AFRL - HSSW (High Speed Strike Weapon)

[fightingirish]

The pictures on the display behind are also quite interesting.

A Viking there at 2020?

IMHO the Lockheed Martin C-3 COD concept for the Common Support Aircraft (C-XX) competition in 2014. As you know, the US Navy has decided to buy HV-22 Osprey tiltrotors instead.
But it could be also just a S-3 testbed for new technologies.

 

[sferrin]

Seems sensible enough, a TBCC missile would seem more likely than the "SR-72" in the current environment anyway.

Except there is no capable turbine available. and no program(s) working this issue. HiSTED is over and never came to fruition.

I seem to recall conflicting stories. One says they figured the engine problem out in the 80s but didn't have a missile for it, the other that nobody working the problem (RR Liberty Works, WI, etc.) could figure out how to make the engine do what it needed to do. Which is it?

 

[liaomh]

excuse me, do you have more info about that show? is there a website or something?

A model, recently on public display.

 

[aim9xray]

excuse me, do you have more info about that show? is there a website or something?

http://www.lacountyairshow.com/

 

[Moose]

Seems sensible enough, a TBCC missile would seem more likely than the "SR-72" in the current environment anyway.

Except there is no capable turbine available. and no program(s) working this issue. HiSTED is over and never came to fruition.

Well part of the fallout from HiSTED's failure was the work Lockheed did lowering the minimum ramjet speed. Instead of needing a Mach 4 expendable turbine, you can get by with a Mach 2 expendable turbine. That's a lot less demanding target for the industry to hit as part of a missile program. However whether that exists or not there's another possibility, and that's this concept uses the dual-mode ram/scram from TBCC but doesn't have a turbine. With a large enough booster, you can direct boost up to ramjet operating velocity the way Talos used to and Coyote still does. Obviously a problem if you want to air-launch it, but from the ground not a huge problem.

 

[bring_it_on]

Prototypes planned in a few years

 

[bobbymike]

Prototypes planned in a few years

Do you have the full presentation?

 

[bring_it_on]

Prototypes planned in a few years

Do you have the full presentation?

I forgot to post it, had it up in the F-X thread -

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/20150324NDIA_STConference.pdf

Also - FY15 statement made last year

STATEMENT OF: Dr. David E. Walker, SES Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Science, Technology and Engineering)

The Air Force conducts research and development in all aspects of hypersonic technologies in partnership with NASA, DARPA, and industry/academic sectors. The HSSW program will include two parallel integrated technology demonstration efforts to leverage DARPA’s recent experience in hypersonic technologies that are relevant to reduce risk in key areas. One of the demonstrations will be a tactically-relevant demonstration of an air breathing missile technology that is compatible with Air Force 5th generation platforms including geometric and weight limits for internal B-2 Spirit bomber carriage and external F-35 Lightening II fighter carriage. This demonstration will build on the X-51 success and will include a tactically compliant engine start capability and launch from a relevant altitude.

For the other demonstration, the Air Force and DARPA will seek to develop technologies and demonstrate capabilities that will enable transformational changes in prompt, survivable, long- range strike against using the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) concept. The objective of the TBG effort is to develop and demonstrate the critical technologies that will enable an air launched tactical range, hypersonic boost-glide missile. Both efforts will build upon experience gained through recent hypersonic vehicle development and demonstration efforts supported by DARPA and the Air Force. These demonstrations are traceable to an operationally relevant weapon that could be launched from existing aircraft. Technology and concepts from these efforts will provide options or an operational weapon system for rapidly and effectively prosecuting targets in highly contested environments.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/FY2015_Testimony_AirForce%20_WalkerD_20140326.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Prototypes planned in a few years

Do you have the full presentation?

I forgot to post it, had it up in the F-X thread -

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/20150324NDIA_STConference.pdf

Also - FY15 statement made last year

STATEMENT OF: Dr. David E. Walker, SES Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Science, Technology and Engineering)

The Air Force conducts research and development in all aspects of hypersonic technologies in partnership with NASA, DARPA, and industry/academic sectors. The HSSW program will include two parallel integrated technology demonstration efforts to leverage DARPA’s recent experience in hypersonic technologies that are relevant to reduce risk in key areas. One of the demonstrations will be a tactically-relevant demonstration of an air breathing missile technology that is compatible with Air Force 5th generation platforms including geometric and weight limits for internal B-2 Spirit bomber carriage and external F-35 Lightening II fighter carriage. This demonstration will build on the X-51 success and will include a tactically compliant engine start capability and launch from a relevant altitude.

For the other demonstration, the Air Force and DARPA will seek to develop technologies and demonstrate capabilities that will enable transformational changes in prompt, survivable, long- range strike against using the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) concept. The objective of the TBG effort is to develop and demonstrate the critical technologies that will enable an air launched tactical range, hypersonic boost-glide missile. Both efforts will build upon experience gained through recent hypersonic vehicle development and demonstration efforts supported by DARPA and the Air Force. These demonstrations are traceable to an operationally relevant weapon that could be launched from existing aircraft. Technology and concepts from these efforts will provide options or an operational weapon system for rapidly and effectively prosecuting targets in highly contested environments.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/FY2015_Testimony_AirForce%20_WalkerD_20140326.pdf

I'm really curious what the back end of the hypersonic boost glide weapon will be. Both the X-51 and the mock-up of the HSSW up the thread use the ATACMS booster. Is the intent just to put a HTV-2 "type" glider on the front of an ATACMS as an interim solution? Does anyone know of other missiles that can be used? I stated on another thread the Super-Roadrunner would be my favorite although don't think that will happen.

 

[marauder2048]

More on HAWC and TBG

*EDIT* Added reduced quality version (to stay within server attachment size limits) of Shaffer's full PSAR 2015 presentation

 

[flateric]

...

 

[bobbymike]

A few more.

DSE - Do you have the full report attached for these slides? Thanks.

 

[bobbymike]

DSE - thanks!!

 

[liaomh]

High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW) Broad Agency Announcement
Solicitation Number: BAA-AFRL-RWK-15-0003
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Office: Air Force Materiel Command
Location: AFRL/RWK

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=23af05c8d52298a9a30562cfa3884fe8

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.janes.com/article/51472/usaf-using-x-51-lessons-learned-to-weaponise-hypersonic-vehicles

Are we closer than we think on a deployable weapon?

 

[Moose]

Depends, how close do we think we are?

 

[sferrin]

Given our past track record, I'd say we're 20-30 years away at the soonest. Now if this were 1960 I'd say five years.

 

[liaomh]

not so far away. AFSAB said USAF could field hypersonic missile in 2025.

Given our past track record, I'd say we're 20-30 years away at the soonest. Now if this were 1960 I'd say five years.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/19/air-force-getting-closer-to-testing-hypersonic-weapon.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

This article seems to imply a production decision by 2020??

 

[sferrin]

not so far away. AFSAB said USAF could field hypersonic missile in 2025.

Sure. Do you recall what they said about the X-30? How'd that work out? Honestly, even DARPA won't try even a ramjet (LRASM-B) because it's "too risky". And that thing has ALREADY FLOWN (PATV for ASALM).

 

[quellish]

Sure. Do you recall what they said about the X-30? How'd that work out? Honestly, even DARPA won't try even a ramjet (LRASM-B) because it's "too risky". And that thing has ALREADY FLOWN (PATV for ASALM).

The LRASM-A portion of the program focused on low altitude subsonic penetration because it was low technical risk. LRASM-B was intended to explore high speed, high altitude penetration - which was obviously higher technical risk. DARPA proceeded with LRASM-A because it was *lower* technical risk than B, and would result in a product sooner. It had nothing to do with trying a ramjet or not.

 

[sferrin]

Sure. Do you recall what they said about the X-30? How'd that work out? Honestly, even DARPA won't try even a ramjet (LRASM-B) because it's "too risky". And that thing has ALREADY FLOWN (PATV for ASALM).

The LRASM-A portion of the program focused on low altitude subsonic penetration because it was low technical risk. LRASM-B was intended to explore high speed, high altitude penetration - which was obviously higher technical risk. DARPA proceeded with LRASM-A because it was *lower* technical risk than B, and would result in a product sooner. It had nothing to do with trying a ramjet or not.

Yes, and rather than pursue it as a longer-term solution (the original plan IIRC) they cancelled it outright. Why have LRASM-B at all? It's not like they didn't know it was ramjet powered. They couldn't possibly have thought, at anytime, that it would be the less risky of the two.

 

[bring_it_on]

I think the main issue with the LRASM-B was risk associated with development timeline and meeting the urgent need requirements. From what I can remember it was getting a follow on missile tot he LRASM-A out to the fleet fairly soon. That was something that was not going to be easy given the design and capability. Those sort of things are better left for more longer-term programs that should ideally be run by the service.

 

[sferrin]

I think the main issue with the LRASM-B was risk associated with development timeline and meeting the urgent need requirements. From what I can remember it was getting a follow on missile tot he LRASM-A out to the fleet fairly soon. That was something that was not going to be easy given the design and capability. Those sort of things are better left for more longer-term programs that should ideally be run by the service.

Except they didn't even bother to do that. They just cancelled it. This was what, the 4th time they wanted to produce this missile and quit? That's not the way to get to a production model.

 

[quellish]

Except they didn't even bother to do that. They just cancelled it. This was what, the 4th time they wanted to produce this missile and quit? That's not the way to get to a production model.

Again, the program was split intentionally from the beginning. Low risk, near term vs. high risk, far term. DARPA and the services prioritized a near term solution. They did not want to produce a production LRASM-B.

 

[sferrin]

Except they didn't even bother to do that. They just cancelled it. This was what, the 4th time they wanted to produce this missile and quit? That's not the way to get to a production model.

Again, the program was split intentionally from the beginning. Low risk, near term vs. high risk, far term. DARPA and the services prioritized a near term solution. They did not want to produce a production LRASM-B.

How do they ever expect to get a working super/hypersonic air-breathing missile if they never actually stick with a program? This would have been the perfect opportunity. Not too big of a bite (it's only a ramjet after all) but still something miles ahead of what we have. These are more rhetorical questions than anything. About all they seem to do is waste a lot of time and money with nothing to show for it.

 

[quellish]

How do they ever expect to get a working super/hypersonic air-breathing missile if they never actually stick with a program? This would have been the perfect opportunity. Not too big of a bite (it's only a ramjet after all) but still something miles ahead of what we have. These are more rhetorical questions than anything. About all they seem to do is waste a lot of time and money with nothing to show for it.

LRASM is intended to demonstrate a standoff anti ship missile capable of penetrating modern defenses. Two approaches were considered with very different levels of technical risk. The lower risk approach was pursued to field an operational capability sooner. DARPA and the service "stuck with" the objective of a the program.

About all they seem to do is waste a lot of time and money with nothing to show for it.

In the case of LRASM they have a system that could be operational and meet the service need very soon to show for it. Which is exactly what they were looking for.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The X-51 program demonstrated hydrocarbon fueled scramjet propulsion. HSSW builds on that and will demonstrate a more operationally relevant system.[/font]

 

[sferrin]

The X-51 program demonstrated hydrocarbon fueled scramjet propulsion. HSSW builds on that and will demonstrate a more operationally relevant system.

I certainly hope so. I'd love to find out I was all Chicken Little with my concerns. I am skeptical about using the X-51 as a starting point however. It was suppose to reach Mach 6.5 but barely did any better than what the solid booster took it to. And even then still substantially slower than the 35 year old ramjet powered ASALM PTV, which did not require an ATACM-sized booster (or any external booster at all for that matter).

 

[quellish]

I certainly hope so. I'd love to find out I was all Chicken Little with my concerns. I am skeptical about using the X-51 as a starting point however. It was suppose to reach Mach 6.5 but barely did any better than what the solid booster took it to. And even then still substantially slower than the 35 year old ramjet powered ASALM PTV, which did not require an ATACM-sized booster (or any external booster at all for that matter).

X-51 was supposed to demonstrate a hydrocarbon fueled scramjet. The focus of the program was the propulsion system and integration with the airframe - not setting a speed record. Controlling the engine was a far higher priority than hitting some specific speed. Over the course of the program changes were made to the vehicles that increased drag and in turn limited the maximum speed that would be attained during a test.


X-51 produced good data that is entirely relevant to HSSW. The objective was not to go faster than the ASALM PTV and I am not sure how someone would come to that conclusion.

 

[sferrin]

I certainly hope so. I'd love to find out I was all Chicken Little with my concerns. I am skeptical about using the X-51 as a starting point however. It was suppose to reach Mach 6.5 but barely did any better than what the solid booster took it to. And even then still substantially slower than the 35 year old ramjet powered ASALM PTV, which did not require an ATACM-sized booster (or any external booster at all for that matter).

X-51 was supposed to demonstrate a hydrocarbon fueled scramjet. The focus of the program was the propulsion system and integration with the airframe - not setting a speed record. Controlling the engine was a far higher priority than hitting some specific speed. Over the course of the program changes were made to the vehicles that increased drag and in turn limited the maximum speed that would be attained during a test.


X-51 produced good data that is entirely relevant to HSSW. The objective was not to go faster than the ASALM PTV and I am not sure how someone would come to that conclusion.

Never said it was. What I said was all the talk by those in the program leading up to the flights said it was suppose to reach Mach 6.5. It did not. It didn't even come close. Even with a huge solid booster on it's tail it still didn't, and in fact barely showed any acceleration via scramjet at all. (Mach 4.8 to 5.1 IIRC.) The ASALM PTV reached Mach 5.4-5.5 depending on the source, with a small integral booster, in a configuration much more representative of a useful weapon. Something that could fit by the dozens in a B-1B is eminently more useful than something that requires a B-52s external pylon for launch. So I don't understand why they're forgoing a known performer instead of going with a much riskier program. And for what? What do they hope HSSW will deliver that the ASALM PTV couldn't do with less risk?

 

[quellish]

Never said it was. What I said was all the talk by those in the program leading up to the flights said it was suppose to reach Mach 6.5. It did not. It didn't even come close.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Again, over the course of the flight test program the configuration changed and drag was increased. The people involved with the program knew this would reduce the maximum speed. Mach 6.5 was not a primary objective of the program, demonstrating the propulsion system was.[/font]

Even with a huge solid booster on it's tail it still didn't, and in fact barely showed any acceleration via scramjet at all. (Mach 4.8 to 5.1 IIRC.) The ASALM PTV reached Mach 5.4-5.5 depending on the source, with a small integral booster, in a configuration much more representative of a useful weapon. Something that could fit by the dozens in a B-1B is eminently more useful than something that requires a B-52s external pylon for launch. So I don't understand why they're forgoing a known performer instead of going with a much riskier program. And for what? What do they hope HSSW will deliver that the ASALM PTV couldn't do with less risk?

X-51 demonstrated a hydrocarbon fueled scramjet.
ASALM PTV demonstrated a solid fueled integrated rocket/ramjet. Several other programs have also demonstrated solid fueled ramjets of one kind of another.


X-51 was a test vehicle, not representative of an operational vehicle. Either was ASALM PTV - the PTV flight tests were early in the program and were not intended to represent the operational configuration of the vehicle (it changed before the program was canceled). Later ASALM evolved into SLAT which conducted further flight tests - and failed terribly as a program.

 

[sferrin]

Again, over the course of the flight test program the configuration changed and drag was increased. The people involved with the program knew this would reduce the maximum speed. Mach 6.5 was not a primary objective of the program, demonstrating the propulsion system was.

Fair enough. I was not aware of that.

ASALM PTV demonstrated a solid fueled integrated rocket/ramjet. Several other programs have also demonstrated solid fueled ramjets of one kind of another.

ASALM was a liquid fuel ramjet that had an integral solid booster.

Either was ASALM PTV - the PTV flight tests were early in the program and were not intended to represent the operational configuration of the vehicle (it changed before the program was canceled). Later ASALM evolved into SLAT which conducted further flight tests - and failed terribly as a program.

Any idea why SLAT failed where the ASALM-PTV had (apparently) done so well? Was it from trying to shoehorn an engine optimized for high altitude flight (up to 80k by some accounts) into flying at sea-level? What I've been able to find is a bit vague. From Andreas' site:

"15 YAQM-127A test vehicles were built with the first flight occurring on 20 November 1987. Six launches were conducted from November 1987 to January 1989; only one was considered to be successful. A stand down lasting 22 months was then imposed by the Navy in order to restructure the program and correct technical deficiencies. A second flight test effort was then attempted with launches in November 1990 and May 1991; both flights were unsuccessful. In the midst of efforts to restructure the program once again, Congressional action in mid-1991 terminated the program. Test failures, schedule slippage and massive program cost growth were major factors in the cancellation."

What is interesting is that despite being intended for air-launch SLAT used a larger, separate booster, rather than the integral booster of ASALM. Stored examples of those boosters were used for the HyFly flights. [/quote][/quote]

 

[aim9xray]

Compared to ASALM PTV, Martin Marietta's SLAT attempted to fly a different flight profile using a different control system in a different range environment (including range integration with ITCS) using different criteria for the "ilities" on an extremely sporty funding profile, having underbid TRA.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[sferrin]

Isn't Low Cost High Speed an oxymoron?

 

[bobbymike]

Low Cost Attritable Strike UAS Demonstration

Solicitation Number: BAA-AFRL-RQKP-2015-0004
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Office: Air Force Materiel Command
Location: AFRL/RQK - WPAFB

Solicitation Number: BAA-AFRL-RQKP-2015-0004 Notice Typeresolicitation Synopsis: Added: Jun 03, 2015 1:01 pm

This effort will be directed at the development of a low cost attritable aircraft technology concept that will provide long range, high speed strike capability in remote regions where forward basing is difficult or prohibited.

Notice of Contract Action (NOCA)
Type: Other (Draft RFPs/RFIs, Responses to Questions, etc..)
Posted Date: June 4, 2015
BAA-AFRL-RQKP-2015-0004-NOCA-Rev.pdf (234.30 Kb)
Description: Administrative action to correct a typo in the Broad Agency Announcement Title and Purpose.

EDIT:

A single Cost-Reimbursement/Fixed Fee contract type is contemplated for a total amount of $7,450,000 for a 30 month effort. The anticipated amount is an estimate for the total amount only and is NOT a promise of funding. Funding is uncertain and is subject to change. Changes in availability occur at the discretion of the Government. Either a one step process or a two-step process will be contemplated for this BAA.

Smiled at the typo Low Cost "Ariel" System thought they were weaponizing the "Littlest Mermaid" there for a second. ;D

Question - it calls for an attritable system to 'impose a high cost on the enemy' besides the 'strike element' does this mean you launch a very high speed system that will force the enemy to have to spend on high cost air defense systems and possibly also to waste very expensive long range A2AD missiles trying to shoot it down?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.popsci.com/air-force-wants-cheap-attack-drones-it-can-lose-war?utm_source=PopSci.com&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Military,+technology,+Darpa,+popsci,+gadgets,+battlefield,+new,+future,+weapons,+simulation,+contracts,+million

 

[quellish]

Compared to ASALM PTV, Martin Marietta's SLAT attempted to fly a different flight profile using a different control system in a different range environment (including range integration with ITCS) using different criteria for the "ilities" on an extremely sporty funding profile, having underbid TRA.

What could possibly go wrong?

ASALM was designed for both ground attack and counter-AWACS missions. The missile was designed for multiple flight profiles - launch from multiple altitudes (including low level), cruise at multiple altitudes, and terminal engagement at multiple altitudes. This included high speed low level run in to the target.
It sliced, it diced...


While the SLAT profile was certainly different from the PTV demonstration, it was not significantly different from the ASALM design goals. SLAT had plenty of problems, some of which it shared with it's predecessor.

 

[dark sidius]

What that mean high speed strike ?? a mach 2/3 uav ? or just something more fast than a Reaper ?

 

[bring_it_on]

Raytheon Boost Glide Hypersonic missile concept

 

[sferrin]

LM HSSW model: