USAF's new multi-role missile combines HARM and AMRAAM.

[AMDR]

So recently I was looking around the internet the other day and came across an interesting new program under development by DARPA and the US air force called the triple target terminator (T3). Triple target as in Radars, aircraft, and cruise missiles. This would combine two very successful and popular US military weapons, the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). By combining the two, it would allow more flexibility in terms of engagement for combat pilots. Multi-mode seekers, advanced networking, and efficient propulsion is supposed to be the highlights of this beast. It can also be carrier internally on the F-35 and F-22.

Lately there has been no news on it, so I though it was quietly cancelled by the Pentagon. That is, until I found information on a DARPA budget document about its tests supposedly conducted in the fall of 2013.

Further research provided this.
A -- Triple Target Terminator (T3) Program Support Follow-On - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

From the website:
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
Location: SPAWAR Systems Center Atlantic

further down

air Opportunity / Limited Sources Justification Authority:
Follow-on Delivery Order Following Competitive Initial Order
Contract Award Date:
April 10, 2014

It sounds to me like the testing was successful considering the follow-on order, could be wrong though.

Now, I'm not an expert on congressional or military affairs and have never claimed to be, so @gambit @SvenSvensonov maybe you could provide some insight?

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Thanks for the interesting info @AMDR and I as requested I will provide a bit of info on the acquisitions side of the project. From the link you provided, the award date specified as April 10, 2014 is for follow on support and a contract will be awarded to the winning firm to then begin said support tasks (see below for addition info on these), as stated in the title of the info on the linked site. Basically what this means is that the military wants to due further testing and that no product has yet been ordered and no contract for production issued. Additional feasibility studies, testing of the product, integration with existing systems, payment options in the event the project goes forward, but nothing has been ordered as of yet.

Also during 2013 several tests were conducted, the results of which are still speculatory at best as no info has been released to the public. As stated, no product has yet been ordered and the military is looking to contract a firm to do additional testing and validation of the concept.

I hope this helps and would gladly field additional questions if necessary.

 

[AMDR]

Thanks for the interesting info @AMDR and I as requested I will provide a bit of info on the acquisitions side of the project. From the link you provided, the award date specified as April 10, 2014 is for follow on support and a contract will be awarded to the winning firm to then begin said support tasks (see below for addition info on these), as stated in the title of the info on the linked site. Basically what this means is that the military wants to due further testing and that no product has yet been ordered and no contract for production issued. Additional feasibility studies, testing of the product, integration with existing systems, payment options in the event the project goes forward, but nothing has been ordered as of yet.

Also during 2013 several tests were conducted, the results of which are still speculatory at best as no info has been released to the public. As stated, no product has yet been ordered and the military is looking to contract a firm to do additional testing and validation of the concept.

I hope this helps and would gladly field additional questions if necessary.

Thanks for your reply and insight. I'm not familiar with the whole development and contracting thing so it is nice to have somebody who knows what they're talking about. It will be interesting to see what this will evolve into in terms of the actual missile.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Thanks for your reply and insight. I'm not familiar with the whole development and contracting thing so it is nice to have somebody who knows what they're talking about. It will be interesting to see what this will evolve into in terms of the actual missile.

No problem, glad to have helped. Acquisitions are a very unsung part of the military, but one I do have experience with. While I worked with military electronics, sometimes I had to order things and when I did I had to justify my needs, the expense and write RFPs, conduct interviews and studies on bidders and assist our contracting officers with their task of selecting the candidate to provide me with the goods or services I needed. Again, I am glad that I can help and if you have any other questions about military acquisitions for other programs I would be glad to help.

 

[C130]

might just be the silver bullet the F-35 needs.

 

[Cat Shannon]

it is a naturally progressive product.

we funded the novator. it sounds similar.

 

[gambit]

...the military is looking to contract a firm to do additional testing and validation of the concept.

That would be my end -- in a previous life before I left aviation and entered the semiconductor industry.

US Air Force works on passive AMRAAM - 3/11/1998 - Flight Global

11 Mar 1998

The US Air Force is developing a secondary passive anti-radiation seeker for the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

The Passive Adjunct Seeker Antenna project is led by the USAF's Wright Laboratories Armament Directorate. A demonstration of the passive seeker antenna has already been carried out, says the USAF research organisation.

A passive adjunct seeker would provide the AMRAAM with a dual-mode capability. At present, the AIM-120 relies on its active radar seeker for final target acquisition and terminal guidance.

A secondary seeker would allow for the passively guided launch of an AIM-120 against a target aircraft when the latter's air-intercept radar is emitting. Such an engagement would not require the launch aircraft to use its own radar, with the AMRAAM's passive seeker homing on the radio frequency energy from the target radar. Were the target aircraft's radar to be turned off, then the AMRAAM could revert to the active seeker to relocate it.

Note the date -- 1998. My understanding is that the -120 today does have a 'beamrider' mode, but it is more against active countermeasures by the targeted aircraft rather than being a true antiradiation type missile like the AGM-88 HARM...

AGM-88 HARM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 'beamrider' mode, the missile requires a constant source of radiation in order for it to use as direction guidance.

For the -88, those radiation sources would be ground radar stations, hopefully the enemy's. If those ground radar stations shuts off, the missile would resort to using last known calculated (guesstimated) ground coordinates and continues to the end.

In principle, it does not matter if the radiation source is a precise radar beam looking for something, or a wide area broadcast white noise signal designed to contaminate the EM spectrum. But in practice, the fact that one possibility involves the source radiation to be highly mobile and unpredictable in that mobility -- an aircraft -- make it problematic for a missile to be a pure passive only seeker, like in the case of the early -88, and this is why the -120 will switch to active seeker mode in the event the target stops being an active radiation source.

The latest -88 version incorporate an active seeker as well. So in a manner of speaking, we are seeing duplicate of efforts in both missiles.

If the intention is to have a common missile for use in A2A and A2G situations, then once the prototype missile is designed, several of them will be built and the manufacturer, whoever it may be, should find a third party to design and conduct field testings of the prototype. The manufacturer would perform its own testings, of course, but having a 3rd party would introduce verification processes as well as at least giving the perception of impartiality. That 3rd party would be guys like me -- once a long time ago. We would have no financial interests in the manufacturer but essentially contractors working for the military's interests. Like lawyers working for clients. If the manufacturer claimed its products are readied for full scale unconditional environmental testing, we will design and conduct the tests as they claimed. If the manufacturer want incremental testings of environmental influences, we can do that, too. Our reports will be sent to both parties and we will let them duke it out amongst themselves any disagreements.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

That would be my end -- in a previous life before I left aviation and entered the semiconductor industry.

My dad spent 20 years in the Navy working with ship borne sensors and does the same type of work for a US contractor now, rather than Air Force, he does validation and testing for Army and Marine land systems. I picked up a lot of acquisitions know-how from him and from my own experience.