Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

bobbymike said:
Josh_TN said:
aonestudio said:
“Hypersonic missiles are hitting their targets with a variance of only a mere 6 inches,” he said during his speech at the virtual opening ceremony Oct. 13.

McCarthy was referring to the Army and Navy’s successful hypersonic glide body flight test this year, which launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, on March 19, an Army spokesperson confirmed.

www.defensenews.com

US-developed hypersonic missile hit within 6 inches of target, says Army secretary

The Army secretary hailed the hypersonic missile's accuracy in his opening speech at the annual AUSA conference
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Every guy thinks he's six inches...

That level of accuracy would seem to indicate a guidance system beyond GPS, or at least some kind of enhanced GPS with local corrections. It occurs to me that the projectile would benefit from having a large number of GPS satellites in the line of site over the course of its full trip at its altitude; perhaps this contributes to the higher positional accuracy? Minor in accuracies from one set of satellites to the next get averaged out?
Click to expand...
As these are tests is it six inches to the aim point or six inches CEP? At those speeds I guess it probably doesn’t make a difference other than it appears hyper-accurate.
Click to expand...
Also considering that the weapon itself is bigger then 6 inches...

Im imaging a sledgehammer for a nail type of effect.

Its going to hit everything within 2 feet of the point of aim.
 
It seems like OpFires fits roughly the same weapon class as LRHW, although that graphic makes it looks like a family of projectiles.
 
sferrin said:
Lc89 said:
www.thedrive.com

Navy Hires Boeing To Develop A Very Fast And Long-Range Strike Missile Demonstrator

The Navy will use the new high-speed demonstrator to help refine its requirements for future stand-off anti-ship and land-attack missiles.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
Yo, USN, it's called "LRASM-B' and you already lost your nerve. If you can't follow through on a design that was virtually done for you already how far will you get with this one?
Click to expand...
There’s been DOZENS of Hypersonic weapon programs spread through the DOD since the 50s, that none have born fruit(at Least in the non classified world) and many have been duplications of effort is almost treasonous.
 
It doesn't seem like the new demonstrator is anything like LRASM-B, which I didn't think got past the naming stage. This demonstrator seems closer to the T3 than LRASM-B. That is just my impression from very little information. But to me this seems to be a USN effort at developing a solid fuel ramjet engine that could have uses across multiple platforms, not a project with a specific target in mind.
 
Josh_TN said:
It doesn't seem like the new demonstrator is anything like LRASM-B, which I didn't think got past the naming stage. This demonstrator seems closer to the T3 than LRASM-B. That is just my impression from very little information. But to me this seems to be a USN effort at developing a solid fuel ramjet engine that could have uses across multiple platforms, not a project with a specific target in mind.
Click to expand...

"LRASM-B" was ASALM/SLAT with a new acronym slapped on it. Effectively, it had flown decades before. Hell, FyFly (another hypersonic "too risky, let's give up") used SLAT's solid booster.
 
Josh_TN said:
It doesn't seem like the new demonstrator is anything like LRASM-B, which I didn't think got past the naming stage. This demonstrator seems closer to the T3 than LRASM-B. That is just my impression from very little information. But to me this seems to be a USN effort at developing a solid fuel ramjet engine that could have uses across multiple platforms, not a project with a specific target in mind.
Click to expand...

Yes I get that feeling as well. Boeing had worked with Aerojet on the VFDR T3, and the Navy itself has been doing some work on SFRJs so they could be utilizing any one of those capabilities here for the demo. This also appears to be a Navy specific program for a anti-ship and land attack missile as opposed to something that is jointly being conducted with DARPA. I assume that the award follows a fair bit of analysis and perhaps even some ground demonstrations that gave the Navy enough confidence to pursue this into a flight test within a couple of years.
 
A solicitation from earlier this year on SFRJ production. Probably unrelated to SPEAR but could potentially mean that the USN is also exploring the solution for other applications.

he Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), China Lake California is currently designing a Solid Fuel Ramjet (SFRJ) propulsion section including SFRJ fuel grain and Integral Rocket Booster (IRB) in support of an ongoing demonstration program. NAWCWD is currently seeking out Propulsion vendors for transitioning the Government designed propulsion section and continuing development through heavy weight and flight weight manufacturing, inspection, and testing. NAWCWD will be requesting support with hardware manufacturing, case insulation, SFRJ fuel and IRB casting, motor inspection (hot/ambient/cold temperature), and testing (hot/ambient/cold temperature). Final flight weight propulsion units will be provided to the Government for integration into flight hardware at a location TBD.

The government will define the SFRJ/IRB propulsion section volume and interfaces (forward port cover, bypass port cover, SFRJ nozzle, and ejectable IRB nozzle). The propulsion section shall be approximately 16 inches in diameter and 106 inches long. The approximate IRB propellant weight is 476 lb. An aluminized propellant is desired with a burn rate requirement of ~0.3 in/s at 1000 psi. The approximate SFRJ fuel weight is 350.81 lb. An SFRJ fuel containing boron is desired with the maximum possible energy density. IRB igniter design, manufacturing, and testing may be required as part of the proposal execution.



GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS



  1. The propulsion section shall be designed to be compatible with the Government defined interfaces.
  2. The propulsion section shall have positive static and ignition structural margins at 120 and -65 degrees F
  3. The propulsion section shall have IRB tailoff within 1 second to facilitate SFRJ transition.
  4. The propulsion section shall be designed to withstand a booster maximum expected operating pressure of 2000 psi for a minimum operation time of 8 seconds (or the actual booster burn time). The case must be able to withstand 45 psi operating pressure during up to 1000 seconds of ramjet operation.
  5. The propulsion section motor case specifications are dependent on the test asset being defined.
    1. Heavy weight propulsion section motor cases shall be designed and defined by the Government with vendor review prior to manufacturing/procurement at Government or vendor facilities depending on capabilities.
    2. Flight weight propulsion section motor cases shall be manufactured/procured by the Government prior to delivery to vendor.
  6. The vendor shall prepare and test quality assurance samples with each propulsion section manufacturing event. Samples shall include fuel and propellant and must be representative of the samples used for full mechanical, ballistics, and thermal characterization of the materials.
  7. The propulsion section shall be insulated according to Government defined requirements.
  8. The IRB igniter shall use a high voltage initiator such as a low energy exploding foil initiator (LEEFI) compatible with NAWCWD universal firing system.
  9. The propulsion section shall be temperature conditioned to -65 degrees F for enough time so the entire fuel and propellant grains reach steady state temperature and be fully X-Ray/CT inspected. Ability to thermally cycle from ambient to cold may be requested to evaluate bondline integrity.
  10. Up to six heavy weight and four flight weight propulsion sections shall be static fired after being subjected to Government defined environments (shock/vibe, temperature conditioning at 120 and ‑65 degrees F, etc.).
  11. Vendor shall deliver up to six additional filled flight weight propulsion sections to Government defined location to support free-jet and flight hardware assembly.
  12. The vendor shall have in-house capability to support non-destructive inspection including, hydrostatic testing, x-ray inspection or CT scanning, thermal conditioning cycling, and static firing.
  13. The vendor shall identify in house machining capabilities/capacity.
  14. The vendor shall identify in house vibration and shock testing capabilities.
  15. The vendor shall identify availability and origin of long lead and critical materials to include but not limited to energetic components, boron (include purity specification), fuel additives etc. to support manufacturing up to 10 propulsion sections (six heavy weight and four flight weight).
  16. Data rights:
    1. The vendor shall identify the incorporation of technology that precludes Government Purpose Rights to designs and data generated.
    2. The vendor shall identify top level performance impact associated with maintaining Government Purpose Rights instead of incorporating vendor IP.
  17. The vendor shall detail the level of experience with SFRJ propulsion (fuel development, fuel/IRB bonding, boron treatment, and manufacturing).

SAM.gov

beta.sam.gov beta.sam.gov
Click to expand...
 
news.usni.org

Path to Install Hypersonic Weapons on Arleigh Burke Destroyers Unclear - USNI News

In order to accommodate the equivalent of an intermediate-range ballistic missile aboard the Navy’s current crop of destroyers, the service would need to undertake complex modifications to both the Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke classes of ships to install a long-range hypersonic strike weapon on...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

I’m saying the answer is converted LHAs with the deck filled with Trident quad packs:D
 
One of the primary reasons for this sort of approach is that hypersonic weapons are so advanced that university physicists, aerodynamic experts and top engineers at universities are among the few people who can work the problems. Also, universities possess unique test and experiment facilities to work on glide bodies and other hypersonic approaches.
Click to expand...
So true.
 
ElbmH6YXIAkYREH


Roughly two thousand nautical miles (2068).
Any one got time of flight?
 
Last edited:
I believe the Oct 2017 test was stated to be just over or just under 30 minutes, I forgot which. I remember when I did the math it looked to be an average speed of Mach 6.
 
Actually I can't find any reference to the flight time now. I'm positive I remember someone being quoted as 'just over' or 'just under' a half hour or 30 minutes, because I remember calculating average speed and wondering how much time was spent accelerating and what burnout speed would be. But I just tried to find an article with a time reference and I can't find anything now.
 

Lawmakers flinch at hypersonic cost estimate, dial back Navy plans​

A key congressional panel, concerned by a recent independent cost estimate for the Pentagon's marquee offensive hypersonic strike weapon, is moving to rein in plans for the Conventional Prompt Strike program by clipping Navy-requested procurement funding as well as resources sought for a Block 2 variant and blueprint efforts to integrate the two-stage booster and hypersonic glide vehicle into the Virginia-class submarine
————-
The cutting begins
 
The cost estimates doubled since the program went public, cuts were inevitable.
 
Moose said:
The cost estimates doubled since the program went public, cuts were inevitable.
Click to expand...

Is there any good synopsis of the cost to field the CPS and other hypersonic weapons given a set production quantity? I think eventually we're going to have to prioritize within and between services. Can't really afford to have multiple R&D and acquisition projects across the three services irrespective of the budgets staying flat (likely) or increasing (unlikely). I hope that decision is made once the tech is mastered and the weapons prove themselves out so that we retain the advantage of buying them in higher quantities at a later date without going back to the R&D world.
 
Last edited:
Apparently there will be a HyFly 2. Well, I hope they have more spine than the first time.

1605365043369.png

So they never even got to the point of seeing if it would work before giving up. Then there was the X-51 where they literally said they were afraid of doing the last (and only mostly successful) flight because, "what if we fail"? Nobody would be happier to be wrong than me but I don't have high hopes. Meanwhile both China and Russia have hypersonic weapons either in or on the verge of being in service because they don't give up. Not everybody is Elon Musk I guess.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom