are very close together and inside the narrow radar cone of the SPG-62, which at extreme ranges (~200km) is a few dozen meters wide IIRC. The ingenius thing about the SPG-62/SPY-1 combo is that targets don't get lit up until the very last few seconds of an engagement, meaning that the SPG-62 has relatively short dwell times on targets and can slew to another target in short order once the first target is destroyed. However, ICWI requires very agile beam steering back and forth between multiple targets which a mechanically-steered radar like the SPG-62 simply cannot physically accomplish.

BTW, you should get the latest version of that Naval Institute Guide, which was published in 2006. It has some interesting reading on PLAN systems.

Jeff Head said:

In the US, there used to be a fifth layer, and that was F-14 Tomcats out on Barrier CAP whose AIM-54 Phoenix missiles were specifically designed to shoot down enemy attack aircraft before they fired their missiles, but could also perform in the anit-missile role. This asset is sorely missed in the CBG because it has not been adequately replaced. A Tomcat could be on Barrier CAP over 250 miles out with a missile that had another 100+ mile reach. With a Hawkeye nearby, they had a good chance of finding and engaging enemy aircraft before they got in range to launch.

The SuperHornet AMRAAM combo does not have nearly the ranges or time on station capabilities to get the same reach, and so the potential to get the shooters before they launch has been adversley impacted.

Click to expand...

I believe I read somewhere that both the AIM-54 and AIM-120 are capable of engaging enemy antiship missiles directly, so AFAIK the USN still has this "5th" layer, even though this layer may not be as large as when the F-14 was still in service. The ERAM (SM-6) that recently went into production reportedly has a range of 200nm (~400km), which impressively blurs the distinction between CAP-related air defense and long-range missile air defense and once widespread in USN ships, will hold at serious risk any PLANAF fighter which can only launch the YJ-8 series missiles. Against the USN the PLANAF will have to consider switching to the longer ranged but significantly heavier YJ-62. I don't know if this has an air-launched version, but even if it does I doubt a fighter could carry more than 2, on its innermost wing pylons. The J-11B/BS and a cat-launched/shore-launched J-15 could probably carry a 3rd one underneath the fuselage, but that would leave out the fuel tank. The JH-7A is screwed unless it can also be adapted to launch the YJ-62.

As for the FL-3000N (HHQ-10?), I think that the rear Type 730 on 052C class vessels could be replaced by one of these, though gun-based CIWS have an additional use against small surface boats. I think the Flight IIA Burkes that completely removed the Phalanx are having them put in during major refits.

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

F14 may have been better at some things, but loiter time against Superhornet isn't one of them. Superhornet with 2 sidewinders and 3 tanks can do 3070 km. F14d with two tanks can do 2949 km. With all five tanks Superhornet could do a bit more than that. (at least launched from c13-2 catapults)

f14d max mission time carrying 4 phoenixes, 2 sparrows and 2 sidewinders (with both tanks) is two and a half hours.
f18e mission time carrying 4 amraams and 2 sidewinders (with 3 out of 5 tanks) is 3 hours and ten minutes.

So one could either get a bit more loiter time for Superhornet, perhaps close to 3 and half hours, if number of missiles/cruise speed is sacrificed further, or do Tomcat's loiter time but with 8 amraams and 2 sidewinders.

And while aim54c does have longer reach than amraam-d, 100 nm or so (highest number i found was 110 nm in testing), amraam-d isnt that hopelessly behind. Usual range numbers for it go from 65 to 85 nm. That amounts to amraam-d having some 29% less range.

So 20% or so less loiter time for tomcat and 30% or so less range for amraam. It doesn't read like SH/amraam combo being much worse off.

Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

asif iqbal said:

But Jeff don't you think this layered defence relys on seeing the enemy aircraft and missiles, in the case where the element of suprise is preserved a few if these layers can be penetrated, and then it's down to just short range and point defence

In 2006 the Israeli navy Saar 5 was hit by a anti-ship missile, the warhead didn't go off but had it exploded a high probability is it would have sunk, it's point defence failed and it was using the Phalanx and crucially the C802 had the element of surprise

Obviously carrier battle groups have far more dedicated air defence but layers of defece rely on first detecting and then successfully engaging the threat, if right tactics are employed I think loop holes can be found and exploited

Click to expand...

If hostilies are imminent or even likely, a Hawkeye will be patrolling the skies above the carrier group along with its escorts 24/7. It will know if any missiles or fighters are trying to sneak their way by hugging the curve of the earth. The only way to deal with this is to call in the air force and send in a J-20 or four. After all I believe this is the J-20's raison d'etre. Great frontal stealth, crappy rear stealth, and abundant fuel storage potential only means one thing to me: sneak in from long range, do the dirty, and when the jig's up and people already know you're here, run like the dickens. AWACS and tankers will likely be the J-20's prey of choice. Outside of that, nothing is sneaking through to a carrier if an E-2 is up.