Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

NMaude said:
What do they mean by a "Highly loaded grain"?
Click to expand...
Typical SRMs use a Center Perforated (CP, hole through the center of the cylinder) grain as the configuration of the propellant you’ll also hear finocyl used to designate a star pattern in the CP. This configuration is typically limited to 80-90% volume loading on large motors, less for smaller diameters. The concept of highly loaded grain is to go beyond that typical design scenario. Basically, trying to stuff more propellant (ie, motor impulse) into the same volume.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Air resistance slows everything down at sea level. Mach 2.5 is the fastest figure I’ve seen for a sea skimmer. I doubt Brahmos or Zircon are much faster at low altitude; hypersonic speeds are pretty much by definition high altitude for air breathers. Even ICBM RVs massively slow down in the thick air of the lower atmosphere. I suspect every hypersonic glider slows down to supersonic speeds on its dive to the target.
Click to expand...
Although low level and very high speed can occur. Although obviously not a weapon ;)
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3qeoH_8jQ5E&pp=ygUQcm9ja2V0IHJhaWwgdGVzdA%3D%3D
Wonder what this would look like hitting the side of a ship?
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
We make better test targets than missiles it seems ;)
newsreleases.sandia.gov

Catch me if you can? Check.

Sandia National Laboratories is helping defend deployed troops and the nation against hypersonic threats.
newsreleases.sandia.gov newsreleases.sandia.gov
Click to expand...
Yep.

"To satisfy the need for a very high performance target drone to test the SAM-A-7/MIM-3 Nike Ajax,SAM-A-25/MIM-14 Nike Hercules, and IM-99/CIM-10 Bomarc surface-to-airmissiles, a relatively unmodified target version of the X-7A-3 was ordered by the USAF. The target, named Kingfisher, wasdesignated by the Air Force as XQ-5, but the Kingfisher program was soon transferred to the U.S. Army, which did not usethe Q-5 designator. Eventually, in June 1963, the XQ-5 was redesignated as AQM-60A.

However, the performance of the Kingfisher proved to be a bit too high for the interceptor missiles, and relatively few hitswere scored. This was somewhat embarrassing to the military and the manufacturers of the SAMs, and therefore political pressureplayed a role when the Kingfisher flight program was cancelled in the mid-1960s. Production of the X-7/XQ-5 series had ended in 1959,after 61 X-7/XQ-5 missiles of all variants had been built."

Same with the AQM-35

In June 1963, the Q-4 and Q-4B were redesignated as AQM-35A and AQM-35B, respectively. However, the Q-4/AQM-35never became fully operational with the USAF, and only 25 XQ-4/Q-4B missiles were built. Quoted reasons for the cancellation include problems during development and flight-test, and the fact that the AQM-35's performance was too high for the surface-to-air missiles of the early 1960s anyway. The AQM-35 had apparently been removed from the inventory by the mid-1960s.
 
That’s an interesting NOTAM…it looks like two separate trajectories might be used? Perhaps weather dependent?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom